Conservapedia:Community Portal

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JDano (Talk | contribs) at 00:50, August 28, 2017. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.

Community Portal/Archives

This page contains some material that has been moved from Talk:Main_Page. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.

Cool article

I found a cool article about atheism in the National Post. You might not like it at first, but read past the first couple of paragraphs.--Abcqwe (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2017 (EDT)


Error in the Move log. I dont have delete powers so I cant fix it. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 17:17, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

Overly long articles

From what I understand, the typical Conservapedia article should be accessible to a secondary school student or at least a freshman in university. Some articles, such as Alger Hiss, Elvis Presley, and Barack Hussein Obama, are some of the longest articles on this site. They rival the overly verbose entries on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Should these and other overly long articles be trimmed and extraneous content possibly be moved to more subpages? Just a thought. --Anglican (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

I'm personally against it. I'm glad that these articles are detailed. For me, it's fine just as long as they are well-organized. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
These articles aren't exactly accessible to the target audience, and overly complex I think. Basic biographies should really be the emphasis most of the articles on here are shorter and more digestible than WP and aren't weighed down with non-essential information. I personally like articles that resemble the old school paper encyclopedias of my youth than WP's excessively long articles. Encyclopedia entries are meant to be starting points for research. --Anglican (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
If you really think these articles should be split up, I recommend asking the editors most occupied with them. The Alger Hiss article is predominantly edited by User:FOIA. Maybe ask RobS or Andy regarding Obama. The editors most familiar with the articles will probably give you the best answer. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
Some articles can be split up, if done carefully with a summary of the forked article remaining in the main article. It is best if the expert on the topic do the splitting up because they are best at summarizing what is most important. Thanks, JDano (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
In the print encyclopedias I recall, there was a Micropedia and a Macropedia, short and long articles. An article about George Ade, Hoosier playwright and fable writer, would only need to be a brief paragraph. An article called "Rocks and Minerals," meanwhile, would detail every type, the various classifications, chemical compositions, and means of formation, though both would be really an outline to the sum of human knowledge on the subject. In the area of biographies, length was variant - short biographies for Jeppe Aekjaer and Abbas I, a longer biography for Alvar Aalto, and a massive Macropedia biography for Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. As we specialize in politics, it would make sense to have such articles for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.--Nathan (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
That was the later Encyclopedia Britanica. The earlier EBs when I was a child were like the World Book encyclopedia with all of the articles (long and short) in an alphabetical list. My parents bought both. As a child, I would pick up a volume and start reading articles in alphabetical order sometimes. Unfortunately, Wikipedia killed off the market for printed encyclopedias (and for professionally written encyclopedias.) There is no viable market for printed encyclopedias today. People would hand down their printed encyclopedias and dictionaries from generation to generation, because they did not think that the world was changing quickly. However, none of the country names and maps of Africa that I learned as of 1960 were around by 1970. After 9/11 all of the stuff that was of little consequence became of vital importance to the American public. People had to know about Osama bin Laden, but less so about Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. So, the pace of change killed off the printed encyclopedia. JDano (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

Religion in America

After reading a number of CP articles, I realize that we accidentally present an inaccurate or outdated view of religion in America. Religion in America has changed since we were growing up. 1) The traditional churches have declined in attendance. To attract new members some churches have offered new ministries: weight loss, financial counseling, youth, etc. 2) Some churches are offering foreign language services or sublet to a separate foreign language congregation (such as Korean, Filipino, etc.) 3) More people are getting their sermons via television, radio or the internet. 4) Military chaplains and chapels are important for worship by the military and their families. 5) Wealthy people have private chapels on their weekend estates for privacy and security. 6) College based ministries must compete for student time and attention. 7) Historic downtown congregations have had to respond to migration to the suburbs, and small congregations face competition from mega-church congregations. Religion continues to be an important social force in America -- it is not as much of a melting pot as it was decades ago. Does anyone want to work on an article or additions to related articles? Perhaps AlanE or AugustO can tell us if similar changes are happening in other countries. JDano (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

My feedback

Michael Brown wrote:

"Several decades ago, church statistician and demographer David Barrett began to report the surprising news that around the world, the most rapidly growing faith was Spirit-empowered Christianity, marked by clear gospel preaching, belief in the literal truth of the Scriptures, and the reality of God’s presence. (The data were compiled in the prestigious “World Christian Encyclopedia,” published by Oxford University Press.)...

This is confirmed in the new Pew Forum report, which showed that evangelical Protestant churches in America grew by 2 million from 2007 to 2014 whereas the so-called mainline (liberal) Protestant churches declined by 5 million, meaning that evangelical Protestants now make up the largest religious group in the nation. (Although this is not part of the Pew Forum survey, my surmise is that the evangelical churches that are most Bible-based and make the most serious, grace-empowered demands on their congregants are, generally speaking, the ones that are growing rather than declining.[1]

I hope the helps. Conservative (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (EDT)

Is this article appropriate to cite?

I and JDano have been in a major dispute on the Donald Trump achievements article over what is probably a silly and absurd issue: whether this article is appropriate to cite. JDano believes that we should not cite it because adding it to this article would somehow increase the chances of people who practice FGM of being ruled not guilty and having the practice legalized -- something which I frankly think is completely absurd and ridiculous. But JDano will not give up in his attempts to delete the source, and I am fully convinced that it is appropriate, so I an bringing it here. Is this article appropriate or inappropriate to cite? Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2017 (EDT)

There are two Brettbart articles. The first one was a straight news story about three people being arrested for performing female genital mutilation on two Minnesota girls in a clinic outside of Detroit. The second article, the one at issue, is an ax-griding piece that has the following points:
  • Trump Has a New Policy - there is nothing to show that the policy changed in April from the "old" Trump policy or the policy under the Obama administration.
  • There is "a national campaign" to eradicate FGM. This was an action brought by the US Attorney in Michigan, not some newly-announced task force.
  • That one media critic is complaining that there is not enough MSM coverage of this "new national campaign" - perhaps because it does not exist.
  • That the critic says that is due to "political correctness" and "fear of offending Muslims" - but it could be due to the fact that the government is not bringing religion into this and does not want to set up the defense counsel with a "religious defense" to the criminal charges. This is speculation.
  • That a few MSM media stories have followed the government' lead in the bringing religion into this.
  • The story then conclude with an attack on the MSM as "conspicuously silent on this case and their silence is deafening" and "aiding and abetting violence against women out of a politically correct fueled fear of offending Muslims." On the whole, this is an advocacy piece trying to bootstrap a failure of the MSM to play up the religion angle so as to explain why they did not report on the dramatic launch of a "new national campaign" when there apparently is no such campaign.
I think the article is very misleading, and plays into the hands of those who would assert that this prosecution is anti-Muslim motivated. We don't need to cite it. We have now fixed the Donald Trump achievements article to just focus on the individual prosecution. I have been trying to take any mention of religion out of the article bullet as well, because neither the statute nor the indictment mentions religion. Thanks, JDano (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
I think it is an appropriate article to cite. Conservative (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
For the record, I linked the article that is in dispute, and both Andy and Conservative have seen the article. They know which article we are referring to, and they think it's fine. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
Nobody's asserting that the prosecution is motivated by "Islamophobia," and the article certainly does not say that. It is noting that this practice is one that is promoted by the leaders of sects of Islam. It is also noting MSM bias in covering the story. The MSM cannot admit that certain sects of Islam promote this practice. We know the religon and even the sect (the Dawoodi Bohra sect) of those who committed the crimes. They are crimes nonetheless. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
The article does not advance the bullet in the article. It is focusing on Islam, but we all agree that so far, this case has nothing to do with Islam. Let's wait until the Defense raises it. The "Trump Administration achievement" has nothing to do with Islam, just as the bullets in Obamagate timeline have nothing to do with "Russian conspiracy." JDano (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
I am involved with several projects right now so I unfortunately don't have time to investigate this issue further and mediate this issue. However, I do have a message for 1990sguy and JDano: Please consider the possibility of a compromise position. Perhaps, there is some middle ground position that you two could settle on. Again, my regrets for not being able to investigate this issue further. Conservative (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
@Conservative: JDano got about 80% of what he wanted: we originally cited only the Breitbart source, but now other sources are cited as well. I removed mentions of "Islamic" from the Donald Trump achievements article (even though those prosecuted clearly are Muslim and that FGM is mainly Islamic). I changed other wording after JDano criticized it. I have been extremely patient, and I have been very considerate. It is time for JDano to accept a middle ground position, which I think is how it is now, which actually would be 80% JDano's version. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

The matter was easier to research than I expected.

Obama commissioned a study on FGM in 2014 and a fairly mainstream press outlet, The Hill, wondered if he was serious about the the issue.[2] A politician saying he is commissioning a study is often like a husband telling a wife "we'll so" or a sales prospect saying "I'll think about". In short, it is often a ploy to do nothing. Obama does not have a good record on FGM or equal pay for equal work in terms of White House employees.[3]

Trump quickly took action on this issue which shows at least some commitment. So it is a new policy rather than Obama's do nothing FGM policy for 8 years which obtained zero convictions.

So I vote for 1990sguys' decision and oppose JDano. Conservative (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2017 (EDT)


I did not want to do this, and I waited 24 hours and 1-2 dozen reversions, but I was forced to block JDano for three days for poor editing in Donald Trump achievements.

He added irrelevant information with a liberal POV, he blindly reverted edits that I made that had nothing to do with our disputes that he had no apparent problem with, and in his latest edit, he duplicated information to create a new "education" section without deleting the duplicate information that was listed in the "government size" section.

We had a serious dispute over whether to cite a single Breitbart article, and he continued edit warring even though I asked him to keep the status quo until we resolved the dispute. He was the only editor to oppose citing the article, and I still made many changes to satisfy him.

JDano's behavior has been very irritating, and he has been almost impossible to work with. Please judge the edits on Donald Trump achievements for yourselves (the "education" section he added are just copied-and-pasted info from other portions of the article). I gave him a three-day block for him to cool off. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

JDano's objections to Richard Dawkins' health have been adequately answered at Talk:Richard Dawkins' health. Yet, I do not expect him to acknowledge this matter.
On top of this, Dawkins is clearly acting hypocritical when it comes to his views on experts/consensus/science when it comes to the application of medical science/medical advice to his health. His doctors are clearly giving him sound advice and he is clearly acting foolishly and ignoring their advice. And the proof is in the pudding. Namely, Dawkins ignored and continues to ignore their sound medical advice and continues to go back to the "controversy trough" again and again even after his stroke.
I thought JDano had some reasonable objections to the Obama's religion article, but I thought his picture choice of Obama standing in front of a glorious looking cross like he was some kind of devout Christian preacher was over the top. Do I like the present Obama's religion article? I am not a fan of it. That is why I provided the counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim.
Many conservatives are reactive and overly defensive. When liberals invariably and reflexively yell racist/misogynist, etc. regardless of the merit of their charges, conservatives often cower like kicked puppies. I like the fact that Sean Hannity took on a liberal via threat of a slander suit in order to stop her nonsense. I wish more conservatives were like Hannity.
Sun Tzu said a strong defense makes one invincible, but an attack brings victory. At some point, Hitler/other unsavory characters and harmful ideologies have to be challenged. The one thing I like about Trump is that he is willing to go on the attack. For years, conservatives largely ignored liberal indoctrination in public schools. What did Trump do? He picked Betty Devos as his Secretary of Education to promote school choice. Trump pushed for a wall on the Mexican border. Trump has "NY attitude" like assertiveness and boldness. He is the George Patton of American politics. That is why people voted for him. Does Trump go too far sometimes? Yes, he does. Attacking Carly Fiorina's looks in terms of her face was crass and foolish for example.
Maybe JDano is being overly reactive. At the same time, I do believe in accuracy in both content and sources. I wish I had time to investigate this matter and mediate it, but I don't. I will say that as long as the Breitbart article has no inaccuracy in it, I have no problems with it. Conservative (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Conservative, JDano's dispute with me over the Breitbart reference was not the only problem.
JDano also wanted to add other information that I did not think was appropriate. Some of the information was irrelevant (it should have been added in other articles) or had a liberal POV, some of the information was unsourced (everything should be sourced so we can verify it as true). I explained my edits, but he reverted them.
Although I made several edits in the meantime that were completely unrelated to what we were disputing, JDano reverted those edits as well.
When trying to add changes, JDano also said he created a new section on Trump's achievements on education. This seems good, but he just copied and pasted information that already existed in the article, and he did not delete the duplicates. I seemed like a ploy for him to continue reverting.
It's also not just the past 24 hours. I have had disputes with him in the past where he repeated the same behaviors, constantly reverting without discussing, adding irrevevant content with a liberal pov, and removing unrelated changes I had done in the meantime.
Overall, his behavior was too disruptive and was doing CP more harm than good. I had to temporarily block him. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

1990sguy, I revised my commentary/decision on this issue. I took your side. See my post above.Conservative (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Still having a hard time wrapping my head around the dispute here. Is it (a) Brietbart is not credible if it's not backed up by MSM reporting, or (b) the Brietbart article is irrelevent to the text in mainspace? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
The funniest thing about this is that 1990sguy has actually removed his own factually incorrect editorialising about Islam and FGM from the Conservapedia text, but still insists on retaining a reference which engages in exactly the same kind of editorialising, only turned all the way up to 11 and with a dirty great fireworks and laser show to boot.
JDano has probably done himself an injury with all the facepalming he must've been doing last night. He deserves a medal, not a 3 day block. JohnZ (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Today was a separate problem from yesterday. I wanted to add content about Title IX and the appointment of Adam Kissel to head up these Dept. of Education reforms. I realized that although Education policy is a very important area of Trump policy changes, and is of high interest to Conservapedia readers, there was no section for it on the page. So, I started to move education bullets from other sections and to add the Kissel bullet, but every time I would hit "save", 1990sguy would create an "edit conflict" Rather than loose the text, I saved it so that I could go back and fix the conflicts, but 1990sguy blocked me before I could complete the work as intended. The plan was to move the bullets not duplicate them. I think we need more group effort and less "individual ownership" of pages. Also, less name-calling. I am a life-long conservative, and Lindsay Graham is a life-long conservative, who is a good-guy. If he offers concise, good-natured advice to President Trump to stop tweeting, it is very newsworthy and worth including in a discussion of the Trump Twitter account. I am here to build a well-researched reliable encyclopedia, not to see how much I can build a false narrative to advance my own political agenda. I expect everyone else to be here for the same reason. So: 1) Let's give each other some space - make sure the first editor is done before you start to rewrite his contribution. 2) Look at multiple sources - if only one source has the story and everyone else has the opposite, consider that the outlier may have the facts wrong or has miscommunicate to you. 3) If you don't understand what you are trying to write, ask for help. If your understanding is not clear, what you write will only confuse other Conservapedia readers. JDano (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

Just the facts, ma'am

Ok, so we have established the dispute is over inclusion of a Brietbart citation. Now, can you answer my inquiry over why Brietbart is inappropriate for the language in text, without going into extraneous discussion on unrelated matters. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:31, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Correct. Setting aside the interwoven "edit conflict" confusion of today, we are back to the Brietbart article with a headline "Establishment Media Hides Trump’s New Policy to Stop ‘Genital Mutilation’ of American Girls". I described my concerns here. The revised bullet has nothing to do with Islam or any "Trump's New Policy to Stop FGM", rather it discusses just the Michigan prosecution, which is notable because it is the first prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §118. So, the Breitbart article is not relevant to the bullet in question. JDano (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Ok. So it's not really a 'new policy', it is the first time prosecutions have been brought under a 20 year old federal law. The Trump White House and sympathetic media charge the mainstream media is covering this fact up, which is both pro-woman, pro-child, and even designed to protect Muslims. What's wrong with that? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Perhaps I am missing a source. The White House (Sean Spicer) is not commenting. The main stream media is not covering up "a new policy" because the policy and law have been the same for years. How can Brietbart beat up on the mainstream media if there has been no announcement of a "new policy?" What is new was the FBI was able to prove that two girls were transported across state lines for FGM, so they arrested the doctors and got medical help for the girls. Prior actions have been focusing on international "FGM tourism" at border crossings. State Dept. Fact Sheet Intrastate FGM cases are in the hands of local and state police. JDano (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
So there are two issues, correct me if I'm wrong. One, enforcement of a law to protect young girls, which is an achievement; secondly, the debate over identifying victims and perpetrators of these crimes as Muslims. Is this a fair synopsis? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:12, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
No. The second issue is whether there was a "new" policy or a policy change. There is a long tradition in the media of not identifying young victims of sexual crimes. Neither the government nor almost all of the media have said anything about the girls (names, hometown, nor religious sect.) The Breitbart article is misinterpreting the MSM's absence of detail as "fear of offending Muslims." The problem that I had with the original bullet was the claim that during the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration (Jan. 20 to mid-April) there was a policy of non-enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 118. I can't find any evidence of that. It is easier to catch international "FGM tourism" at the border than to catch mothers driving daughters across state-lines for a domestic FGM trip. So, the achievement was the first domestic criminal prosecution. (Please watch this brief interview if you think it is a "Muslim issue": .)JDano (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Ok, fair enough. So your argument is that while the Trump Justice Department's first enforcement of federal anti-FGM is a recognizable achievement, the Brietbart article is irrelevent to that accomplishment. Should any reference be made to the fact that both perpatrators and victims were Muslim in this achievement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
As an experienced encyclopedia editor on several wikis, I value your input on this. To me, the fact that no mention was made in the charging documents and that I don't want to give defense counsel any ammo leads me to say "no". Wikipedia would call that "synthesis". JDano (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Would it be a valid citation to outline the facts of the case, without mentioning 'Muslim' or 'Islam' in the text? Secondly, in an article entitled 'Donald Trump achievements', why wouldn't the Trump administration aggressively enforcing federal law to protect little Muslim girls be an achievement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Answer #1: The first Brietbart article would be better than the second one that 1990sguy wants in the footnote. There are many other clearer sources including the DOJ press release, and 1990sguy and I have reached agreement on the text of the bullet and all references except the second Brietbart article, which I feel is nonsense. Answer #2: The US attorney would argue that religion was not relevant to the arrest and prosecution. FGM is not limited to one religious group, and the health-related statute focuses upon a specific action rather than upon the motives of the accused. Hypotheically, if DOJ was trying to prosecute a religious group for their beliefs, that move would be subject to the same court challenges as now apply to the "travel ban." 1990sguy chose to have this debate on my talk page rather than on this page. JDano (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Well, my simple point is, the Trump administration protecting Muslims is a worthy accomplishment, which is the point the first Brietbart article - and no other source - makes. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

policy vs law

JDano states, "the policy and law have been the same for years". I bring this up here because understanding the difference can be valuable to us on multiple levels. What is the difference between policy and law?. I disagree with JDano's assertion: while the law outlaws FMG, the policy of three past administrations has been not to enforce the law. Similiarly, while sanctuary cities are illegal, and Dream Act is not law, the policy of past administrations has been to not enforce immigration law and treat the Dream Act as if it were law. Or the ABM missile Treaty with Russia, while the ABM treaty is binding law, the policy of the Bush & Obama administrations have been to ignore it and allow international tensions to escalate. Or Operation Fast and Furious. While the law required enforcement of illegal weapons sales, the policy allowed the government itself to facilitate illegal weapons sales. These issues will be revisted soon in the Supreme Court were the law entrusts national security to the president, the courts have denied the president's policy of enforcing the law in regard to the travel ban. So we can use all these illustrations to understand the difference. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

You can judge each President's administration by the totality of their actions. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton on Sept. 30, 1996. President Obama signed an amendment to the law to outlaw "FGM tourism" abroad in 2013. One of the things that custom and border patrol staff look out for is young girls traveling abroad for FGM. There is also continuous US support of anti-FGM actions via the United Nations. I realize that law and policy can differ. For example, President Lincoln made a deal with the Mormons to not prosecute bigamy laws in exchange for their not siding with the Confederacy in the Civil War. Everything I have found indicates that the DOJ policies inherited from the Obama Administration were to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 116. If we can find something credible to the contrary, it would be quite a scoop for Conservapedia. JDano (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
FMG tourism would be virtually impossible to enforce without a confession of intent from the adult escort, or perhaps on return if the facts can be documented. Are there any known cases of prosecution? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I can look for sources, but it would be administrative action and not a criminal case in an Article III court. Only the travel and the adult escort would be targeted, since the person performing the procedure would be in the other country. JDano (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

JDano, Lindsey Graham is one of the most liberal Republicans.[4] He belongs to the "surrender Republicans" rather than someone like Newt Gingrich who forced Bill Clinton to have a balanced budget.
The GOP base is sick of surrender GOP members and that is why Trump far surpassed Graham in the 2016 GOP presidential primary. We're tired of GOP members who are terrified to have their uniforms soiled by the press/liberals calling them names. We want Donald "blood and guts" Trump.
Please don't bother me on a talk page page again if you want to fly the white flag rather than take the opposition to task for hypocritical/inconsistent behavior. You are not willing to concede reasonable points and impose time wasting opposition to others.
You were so busy to appease liberals with that ridiculous picture of Obama that you couldn't see the obvious truth: Obama is not a Christian. The Apostle Paul's views never "evolved" on homosexuality. Obama may not be a Muslim, but he is certainly not a Christian. Conservative (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
As far as clarification, I am not saying Trump or any other politician should go out of his way to create unnecessary conflict, but they shouldn't be afraid of conflict either. Conservative (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
You have totally lost me. What does Lindsey Graham have to do with female genital mutilation, a specific Brietbart citation, and the blocking of a constructive editor? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:42, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Man if you lost nobs then that's like, some next-level obfuscation. Kudos, Conservative. Vive Liberté! 00:03, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm really struggling to see what Sun Tzu, Lindsey Graham, and the Apostle Paul have to do with settling a dispute between users on female genital mutilation. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Conservative was referring to this edit and previous edits done by JDano. He made other problematic edits before I blocked him. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

History of FGM in the United States

The history of FGM is more complex than I originally thought. My first inclination to not get involved in this matter unless I gave it the due diligence it may require turned out to be correct.

I hope these resources help resolve matters. I do think that JDano and 1990sguy should be able to work this matter out. Conservative (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, thank you for sharing your research. The first paper is a bit out-of-date. Since then, Congress amended the law to address FGM tourism, and more states have enacted laws. I have hesitated to greatly expand the FGM article because I want to keep it family-friendly. I believe that 1990sguy and I reached agreement on the FGM bullet, except for whether to include the Brietbart article. JDano (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
If you are a member of an Islamic sect that practices FGM, you will be offended by the US, the UN, and the EU outlawing the practice. So, you will not be surprised by news coverage of an arrest whether or not the mainstream media discusses the religion of the family or the doctor. If you are a non-Muslim whose family practiced FGM, you may feel uncomfortable every time FGM is in the news, but that does not dictate how we cover the subject. If you are a criminal defense lawyer, your only real option is to argue the statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that this is more a question of free exercise of religion than of protecting the health of the girls. (You could also argue under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because cutting girls is illegal when cutting boys is not.) Quite a difficult area to navigate. JDano (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Without getting too far off course, and changing this to a sociological phenomenon, the practice among Muslims (and others) is mostly motivated by tribal custom, i.e. preparing a female for barter or trade in a marriage contract who will not dishonor the the family or tribe she originated from, thus violating the marriage contract that binds certain tribal alliances together. An unfaithful wife can cause wars, such as Helen of Troy, or serious internal breaches like Tristan and Isolde. At root of FGM is treating women as property. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

My response to JDano's other edits that I reverted

It seems we have solved the Breitbart source (finally! :) ). JDano made several other edits that I reverted because I thought they were not constructive. First, however, let me say thank you for not trying to re-add them after I reverted (and blocked) you. I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position, which I strongly hold.

One of these edits was adding the paragraph of Lindsey Graham. I am not opposed to having opposing viewpoints, but what makes Graham's single viewpoint so notable compared to other people? He is one of 100 Senators, 1 of 535 Congressmen, and 1 of over 7 billion people in the world. What makes his view so notable? If you want to add an opposing view of Trump's Twitter activity, please find a good source (preferably NOT from the MSM, or at least a fair MSM source) that speaks generally of opposition from conservatives and other people, rather than the opinion of a single RINO Senator. Anyone can say anything about everything. Let's not cherry pick quotes, please.

You also added a sentence saying that "The Trump Administration continues to offer spousal benefits to federal workers in same-sex marriages." However, there's no source. The intro paragraph of the article specifically tells you to add sources. Once again, anyone can say anything about everything. We need to be certain this fact you added is accurate. I am not opposed to adding that sentence, but there MUST be a source.

In your edit, you removed an unrelated edit I made in the meantime. You had no dispute with the edit, but you still reverted it. It was the single Breitbart reference I added (not the same Breitbart article -- a different article on a different topic). JDano, your edit was sloppy, and you need to avoid doing this in the future.

I did not like your wording of the Qatar failure because funding nations is more complicated that you made it seem. If the U.S. did not fund Qatar, a nation that does fund terrorists, Qatar might be driven to align itself with Iran. That would not be good. I simplified the wording.

Your typo in the Trump official portrait at the top did not help at all.

Thank you for improving the "education" section above. It was a lot better than you first made it in the edit I linked above. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Also, JDano's edit summary in that edit was very misleading because it stated "new section" when in fact he did more than create a new section (namely revert all my edits). Edit summaries must not be misleading. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
And by the way, I know that I do not own the article. I was reverting what I believed (justifiably) to be simply bad edits (bad for various reasons which I explained above). I support having other people add constructive edits to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Since going with Windows 10, my computer crashes frequently, particularly upon times of inactivity. So, I have to save less than the complete set of changes. When you save edits while I am editing, when I save, I get a "edit conflict dialog box" which does not allow me to see your edit summaries, but requires me to locate my edit within the entire source code of the page. Because the page is so long, I copy and paste the entire contents of my source window over the entire article source and hope to work out any lost content by looking at the page history. I was getting three or four edit conflict dialog boxes per save yesterday. So, you need to edit a different section of the page, or give the other editor a chance to finish up before you edit the same section. I assume that a editor will go back and check for spelling or other mistakes and do not edit there for at least 5 min after the initial save. Thanks, JDano (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Edit conflict ;)
JDano, if you want, I can try to help you diagnose the crashing problem. That does sound problematic! If you are letting the PC idle, it could even just be autostandby. Windows Vista and 7 had that kind of issue where it would crash when starting to standby or recovering from it. I dont know if the 8/8.1/10 core has the same issue or not. If you are constantly editing, them a bit more troubleshooting will be needed.
If you edit one section at a time and then save rather than moving around, it may cause more conflicts, but would also make it easier to recover from one. If both of you edit one paragraph or small section, it would be less destructive to reload the page and paste in that edited section only. --David B (TALK) 12:00, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
JDano, you may make the edits in the way you do for a reason, but it is very problematic because only you know why you edit the way you do. For the rest of us, for all we are able to see, you are being sloppy. I understand now, but please change your editing behaviors in the future. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Isn't this just a question of "assume good faith"? If a known editor is starting to do something, wait 5 to 10 minutes before jumping in, rather than creating a lot of edit conflicts. I had the educational source windows open and was going to put the section as it is now, but never got a chance. I still do not understand how one of my cut-and-pastes accidentally butchered to top of the article, but I managed to fix it quickly. On Wikipedia, the edit conflict window is based on just the section open to editing, why does the edit conflict window expand the "conflict zone" to the entire article? JDano (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm still not seeing where Lindsey Graham fits in this discussion on female genital mutilation. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
I'm talking about another problematic edit JDano made in this section. I'm not talking about FGM here. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
As a part-time JAG officer in the Air Force reserves, Lindsay Graham gets into more legal issues than you can imagine. JDano (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
Lindsey Graham was in on the Operation Zero Footprint coverup, which means he's likely in on the Russian hacking scam, as well. How does Lindsey Graham relate to any Donald Trump achievement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
IOW, Lindsey Graham is complicit in Obama war crimes. The only way he can rehabilitate himself is by voting right in the Senate. Other than that, nobody should care or pay attention to what he thinks about Donald Trump or Donald Trump's accomplishments. We got plenty of dirt on Lindsey Graham, even going back to his inept mishandling of Bill Clinton's impeachment case. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:08, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable?

Useful links


Hello, Community Portal, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Community Portal!

Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable?

The blue links on a dark red background is hard to read.

Also, some people have started to edit Conservapedia and then quickly gave up because they didn't know how to edit a wiki. I noted about 3 people who did this. There are probably many more who quit but didn't say anything. I added a link entitled "How to edit a wiki". But I believe there are various versions of the welcome template so my link is not on all welcome template versions. For example, the welcome template that JPatt uses didn't incorporate my "How to edit a wiki" link.

Does the newest version of the Wikimedia software allow for WYSIWYG editing? In other words "What you see is what you get".

The newest version of the Wikimedia software does not have the counter at the bottom of the pages. I understand why Andy Schlafly likes the counters at the bottom. I like the counters too. I guess there might be an extension to add the counters to the newest version of Wikimedia. But after all is said and done, having WYSIWYG editing could greatly increase the participation rate at this wiki and lower the rate of people falling out because they don't know how to edit a wiki. Conservative (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Here is the welcome to Wikipedia and it is much better and legible

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg
Welcome to Wikipedia, Conservative! I am This lousy T-shirt and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

I think Conservapedia needs a better greeting. Conservative (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

Donald Trump's tweets

We have had a lot of discussion about how to cover Donald Trump's twitter account on the main space pages. So, I have started a page Debate:Should President Trump stop tweeting? and invite interested editors to comment there. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

Request for Conservative or another admin

You recently deleted the article entitled "Donald Trump's breaking of promises." I am OK with this action, but would you (or another admin) please copy-and-paste the article's content onto User:1990'sguy/Sandbox? There may be some content in the article worth saving. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

I restored it to your Sandbox, but noticed that it quotes anti-Trump gasbags like Jason Chaffetz as though they are some kind of authority. The guy cannot even fulfill his own obligation to compete his 2-year term for his constituents.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (EDT)
Thank you, Andy. Restoring the content has nothing to do with whether the content is accurate or good. I just want it to see if any of it is salvageable. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2017 (EDT)


As anyone who is logged in knows, there is a major vandalism wave going on (based on the topics being vandalized, it seems to have originated from the recent dust-up about "fake news", not that it matters.) The only assistant I can see currently aware of this seems to be Pokeria1. He has block powers. But I have attempted to alert him to this. He can't possibly be unaware of what is going on, since he has reverted my warnings on his talk page.

Can someone put a stop to this? Here is what I put (several times, getting blasted each time) on his talk page:


What the Hell are you doing????? You have block rights!


SamHB (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

For the record, I DID respond to your post in the limited amount of time I could before that 2000'sguy person undid the revision, and I even attempted to ask how long I should block him. However, I also made it very clear that I'm extremely reluctant to do it because I fear ultimately being corrupted by that power (I've already witnessed plenty of admins on the forums and other wikis blocking people for the sheer heck of it, or even threatening people to keep them in line, and I want to go out of my way to avoid being like them). Pokeria1 (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

OK, I see it now. In the heat of battle, I did not. My answer to the "how long?" question is:
  • Correct answer: Infinite. That kind of stuff is infinite.
  • Acceptable answer: 1 day. That's enough for admins to notice what happened and take it from there.
  • Crazy answer: However long it takes for me to come over and beat you up. Non-violently, of course.  :-)
Your position on not letting power corrupt you is very similar to mine. See the discussion among Ed Poor, DavidB4, and myself on Ed's talk page. Blocking people for the heck of it, and threatening people, happens elsewhere, and it used to happen here. I think we have improved.
SamHB (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

If you see something, say something

More precisely: If you see blatant vandalism taking place, and you have block powers, block the perpetrator.

I believe most active users are "assistants", meaning they have the power, and authority, to block vandals. Yesterday there was a huge vandal attack, in which 65 acts of vandalism were committed in about 40 minutes. I saw that an assistant was logged in, and attempted to alert him on his talk page. The vandal reverted that, and I kept trying. The user saw the vandalism to his talk page and reverted it. He even reverted my warning. I sent private mail to Andy. Finally Ed Poor did the deed.

Assistants have the power to block vandals. Use it. That's what it's for. Don't just let vandalism sprees go on. SamHB (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

I think there are more vandal attacks because liberals are getting desperate. They are losing power and do not like it. They are like cornered rats right now. The engaging in violent tactics, violent demonstrations, etc. Conservative (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
It even happened here this morning, but the two perps (who, based on very similar user names, is most likely the same kid using multiple accounts) got cut off at the pass quickly. If I'd been on line yesterday when said vandalism happened, I would've stopped it right there and then, but no editor with blocking power can be on site 24/7. Best thing to do is pay attention to the Recent changes section and watch what happens. Northwest (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
I noticed that incredible spree after the fact--yikes! Sam, I was offline, but that doesn't mean I can't help. I've provided a link on my talk page to send my a text message for a reason too--that's what it's there for. I may not be available, but I would be happy to deal with the issue if I am. Just because I'm not editing doesn't mean I can help for a moment. :) --David B (TALK) 20:03, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
This is similar to when I kept on reverting the several accounts of this "James Wilson" fellow a few weeks ago. It took forever to block him, and he was able to get a lot of pages, including repeatedly vandalizing the Taylor Swift article and creating frivolous entries. There seems to be plenty enough "assistants" on here, so such long sprees shouldn't be happening so often. --Anglican (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

Political Directory

We have a project that started last February, but still needs teamwork to complete. This project accidentally drifted to Archive2, but still has work to be done.

A few years ago, some editors copied a lot of political directory information into CP. For example, the state articles list all of the Senators and Congressmen and the infobox has the Senators' telephone numbers. Much of this has changed in the 2014 and 2016 elections. In some cases, like Elizabeth Warren, the junior senator has become the senior senator of the state. I have corrected Ohio, but do not want to fix all of this by myself. Can we organize a work list and cross off each state as it is updated? Please let me know if you want to help. JDano (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2017 (EST)

I can't say I'm thrilled at the idea, but I can try to chip in a little, as time permits. That's a very good idea, and I'm glad you noticed--I'm just not sure how much time I can contribute. --David B (TALK) 11:03, 15 February 2017 (EST)
In my state even the official state website hasn't been updated in more than two years (it still lists an officer sitting in jail as Secretary of State). I'm sure the lazy government bureaucrats blame Republican budget cuts who took over the legislature in 2014. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 21:33, 15 February 2017 (EST)
This project is focusing on 1) list of US Congressmen and Senators and 2) Senators in infobox. JDano (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Sources: and When you have finished with a state, cross the state name out using <s>State</s>.

Many thanks to Pokeria1, AMorrow, and DavidB4 for their help on this project. JDano (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Since we finished the federal officers faster than I expected, I am proposing a Phase II, where we go back and check the names of the state-wide officers listed in each of the above articles. After you have checked an article please change <s>state</s> to <b>state</b>. Many thanks! JDano (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (EST)

Clean sweep response to Muslim protestors

I saw this on a woman's Twitter page. She responded to four themes that make up quite a lot of common Muslim protest arguments in such a way as to maximize the exposure of their contradictions. Those who call for more Muslim immigration should be confronted with these short arguments and why they think they don't apply seriously to these all-too-typical Muslim sentiments:

You call me intolerant because I won't tolerate a religion of intolerance [Muslim activist's sign "Islam will dominate the world"].
You call me hate-filled because I'm against hate preachers [Muslim activist's sign: "Behead those who insult Islam"].
You call me extreme because I don't want extremists in my country [Two men dressed in all black except hole for eyes: "God Bless Hitler" in bold red capital letters].
You call me a supremacist because I won't submit to invaders who believe their law & culture is supreme to ours [Muslims with black parade banner: "Shariah for the UK"].
I only need to call you one word...Traitor.

VargasMilan (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

Recent issue(s)

So, with at least a few articles in the past, including the articles on Kate Upton and earlier Taylor Swift, I am unsure about what direction the site should be taking regarding the topic of women wearing less than modest clothing. Should it be mentioned in the articles, and if so, how should it be done? The Upton situation seems to have at least two Senior Administrators and two Junior Administrators involved, and I think we should talk about how to address the issue, given that this is a conservative-minded encyclopedia and that social conservatism has been a key component of conservatism in the US. --Anglican (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

The trend of women wearing less modest clothes is a relatively recent development, and it is associated with feminism. I think things like this should be mentioned only if the person in question claims to be religious or traditional. This is just my take, however. We'll see what everyone else has to say. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
Your take does make sense, and a claim to be a Christian may imply something of the sort, as User:RonaldB pointed out. Since it has come up in at least a few articles it is something that really should be addressed. We should be able to do it in an encyclopedic tone, without sounding too preachy. One of the earlier revisions of the Upton article did come off rather preachy. --Anglican (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
Yes, regardless of what we do, we should stick to an encyclopedic tone. I don't think we will have to mention these things on articles of people who clearly are secular liberals (unless that they do is blatantly outrageous, like what Miley Cyrus did a while back). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
I stepped in as far as the Kate Upton article because there was a dispute happening and there were nude photographs that she had taken. Plus, she lied about the issue shortly before the cloud website had a data breach which caused her pictures to become public.
You have to draw the line somewhere and I drew the line at nude. Conservative (talk)

When I was in high school, I volunteered to help in the school library. We had a periodical collection, and students would have to request a specific magazine issue, and then the student assistant would go into the back room, pull the issue and have the student sign it out. The most requested magazines were Car and Driver followed by the National Geographic issues which photos of native African women. We can discuss these subjects with an encyclopedic tone and without including examples. In contrast, Wikipedia works extensively to collect as many nude photos as possible and is not family friendly. We don't want Conservapedia to appeal to the crowd that reads National Geographic for just those few special photos. JDano (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

It sounds like everyone basically agrees on this anyway, but I'll chime in. I agree that we should keep such content to a minimum. If such information can be used to prove hypocrisy, then it might be worth carefully mentioning. However, in general, that's just a part of the secular world now. Let's keep it out of here, unless perhaps if it is beneficial to prove a different point. --David B (TALK) 21:04, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

I'm thinking that there's an agreement about how to handle this particular issue from now on. Although, I still regret my rash judgment and current inability to correct it at this time. --Anglican (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

Sam Chui's Little Theorem

I wasn't able to find anything on the internet related to Sam Chui's Little Theorem. And there are no citations in the article. Conservative (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

Appears to be a private gag between half a dozen 14-year olds from math camp. No encyclopaedic value, no educational value and, frankly, unfunny to boot. They have had their few days of glory, now burn it with fire. NeilWalker (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
I deleted the article.Conservative (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2017 (EDT)


I see that someone today blocked User:GinnyS for violating the 90%/10% rule. Just so that the record is clear, since she created her account, GinnyS had 49 talk page edits and 22 article page edits leading to a 69%/31% ratio, which is seems to meet the rule's requirements. While today's exchange was intemperate, we do want users to feel free to raise concerns to ensure that what is posted matches the sources provided. Thanks, JDano (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2017 (EDT)