Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-23T02:06:38Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness only requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we decide to allow? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by decidedly left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

::3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

::[[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::If you add number 3, then what's left? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, I mean that under the proposed change, categories 1, 2, and 3 would be content that's ''allowed'' on Conservapedia. I sincerely think that including these changes in the language of the Commandments now would help prevent serious headaches in the future. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-23T02:06:23Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness only requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we decide to allow? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by decidedly left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

::3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

::[[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::If you add number 3, then what's left? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I mean that under the proposed change, categories 1, 2, and 3 would be content that's ''allowed'' on Conservapedia. I sincerely think that including these changes in the language of the Commandments now would help prevent serious headaches in the future. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-23T02:06:08Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness only requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we decide to allow? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by decidedly left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

::3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

::[[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::If you add number 3, then what's left? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:: No, I mean that under the proposed change, categories 1, 2, and 3 would be content that's ''allowed'' on Conservapedia. I sincerely think that including these changes in the language of the Commandments now would help prevent serious headaches in the future. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-23T01:58:10Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-23T01:55:43Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness just requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we decide to allow? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by decidedly left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

::3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

::[[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-23T01:53:24Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness just requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we find useful? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

::3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

::I begin to wonder whether or not it might be helpful to I don't understand why we must pretend otherwise, when the site could be used as a tool to gather information that is strictly of use to conservatives. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-23T01:51:51Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness just requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we find useful? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

::3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

::I begin to wonder whether or not it might be helpful to I don't understand why we must pretend otherwise, when the site could be used as a tool to gather information that is strictly of use to conservatives. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-23T01:51:31Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness just requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we find useful? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

I begin to wonder whether or not it might be helpful to I don't understand why we must pretend otherwise, when the site could be used as a tool to gather information that is strictly of use to conservatives.

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-23T01:51:10Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness just requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we find useful? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

I begin to wonder whether or not it might be helpful to I don't understand why we must pretend otherwise, when the site could be used as a tool to gather information that is strictly of use to conservatives.

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-22T16:33:28Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-22T16:32:07Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? I mean, are we seriously trying to compete with Wikipedia as some alternative yet "neutral" warehouse of encyclopedic info? I mean, it'd be great if I saw an article on here about how to change a tire or the chemical composition of a sponge. But of course, given the name, this would seem to be a big waste of effort, given our limited resources.

More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-22T16:23:17Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? I mean, are we seriously trying to compete with Wikipedia as some alternative yet "neutral" warehouse of encyclopedic info? I mean, it'd be great if I saw an article on here about how to change a tire or the chemical composition of a sponge. But of course, given the name, this would seem to be a big waste of effort, given our limited resources. Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-22T16:22:22Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that we should be collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? I mean, are we seriously trying to compete with Wikipedia as some alternative yet "neutral" warehouse of encyclopedic info? I mean, it'd be great if I saw an article on here about how to change a tire or the chemical composition of a sponge. But of course, given the name, this would seem to be a big waste of effort, given our limited resources. Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-22T16:19:14Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if it weren't such a left-wing slant in many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that we should be collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? I mean, are we seriously trying to compete with Wikipedia as some alternative yet "neutral" warehouse of encyclopedic info? I mean, it'd be great if I saw an article on here about how to change a tire or the chemical composition of a sponge. But of course, given the name, this would seem to be a big waste of effort, given our limited resources. Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-22T16:18:36Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if it weren't such a left-wing slant in many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that we should be collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? I mean, are we seriously trying to compete with Wikipedia as some alternative yet "neutral" warehouse of encyclopedic info? I mean, it'd be great if I saw an article on here about how to change a tire or the chemical composition of a sponge. But of course, given the name, this would seem to be a big waste of effort, given our limited resources. Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-22T16:16:45Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if it weren't such a left-wing slant in many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that we should be collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? I mean, are we seriously trying to compete with Wikipedia as some alternative yet "neutral" warehouse of encyclopedic info? I mean, it'd be great if I saw an article on here about how to change a tire or the chemical composition of a sponge. But of course, given the name, this would seem to be a big waste of effort, given our limited resources. Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-22T16:16:20Z

Alexander: /* Amendment Recommendation */

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if it weren't such a left-wing slant in many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that we should be collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will help us promote the conservative view, and
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? I mean, are we seriously trying to compete with Wikipedia as some alternative yet "neutral" warehouse of encyclopedic info? I mean, it'd be great if I saw an article on here about how to change a tire or the chemical composition of a sponge. But of course, given the name, this would seem to be a big waste of effort, given our limited resources. Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-10-22T16:15:22Z

Alexander:

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if it weren't such a left-wing slant in many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that we should be collect information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will help us promote the conservative view, and
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? I mean, are we seriously trying to compete with Wikipedia as some alternative yet "neutral" warehouse of encyclopedic info? I mean, it'd be great if I saw an article on here about how to change a tire or the chemical composition of a sponge. But of course, given the name, this would seem to be a big waste of effort, given our limited resources. Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Political scandals

2008-10-18T19:08:30Z

Alexander: Not relevant to purposes of Conservapedia.

Instances when conduct of a public official brings great discredit and embarrassment to oneself and one's office.

==Examples==
* February, 2008: [[Carl Stanley McGee]] (D), a Leftist gay official in Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration, is arrested for sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in the steam room of a Florida resort. [http://www.examiner.com/a-1207714~Gov_s_Aide_Accused_of_Sex_Assault_on_Boy.html] [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/gay_massachuset.html]
* February 2008: Leftist New York Governor Eliot Spitzer breaks wife's heart when discovered to have solicited prostitutes while in office. [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/11/2008-03-11_spitzer_may_have_spent_tens_of_thousands-2.html]
* March, 2008: Leftist Detroit mayor [[Kwame Kilpatrick]] charged in text-messaging sex scandal. [http://www.kswo.com/global/story.asp?s=8060071]
* April, 2008: Thomas Athans, co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA Radio network and a married Michigan Democrat is charged with soliciting a prostitute. [http://www.wxyz.com/news/story.aspx?content_id=bf5c0996-2d4e-48db-a3d5-a61fc917e935]
* April, 2008: Oklahoma state prosecutors filed 35 felony charges against Democrat Sheriff Mike Burgess of Custer County for running a sex-slave operation out of his jail using female inmates he bribed for the purpose. Charges include 14 counts of second-degree rape, seven counts of forcible oral sodomy and five counts of bribery by a public official. [http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/04/18/county-sheriff-runs-sex-slave-operation-from-jail-guess-which-party/]
* October, 2008: ABC News reveals Democratic U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney had an affair with an aide and then paid her $121,000 to keep her quiet and avoid a sexual harassment lawsuit. The Florida congressman won his seat in 2006 while promising to return morals and family values to Washington in the aftermath of the resignation of former Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Foley. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438161,00.html]

[[category:politics]]

Political scandals

2008-10-18T19:07:18Z

Alexander:

Instances when conduct of a public official brings great discredit and embarrassment to oneself and one's office.

==Examples==
* September/October 2005: House Majority leader Tom Delay (R-Tex) was indicted on September 28th on the counts of conspiracy to violate campaign finance law with two of his co-workers. Delay was charged of conspiring to use illegal corporate campaign contributions in the 2002 congressional elections. The indictment prompted Delay to step-down from his position as House Majority leader. On October 19th of 2005, Delay was issued an arrest warrent by a Travis County and was processed at the Fort Bend County Jail. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101900789.html]
* August 2007: On August 28th, Larry Craigh (R-Miss.) pleaded guilty to a disorderely conduct charge after his arrest for solicitation of sexual contact in an airport bathroom stall.[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294927,00.html]
* February, 2008: [[Carl Stanley McGee]] (D), a Leftist gay official in Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration, is arrested for sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in the steam room of a Florida resort. [http://www.examiner.com/a-1207714~Gov_s_Aide_Accused_of_Sex_Assault_on_Boy.html] [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/gay_massachuset.html]
* February 2008: Leftist New York Governor Eliot Spitzer breaks wife's heart when discovered to have solicited prostitutes while in office. [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/11/2008-03-11_spitzer_may_have_spent_tens_of_thousands-2.html]
* March, 2008: Leftist Detroit mayor [[Kwame Kilpatrick]] charged in text-messaging sex scandal. [http://www.kswo.com/global/story.asp?s=8060071]
* April, 2008: Thomas Athans, co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA Radio network and a married Michigan Democrat is charged with soliciting a prostitute. [http://www.wxyz.com/news/story.aspx?content_id=bf5c0996-2d4e-48db-a3d5-a61fc917e935]
* April, 2008: Oklahoma state prosecutors filed 35 felony charges against Democrat Sheriff Mike Burgess of Custer County for running a sex-slave operation out of his jail using female inmates he bribed for the purpose. Charges include 14 counts of second-degree rape, seven counts of forcible oral sodomy and five counts of bribery by a public official. [http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/04/18/county-sheriff-runs-sex-slave-operation-from-jail-guess-which-party/]
* October, 2008: ABC News reveals Democratic U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney had an affair with an aide and then paid her $121,000 to keep her quiet and avoid a sexual harassment lawsuit. The Florida congressman won his seat in 2006 while promising to return morals and family values to Washington in the aftermath of the resignation of former Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Foley. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438161,00.html]

[[category:politics]]

Conservapedia:Contact Us

2008-05-29T21:36:59Z

Alexander: /* Proposal */

I would like to post the following to the Jesse Helms article after "Foreign Policy" but am locked out. I don't know why. {{unsigned|BertSchlossberg}}
: Editing is often turned off overnight (U.S. time), which may have been your problem, although that means that you shouldn't have been able to post here, so unless it was turned back on in the meantime, I can't explain it. Would you like to try it again? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:: Right. The [[Jesse Helms]] entry is not locked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

==When only part of an article is accepted==
I recently posted an entry, [[F-105 Thunderchief]], and included a references section and a category, but in the final article, neither section shows up, although they are clearly present when the "Edit" button is clicked. Just now, this happened again with another entry I tried to make. What gives? Does the site only accept so much information in a new entry? --[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:You had a bad <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag which I have fixed. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::I did? Oopsie. And thanks.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:09, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==KAL 007 article on Main page==
I would like to propose having the article [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] as a featured article on the Main page. Thanks.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 15:32, 1 March 2008 (EST)
(finally got it right!)

: I'd like to review it in detail and hear what others think about it. On its surface, without yet studying it, it appears to be a major work. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:: There's a [[Conservapedia:Featured articles|page]] for listing proposed featured articles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:52, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==To Kill The Child/Leaving Beirut==

I just wrote an exteremly long and extensive artical about these two songs. Then, when I went to save the page, it said that it did not save it because there was a quote in their to explain about the song that contained a profanity. What gives? I thought that this website was supposed to educate people, yet people cannot be educated if they cannot know what the artical is talking about and what the proof is. {{unsigned|Std}}
: We have a profanity filter for good reason, but sometimes exceptions need to be made. You haven't supplied enough information for us to judge if this warrants an exception. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

What exactly are the exeptions that would get me the warrent?

How do you upload an image?

{{unsigned|Std}}
:You have to ask an administrator. There was a problem with people uploading obscene materials. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
: An exception would be warranted if, for example, the word caught by the filter was not objectionable in the context. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Can anyone do an article on Cong. Larry McDonald, a passenger aboard KAL 007?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 07:01, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

==Proposal==
I wrote some time ago about making plans to build Conservapedia into a force to be reckoned with. This site has the potential to become a powerful tool, but still has a ways to go, I think. As an example, I just did a search on [http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI= ACORN], a group funded by leftist billionaire [[George Soros]] that is becoming a very serious threat to the integrity of local elections. All I found was a one-line page about the oak tree. Of course the solution to this is to simply create the page myself. But I don't think this solves the larger issue; to my knowledge, there isn't a program of incentives inviting conservatives to contribute high-quality information and research articles on our opposition. How do we do this?

For one, I take it that Conservapedia gets some heavy traffic. Heavy traffic = $$$ in potential advertising revenue. Use that money to attract the right people to help build Conservapedia into a powerhouse of information. This could include rewards for college students, or hired admins (background checked with references and resume, of course). Perhaps contact county or state Republican/conservative groups, show what you've done, and propose a team effort to get more people to contribute articles to the web site.

In short, there's a million ways that this project can grow, and it is more important to me that the conservative cause succeeds than to keep these ideas to myself. My hope is that someone reading this will take hold of them... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 17:35, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Contact Us

2008-05-29T21:35:27Z

Alexander: Proposal for Conservapedia's expansion.

I would like to post the following to the Jesse Helms article after "Foreign Policy" but am locked out. I don't know why. {{unsigned|BertSchlossberg}}
: Editing is often turned off overnight (U.S. time), which may have been your problem, although that means that you shouldn't have been able to post here, so unless it was turned back on in the meantime, I can't explain it. Would you like to try it again? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:: Right. The [[Jesse Helms]] entry is not locked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

==When only part of an article is accepted==
I recently posted an entry, [[F-105 Thunderchief]], and included a references section and a category, but in the final article, neither section shows up, although they are clearly present when the "Edit" button is clicked. Just now, this happened again with another entry I tried to make. What gives? Does the site only accept so much information in a new entry? --[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:You had a bad <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag which I have fixed. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::I did? Oopsie. And thanks.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:09, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==KAL 007 article on Main page==
I would like to propose having the article [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] as a featured article on the Main page. Thanks.[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 15:32, 1 March 2008 (EST)
(finally got it right!)

: I'd like to review it in detail and hear what others think about it. On its surface, without yet studying it, it appears to be a major work. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:: There's a [[Conservapedia:Featured articles|page]] for listing proposed featured articles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:52, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==To Kill The Child/Leaving Beirut==

I just wrote an exteremly long and extensive artical about these two songs. Then, when I went to save the page, it said that it did not save it because there was a quote in their to explain about the song that contained a profanity. What gives? I thought that this website was supposed to educate people, yet people cannot be educated if they cannot know what the artical is talking about and what the proof is. {{unsigned|Std}}
: We have a profanity filter for good reason, but sometimes exceptions need to be made. You haven't supplied enough information for us to judge if this warrants an exception. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

What exactly are the exeptions that would get me the warrent?

How do you upload an image?

{{unsigned|Std}}
:You have to ask an administrator. There was a problem with people uploading obscene materials. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
: An exception would be warranted if, for example, the word caught by the filter was not objectionable in the context. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Can anyone do an article on Cong. Larry McDonald, a passenger aboard KAL 007?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 07:01, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

==Proposal==
I wrote some time ago about making plans to build Conservapedia into a force to be reckoned with. This site has the potential to become a powerful tool, but still has a ways to go, I think. I just did a search on ACORN, a group funded by leftist billionaire George Soros that is becoming a very serious threat to the integrity of local elections. All I found was a one-line page about the oak tree. Of course the solution to this is to simply create the page myself. But I don't think this solves the larger issue; to my knowledge, there isn't a program of incentives inviting conservatives to contribute high-quality information and research articles on our opposition. How do we do this?

For one, I take it that Conservapedia gets some heavy traffic. Heavy traffic = $$$ in potential advertising revenue. Use that money to attract the right people to help build Conservapedia into a powerhouse of information. This could include rewards for college students, or hired admins (background checked with references and resume, of course). Perhaps contact county or state Republican/conservative groups, show what you've done, and propose a team effort to get more people to contribute articles to the web site.

In short, there's a million ways that this project can grow, and it is more important to me that the conservative cause succeeds than to keep these ideas to myself. My hope is that someone reading this will take hold of them... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 17:35, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Political scandals

2008-04-19T16:51:39Z

Alexander: /* Examples */

Instances when conduct of a public official brings great discredit and embarrassment to oneself and one's office.

==Examples==
* February, 2008: [[Carl Stanley McGee]] (D), a Leftist gay official in Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration, is arrested for sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in the steam room of a Florida resort. [http://www.examiner.com/a-1207714~Gov_s_Aide_Accused_of_Sex_Assault_on_Boy.html] [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/gay_massachuset.html]
* February 2008: Leftist New York Governor Eliot Spitzer breaks wife's heart when discovered to have solicited prostitutes while in office. [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/11/2008-03-11_spitzer_may_have_spent_tens_of_thousands-2.html]
* March, 2008: Leftist Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick charged in text-messaging sex scandal. [http://www.kswo.com/global/story.asp?s=8060071]
* April, 2008: Thomas Athans, co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA Radio network and a married Michigan Democrat is charged with soliciting a prostitute. [http://www.wxyz.com/news/story.aspx?content_id=bf5c0996-2d4e-48db-a3d5-a61fc917e935]

* April, 2008: Oklahoma state prosecutors filed 35 felony charges against Democrat Sheriff Mike Burgess of Custer County for running a sex-slave operation out of his jail using female inmates he bribed for the purpose. Charges include 14 counts of second-degree rape, seven counts of forcible oral sodomy and five counts of bribery by a public official. [http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/04/18/county-sheriff-runs-sex-slave-operation-from-jail-guess-which-party/]

[[category:politics]]

Political scandals

2008-04-19T16:48:01Z

Alexander: /* Examples */

Instances when conduct of a public official brings great discredit and embarrassment to oneself and one's office.

==Examples==
* February, 2007: [[Carl Stanley McGee]] (D), a Leftist gay official in Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration, is arrested for sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in the steam room of a Florida resort. [http://www.examiner.com/a-1207714~Gov_s_Aide_Accused_of_Sex_Assault_on_Boy.html] [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/gay_massachuset.html]
* February 2008: Leftist New York Governor Eliot Spitzer breaks wife's heart when discovered to have solicited prostitutes while in office. [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/11/2008-03-11_spitzer_may_have_spent_tens_of_thousands-2.html]
* March, 2008: Leftist Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick charged in text-messaging sex scandal. [http://www.kswo.com/global/story.asp?s=8060071]
* April, 2008: Thomas Athans, co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA Radio network and a married Michigan Democrat is charged with soliciting a prostitute. [http://www.wxyz.com/news/story.aspx?content_id=bf5c0996-2d4e-48db-a3d5-a61fc917e935]

* April, 2008: Oklahoma state prosecutors filed 35 felony charges against Democrat Sheriff Mike Burgess of Custer County for running a sex-slave operation out of his jail using female inmates he bribed for the purpose. Charges include 14 counts of second-degree rape, seven counts of forcible oral sodomy and five counts of bribery by a public official. [http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/04/18/county-sheriff-runs-sex-slave-operation-from-jail-guess-which-party/]

[[category:politics]]

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-04-14T19:02:32Z

Alexander: /* A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive2|2]]

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|right|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: Here you go.
::: [[Image:Conservlogo_logo_highres2.png|thumb|350px|left]]

[[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Confused by this message at my talk page ==

"Come back next year, when you're serious about helping write encyclopedia articles."

I didn't think there was restrictions on creating articles.{{unsigned|User:EkulR29}}

:I can't speak for why you were blocked, but the "next year" thing was a joke, I think. You were blocked on December 31st for one day, so "next year" would only be one day later. 15:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: You say it was 31st December, but when I look at his page history, it says that the message was left at 09:02 on 1st January, 2008. Of course, that is according to my time zone settings. What time zone is EkulR29 in? Yes, the message has 17:02 on 31st December on it, but at the very least, that could be "confusing".
:: EkulR29, I suspect that Ed Poor's comment may have been because you have made about 60 edits so far, only four of which were to anything other than this page and your user page. In other words, you seem to be more concerned with telling us about yourself (which is okay in itself) than with actually helping write an encyclopedia.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== How do you? ==

Ask for a change on a protected page? And is there any way to ask for a page to be unprotected? I imagine any vandalism could be fairly quickly reverted on many pages anyway. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:To ask for a change on a protected page, ask on that page's talk page. To ask for a page to be unprotected, it's best to ask the Administrator who protected it. If that is not practicable, ask another Administrator. If you ask on the page's talk page, the first administrator to notice it could unlock it, but it's possible that nobody will notice for a while. If you ask on an Administrator's talk page, that Administrator should notice very quickly if they are on, or as soon as they next log on, but that might take a day or so (assuming they are not on holidays). If you choose to ask more than one administrator on their talk pages, let them know that you have asked others. Of course, in all such cases, your request might be declined. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Editing Help ==

I am having a hard time editing articles. Could you explain me how to go about that process? I'm used to using wikipedia, where they just have an edit button by the text, but here at Conservapedia I can't seem to find the edit button. Please help!
:Same as on this page; third tab from the left at top of article. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Uploading an images or images ==

How do I obtain upload privileges? I want to upload a picture on a page.

Christopher Persaud

You hang around for a long time until you are trusted with them. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Please be more specific. Thanks. {{unsigned|Cperlobo}}

:If you have a specific image you want to be uploaded then please submit it at [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests|image upload request]]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: See [[Conservapedia:User rights|User rights]] (Requesting further rights), which is linked from [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's guide]] which is in the welcome box on your talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Firefox search bar ==

I'm not sure what is involved technically, but I use Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser and regularly use the search bar in the top right for Google and Wikipedia searches. Though this search bar recognizes Conservapedia as a possible search engine, Firefox won't allow me to add it as one. The message
Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/opensearch_desc.php
appears. I don't know if this is the correct place to report technical problems (or if you are already aware of this), but I thought I should report it. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Hampshire2600|Hampshire2600]] 20:10 29 January, 2008 (EST)

== Enlisting College Student Help ==

I'm a member of a campus conservatives organization, and I think Conservapedia could definitely benefit by enlisting the help of college students to improve the quality of articles, as well as expand Conservapedia's contents. I might recommend creating some sort of program to encourage campus conservative groups to have a part in Conservapedia's development? Thanks! [http://www.honor-bound.org Honorbound Conservatives] [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 19:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== "In The News ==

Under "in the news" on the "Main Page" there is this entry:
Liberal denial has begun for NIU killings: "Grad student killer didn't fit the profile," screams the Associated Press.
In fact, the killer did fit the profile of a public school-trained atheistic: dressed in all black, was an above-average student (at age 27!), and obsessed with self-injury.

The above entry implies that all people who have attended public school fit the profile of someone who would murder people. This is a woefully inaccurate and unwise statement. There are other ideas I would like to share concerning the inappropriateness this entry, but it I would not want these additional comments to become public.

{{unsigned|Blazer}}

== Question about Religion ==

Hi, I'm an atheist who stumbled upon this website after a friend told me about it. I am a Liberal, and although I disagree with some points you present on this site, one thing I found has truly offended me. In the artible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", the page begins with a graph showing the number of Wikipedia users by religion. It shows a large amount atheists compared to other religions. First of all, I read this as being considered a "problem", and I would like to know why. Secondly, I assume from the "Daily Bible Verse" that an overwhelming amount of Conservapedia users are Christians. Is that better? I assure you I'm not here to stir up a controversy, I'm just puzzled and would like a straight answer. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 19:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps the graph needs more explanation, but (not having put it there myself), I'd say that it's to illustrate the cause of much of the bias, with the number of atheists editing on Wikipedia being quite out of proportion of the number of atheists in society. Yes, a large proportion of Conservapedia users are Christians. This is more in proportion with their representation in society, particularly American society (where most of the editors would be from) and even if this were not so, Conservapedia is explicitly conservative, not neutral, as Wikipedia ''claims'' to be. Furthermore, I would claim that Christianity is the only true religion. People of other religions, including atheism, disagree, of course, but in most cases consider ''their'' religion to be the only correct one, so Christians are not alone in believing their religion to be correct. Atheists often claim that we shouldn't claim to be the correct religion because we can't know for sure, or they are ''all'' subjective, or some similar reasoning, but rarely substantiate this claim, and usually exempt their own beliefs from this statement on the self-serving grounds that atheism is not a religion (if you think that way, please read the [[Religion]] article). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== UKIP ==

The current article on UKIP is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Administrators/sysops might care to check this and take appropriate action [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've reverted it and given the editor a 1-day block. Repeats will be dealt with more severely. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::You don't waste much time - I hadn't even finished writing my first message! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm watching recent changes as I listen to the sport on TV so I spotted the plagiarism before I saw your message. It's always a big giveaway when the text is riddled with red-links and calls to templates that we don't have here. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Grammatical errors ==

Hi,
I just looked up Palestine in Conservapedia and found two errors in the first few lines. Do you have editing and correcting capability? I love the idea of this website to combat the terrible Wikipedia, but to be taken seriously you must have a way to correct grammatical errors and awkward sentences. Otherwise, people won't use the website for reference.
Thanks,
Barb
bhhawley4@gmail.com

:Yes, when you go to most pages there is an "edit" tab at the top. Please correct our grammar and sentence structure if you see something that needs work! It's rare, but we sometimes make mistakes ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism ==

While the left continues to deride just about any effort the right makes to build a solid knowledgebase on the web, I saw in Conservapedia from its earliest days an opportunity to really build a powerhouse of information. In today's age of information warfare (between corporations, nation-states, and political organizations), managing vasts amounts of information has now become key in gaining the upper hand in any dispute.

I confess, I'm merely a small fish among thousands here, so I have no idea what major priorities the admins of this site are currently working on. Does Conservapedia have plans to become a powerful political tool for serious students and leaders within the conservative movement, or is it just a hobby? Think about it: there exists no alternative general conservative knowledgebase out there. Conservapedia is the only major conservative wiki (that I know of) that can fill a great need within the conservative movement. But I'm not sure that we're using this opportunity toward having an immediate impact on the world of politics today.

I say this, because anytime there's a news article or editorial that comes up, I like to look up the political background and information behind people and organizations. And unless the personality is unavoidably famous, my searches on this site turn up nothing. Maybe this is because much of what Conservapedia focuses on are broad issues, categories, scientific and religious doctrine rather than the current big players in today's world?

Consider that this is an election year. In political terms, we are now in a state of war, and the battle is about go nuclear once the Democrats crawl their way out of the mess they're in. But you wouldn't know it when you look at the most recent edits on this site. With so many registered users, why isn't there a concerted effort to dig up and record every detail of each candidate's career and policies? There are literally hundreds of conservative blogs out there recording precious intel that could be of great use to someone looking for a central location to find all that info. But much of the info you see here on [[Obama]], for example, is mostly biographical.

I may be way off base in posting all of this, but I'm wondering, are there any plans like I'm describing already underway, or is this just beyond Conservapeida's priorities at this time? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: We welcome suggestions and criticisms but, frankly, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Your only example is our [[Obama]] entry, which you complain is "mostly biographical." But what else would one expect about a political candidate, particularly one who has no clear beliefs of his own?

: As to the supposedly great conservative blogs, I'm not sure what "precious intel" they are conveying that isn't in our entries. If you're referencing gossip, that's not going to make a difference and we're not going to waste time on it.

: We welcome your contributions, and perhaps in reviewing those we can learn what you have in mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], the kinds of "blogs" I consider to be higher quality are [http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com littlegreenfootballs.com], [http://www.hotair.com hotair.com], and so on. These, I consider to be semi-reliable sources of cutting edge news, and they come out daily with useful information that would be handy in debates about the current Democratic candidates. If we think of an Conservapedia as an ocean of archived knowledge, then such news blogs can be endless fountainstreams of new information. All of us, who have been following the election process closely will easily recall many of the reasons why, for example, Barack Obama would be a terrible president. From the Reverend Wright comments, to his most recent remark about "clinging to guns or religion," to even more recent uncoverings of his promises to abortion lobbyists: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." But a couple of years from now, few of us will remember those important details to pass down to those who come after us.

::You can be sure Obama will continue to paint himself as someone who can "trascend party lines," but everything about the man's ''political'' (as opposed to merely ''biographical'') history paints a very different picture. In short, suppose Conservapedia were developed into an information war machine, where most efforts during the election season would be used to collect the newest and latest information that would be useful for sustaining the conservative movement? I hope I'm making sense. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

: I might be a touch at odds with Aschlafly's aims here, but one problem I have with your (Alexander's) post is that it appears very American-centric. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]], I don't mean to offend your sensibilities by focusing my earlier remarks toward an exclusively American audience. I acknowledge we Yanks have like-minded friends in other countries, but the reason for my message being tailored to U.S. citizens is because ours happens to be the one nation currently embroiled in a very hotly contested election season, where the future of conservative values is at stake. Additionally, one might well accuse this entire web site of being American-centric... just look at the logo! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

I saw up above that it's ok to copy things if you wrote them yourself. What if you didn't write them yourself, but the information is entirely accurate and you give sources? Like Wikipedia's stuff on math is really good and I'd like to work on that (as a place to start!), but if we can't use that stuff, then I'll start from scratch. [[User:OhioChris|OhioChris]] 12:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can use their sources as a starting point, but our copyright clauses are incompatable so you can not actually copy the text itself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Kind of funny ==

This site is kind of funny, and it's rather nicely done to be convincing that it's serious, I especially like the American flag logo thingy, that's hilarious, but it's still somewhat lacking, are there any really amusing articles here? [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:An American flag logo is hilarious? Nevertheless, I'm glad we have brightened up your day. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well ya, in its context, as an ironic symbol of conservatism, also the way it's displayed as Americans tend to do as if it's a symbol of greatness, it's a good parody. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Okay, whatever. Please familiarize yourself with the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] before editing. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, I was hoping those would be funnier, I don't really like uncyclopedia, but this site has the potential to be funnier. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Website search option ==

Hello,
Please move the search box higher on the page, so when you open Conservapedia you can type into the Search box without having to scroll down to find it. I can't imagine why the search box is so low on the page that you have to scroll down.

Also, It's difficult to find a link to contact Conservapedia! Phew! You should make it easier to contact you with questions.

I love Conservapedia and I hope it becomes MUCH bigger than Wikipedia!

Thank you,
Barb
: I agree that it's a problem, and I've looked before into changing it. There appears to be only two ways to do so. One is simply to reduce the size of the menus above it (which means eliminating some entries) and the other (although I'm not certain about this one) is to put it above "master control". In other words, it's not possible to put it between "master control" and "help" or between "help" and "supreme court". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-04-14T19:01:26Z

Alexander: /* A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive2|2]]

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|right|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: Here you go.
::: [[Image:Conservlogo_logo_highres2.png|thumb|350px|left]]

[[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Confused by this message at my talk page ==

"Come back next year, when you're serious about helping write encyclopedia articles."

I didn't think there was restrictions on creating articles.{{unsigned|User:EkulR29}}

:I can't speak for why you were blocked, but the "next year" thing was a joke, I think. You were blocked on December 31st for one day, so "next year" would only be one day later. 15:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: You say it was 31st December, but when I look at his page history, it says that the message was left at 09:02 on 1st January, 2008. Of course, that is according to my time zone settings. What time zone is EkulR29 in? Yes, the message has 17:02 on 31st December on it, but at the very least, that could be "confusing".
:: EkulR29, I suspect that Ed Poor's comment may have been because you have made about 60 edits so far, only four of which were to anything other than this page and your user page. In other words, you seem to be more concerned with telling us about yourself (which is okay in itself) than with actually helping write an encyclopedia.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== How do you? ==

Ask for a change on a protected page? And is there any way to ask for a page to be unprotected? I imagine any vandalism could be fairly quickly reverted on many pages anyway. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:To ask for a change on a protected page, ask on that page's talk page. To ask for a page to be unprotected, it's best to ask the Administrator who protected it. If that is not practicable, ask another Administrator. If you ask on the page's talk page, the first administrator to notice it could unlock it, but it's possible that nobody will notice for a while. If you ask on an Administrator's talk page, that Administrator should notice very quickly if they are on, or as soon as they next log on, but that might take a day or so (assuming they are not on holidays). If you choose to ask more than one administrator on their talk pages, let them know that you have asked others. Of course, in all such cases, your request might be declined. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Editing Help ==

I am having a hard time editing articles. Could you explain me how to go about that process? I'm used to using wikipedia, where they just have an edit button by the text, but here at Conservapedia I can't seem to find the edit button. Please help!
:Same as on this page; third tab from the left at top of article. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Uploading an images or images ==

How do I obtain upload privileges? I want to upload a picture on a page.

Christopher Persaud

You hang around for a long time until you are trusted with them. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Please be more specific. Thanks. {{unsigned|Cperlobo}}

:If you have a specific image you want to be uploaded then please submit it at [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests|image upload request]]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: See [[Conservapedia:User rights|User rights]] (Requesting further rights), which is linked from [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's guide]] which is in the welcome box on your talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Firefox search bar ==

I'm not sure what is involved technically, but I use Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser and regularly use the search bar in the top right for Google and Wikipedia searches. Though this search bar recognizes Conservapedia as a possible search engine, Firefox won't allow me to add it as one. The message
Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/opensearch_desc.php
appears. I don't know if this is the correct place to report technical problems (or if you are already aware of this), but I thought I should report it. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Hampshire2600|Hampshire2600]] 20:10 29 January, 2008 (EST)

== Enlisting College Student Help ==

I'm a member of a campus conservatives organization, and I think Conservapedia could definitely benefit by enlisting the help of college students to improve the quality of articles, as well as expand Conservapedia's contents. I might recommend creating some sort of program to encourage campus conservative groups to have a part in Conservapedia's development? Thanks! [http://www.honor-bound.org Honorbound Conservatives] [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 19:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== "In The News ==

Under "in the news" on the "Main Page" there is this entry:
Liberal denial has begun for NIU killings: "Grad student killer didn't fit the profile," screams the Associated Press.
In fact, the killer did fit the profile of a public school-trained atheistic: dressed in all black, was an above-average student (at age 27!), and obsessed with self-injury.

The above entry implies that all people who have attended public school fit the profile of someone who would murder people. This is a woefully inaccurate and unwise statement. There are other ideas I would like to share concerning the inappropriateness this entry, but it I would not want these additional comments to become public.

{{unsigned|Blazer}}

== Question about Religion ==

Hi, I'm an atheist who stumbled upon this website after a friend told me about it. I am a Liberal, and although I disagree with some points you present on this site, one thing I found has truly offended me. In the artible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", the page begins with a graph showing the number of Wikipedia users by religion. It shows a large amount atheists compared to other religions. First of all, I read this as being considered a "problem", and I would like to know why. Secondly, I assume from the "Daily Bible Verse" that an overwhelming amount of Conservapedia users are Christians. Is that better? I assure you I'm not here to stir up a controversy, I'm just puzzled and would like a straight answer. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 19:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps the graph needs more explanation, but (not having put it there myself), I'd say that it's to illustrate the cause of much of the bias, with the number of atheists editing on Wikipedia being quite out of proportion of the number of atheists in society. Yes, a large proportion of Conservapedia users are Christians. This is more in proportion with their representation in society, particularly American society (where most of the editors would be from) and even if this were not so, Conservapedia is explicitly conservative, not neutral, as Wikipedia ''claims'' to be. Furthermore, I would claim that Christianity is the only true religion. People of other religions, including atheism, disagree, of course, but in most cases consider ''their'' religion to be the only correct one, so Christians are not alone in believing their religion to be correct. Atheists often claim that we shouldn't claim to be the correct religion because we can't know for sure, or they are ''all'' subjective, or some similar reasoning, but rarely substantiate this claim, and usually exempt their own beliefs from this statement on the self-serving grounds that atheism is not a religion (if you think that way, please read the [[Religion]] article). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== UKIP ==

The current article on UKIP is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Administrators/sysops might care to check this and take appropriate action [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've reverted it and given the editor a 1-day block. Repeats will be dealt with more severely. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::You don't waste much time - I hadn't even finished writing my first message! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm watching recent changes as I listen to the sport on TV so I spotted the plagiarism before I saw your message. It's always a big giveaway when the text is riddled with red-links and calls to templates that we don't have here. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Grammatical errors ==

Hi,
I just looked up Palestine in Conservapedia and found two errors in the first few lines. Do you have editing and correcting capability? I love the idea of this website to combat the terrible Wikipedia, but to be taken seriously you must have a way to correct grammatical errors and awkward sentences. Otherwise, people won't use the website for reference.
Thanks,
Barb
bhhawley4@gmail.com

:Yes, when you go to most pages there is an "edit" tab at the top. Please correct our grammar and sentence structure if you see something that needs work! It's rare, but we sometimes make mistakes ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism ==

While the left continues to deride just about any effort the right makes to build a solid knowledgebase on the web, I saw in Conservapedia from its earliest days an opportunity to really build a powerhouse of information. In today's age of information warfare (between corporations, nation-states, and political organizations), managing vasts amounts of information has now become key in gaining the upper hand in any dispute.

I confess, I'm merely a small fish among thousands here, so I have no idea what major priorities the admins of this site are currently working on. Does Conservapedia have plans to become a powerful political tool for serious students and leaders within the conservative movement, or is it just a hobby? Think about it: there exists no alternative general conservative knowledgebase out there. Conservapedia is the only major conservative wiki (that I know of) that can fill a great need within the conservative movement. But I'm not sure that we're using this opportunity toward having an immediate impact on the world of politics today.

I say this, because anytime there's a news article or editorial that comes up, I like to look up the political background and information behind people and organizations. And unless the personality is unavoidably famous, my searches on this site turn up nothing. Maybe this is because much of what Conservapedia focuses on are broad issues, categories, scientific and religious doctrine rather than the current big players in today's world?

Consider that this is an election year. In political terms, we are now in a state of war, and the battle is about go nuclear once the Democrats crawl their way out of the mess they're in. But you wouldn't know it when you look at the most recent edits on this site. With so many registered users, why isn't there a concerted effort to dig up and record every detail of each candidate's career and policies? There are literally hundreds of conservative blogs out there recording precious intel that could be of great use to someone looking for a central location to find all that info. But much of the info you see here on [[Obama]], for example, is mostly biographical.

I may be way off base in posting all of this, but I'm wondering, are there any plans like I'm describing already underway, or is this just beyond Conservapeida's priorities at this time? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: We welcome suggestions and criticisms but, frankly, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Your only example is our [[Obama]] entry, which you complain is "mostly biographical." But what else would one expect about a political candidate, particularly one who has no clear beliefs of his own?

: As to the supposedly great conservative blogs, I'm not sure what "precious intel" they are conveying that isn't in our entries. If you're referencing gossip, that's not going to make a difference and we're not going to waste time on it.

: We welcome your contributions, and perhaps in reviewing those we can learn what you have in mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], the kinds of "blogs" I consider to be higher quality are [http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com littlegreenfootballs.com], [http://www.hotair.com hotair.com], and so on. These, I consider to be semi-reliable sources of cutting edge news, and they come out daily with useful information that would be handy in debates about the current Democratic candidates. If we think of an Conservapedia as an ocean of archived knowledge, then such news blogs can be endless fountainstreams of new information. All of us, who have been following the election process closely will easily recall many of the reasons why, for example, Barack Obama would be a terrible president. From the Reverend Wright comments, to his most recent remark about "clinging to guns or religion," to even more recent uncoverings of his promises to abortion lobbyists: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." But a couple of years from now, few of us will remember those important details to pass down to those who come after us.

::You can be sure Obama will continue to paint himself as someone who can "trascend party lines," but everything about the man's political (vice merely biographical) history paints a very different picture. In short, suppose Conservapedia were developed into an information war machine, where most efforts during the election season would be used to collect any information that would be useful for sustaining the conservative movement? I hope I'm making sense. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

: I might be a touch at odds with Aschlafly's aims here, but one problem I have with your (Alexander's) post is that it appears very American-centric. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]], I don't mean to offend your sensibilities by focusing my earlier remarks toward an exclusively American audience. I acknowledge we Yanks have like-minded friends in other countries, but the reason for my message being tailored to U.S. citizens is because ours happens to be the one nation currently embroiled in a very hotly contested election season, where the future of conservative values is at stake. Additionally, one might well accuse this entire web site of being American-centric... just look at the logo! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

I saw up above that it's ok to copy things if you wrote them yourself. What if you didn't write them yourself, but the information is entirely accurate and you give sources? Like Wikipedia's stuff on math is really good and I'd like to work on that (as a place to start!), but if we can't use that stuff, then I'll start from scratch. [[User:OhioChris|OhioChris]] 12:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can use their sources as a starting point, but our copyright clauses are incompatable so you can not actually copy the text itself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Kind of funny ==

This site is kind of funny, and it's rather nicely done to be convincing that it's serious, I especially like the American flag logo thingy, that's hilarious, but it's still somewhat lacking, are there any really amusing articles here? [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:An American flag logo is hilarious? Nevertheless, I'm glad we have brightened up your day. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well ya, in its context, as an ironic symbol of conservatism, also the way it's displayed as Americans tend to do as if it's a symbol of greatness, it's a good parody. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Okay, whatever. Please familiarize yourself with the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] before editing. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, I was hoping those would be funnier, I don't really like uncyclopedia, but this site has the potential to be funnier. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Website search option ==

Hello,
Please move the search box higher on the page, so when you open Conservapedia you can type into the Search box without having to scroll down to find it. I can't imagine why the search box is so low on the page that you have to scroll down.

Also, It's difficult to find a link to contact Conservapedia! Phew! You should make it easier to contact you with questions.

I love Conservapedia and I hope it becomes MUCH bigger than Wikipedia!

Thank you,
Barb
: I agree that it's a problem, and I've looked before into changing it. There appears to be only two ways to do so. One is simply to reduce the size of the menus above it (which means eliminating some entries) and the other (although I'm not certain about this one) is to put it above "master control". In other words, it's not possible to put it between "master control" and "help" or between "help" and "supreme court". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-04-14T19:00:04Z

Alexander: /* A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive2|2]]

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|right|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: Here you go.
::: [[Image:Conservlogo_logo_highres2.png|thumb|350px|left]]

[[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Confused by this message at my talk page ==

"Come back next year, when you're serious about helping write encyclopedia articles."

I didn't think there was restrictions on creating articles.{{unsigned|User:EkulR29}}

:I can't speak for why you were blocked, but the "next year" thing was a joke, I think. You were blocked on December 31st for one day, so "next year" would only be one day later. 15:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: You say it was 31st December, but when I look at his page history, it says that the message was left at 09:02 on 1st January, 2008. Of course, that is according to my time zone settings. What time zone is EkulR29 in? Yes, the message has 17:02 on 31st December on it, but at the very least, that could be "confusing".
:: EkulR29, I suspect that Ed Poor's comment may have been because you have made about 60 edits so far, only four of which were to anything other than this page and your user page. In other words, you seem to be more concerned with telling us about yourself (which is okay in itself) than with actually helping write an encyclopedia.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== How do you? ==

Ask for a change on a protected page? And is there any way to ask for a page to be unprotected? I imagine any vandalism could be fairly quickly reverted on many pages anyway. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:To ask for a change on a protected page, ask on that page's talk page. To ask for a page to be unprotected, it's best to ask the Administrator who protected it. If that is not practicable, ask another Administrator. If you ask on the page's talk page, the first administrator to notice it could unlock it, but it's possible that nobody will notice for a while. If you ask on an Administrator's talk page, that Administrator should notice very quickly if they are on, or as soon as they next log on, but that might take a day or so (assuming they are not on holidays). If you choose to ask more than one administrator on their talk pages, let them know that you have asked others. Of course, in all such cases, your request might be declined. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Editing Help ==

I am having a hard time editing articles. Could you explain me how to go about that process? I'm used to using wikipedia, where they just have an edit button by the text, but here at Conservapedia I can't seem to find the edit button. Please help!
:Same as on this page; third tab from the left at top of article. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Uploading an images or images ==

How do I obtain upload privileges? I want to upload a picture on a page.

Christopher Persaud

You hang around for a long time until you are trusted with them. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Please be more specific. Thanks. {{unsigned|Cperlobo}}

:If you have a specific image you want to be uploaded then please submit it at [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests|image upload request]]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: See [[Conservapedia:User rights|User rights]] (Requesting further rights), which is linked from [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's guide]] which is in the welcome box on your talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Firefox search bar ==

I'm not sure what is involved technically, but I use Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser and regularly use the search bar in the top right for Google and Wikipedia searches. Though this search bar recognizes Conservapedia as a possible search engine, Firefox won't allow me to add it as one. The message
Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/opensearch_desc.php
appears. I don't know if this is the correct place to report technical problems (or if you are already aware of this), but I thought I should report it. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Hampshire2600|Hampshire2600]] 20:10 29 January, 2008 (EST)

== Enlisting College Student Help ==

I'm a member of a campus conservatives organization, and I think Conservapedia could definitely benefit by enlisting the help of college students to improve the quality of articles, as well as expand Conservapedia's contents. I might recommend creating some sort of program to encourage campus conservative groups to have a part in Conservapedia's development? Thanks! [http://www.honor-bound.org Honorbound Conservatives] [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 19:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== "In The News ==

Under "in the news" on the "Main Page" there is this entry:
Liberal denial has begun for NIU killings: "Grad student killer didn't fit the profile," screams the Associated Press.
In fact, the killer did fit the profile of a public school-trained atheistic: dressed in all black, was an above-average student (at age 27!), and obsessed with self-injury.

The above entry implies that all people who have attended public school fit the profile of someone who would murder people. This is a woefully inaccurate and unwise statement. There are other ideas I would like to share concerning the inappropriateness this entry, but it I would not want these additional comments to become public.

{{unsigned|Blazer}}

== Question about Religion ==

Hi, I'm an atheist who stumbled upon this website after a friend told me about it. I am a Liberal, and although I disagree with some points you present on this site, one thing I found has truly offended me. In the artible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", the page begins with a graph showing the number of Wikipedia users by religion. It shows a large amount atheists compared to other religions. First of all, I read this as being considered a "problem", and I would like to know why. Secondly, I assume from the "Daily Bible Verse" that an overwhelming amount of Conservapedia users are Christians. Is that better? I assure you I'm not here to stir up a controversy, I'm just puzzled and would like a straight answer. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 19:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps the graph needs more explanation, but (not having put it there myself), I'd say that it's to illustrate the cause of much of the bias, with the number of atheists editing on Wikipedia being quite out of proportion of the number of atheists in society. Yes, a large proportion of Conservapedia users are Christians. This is more in proportion with their representation in society, particularly American society (where most of the editors would be from) and even if this were not so, Conservapedia is explicitly conservative, not neutral, as Wikipedia ''claims'' to be. Furthermore, I would claim that Christianity is the only true religion. People of other religions, including atheism, disagree, of course, but in most cases consider ''their'' religion to be the only correct one, so Christians are not alone in believing their religion to be correct. Atheists often claim that we shouldn't claim to be the correct religion because we can't know for sure, or they are ''all'' subjective, or some similar reasoning, but rarely substantiate this claim, and usually exempt their own beliefs from this statement on the self-serving grounds that atheism is not a religion (if you think that way, please read the [[Religion]] article). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== UKIP ==

The current article on UKIP is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Administrators/sysops might care to check this and take appropriate action [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've reverted it and given the editor a 1-day block. Repeats will be dealt with more severely. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::You don't waste much time - I hadn't even finished writing my first message! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm watching recent changes as I listen to the sport on TV so I spotted the plagiarism before I saw your message. It's always a big giveaway when the text is riddled with red-links and calls to templates that we don't have here. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Grammatical errors ==

Hi,
I just looked up Palestine in Conservapedia and found two errors in the first few lines. Do you have editing and correcting capability? I love the idea of this website to combat the terrible Wikipedia, but to be taken seriously you must have a way to correct grammatical errors and awkward sentences. Otherwise, people won't use the website for reference.
Thanks,
Barb
bhhawley4@gmail.com

:Yes, when you go to most pages there is an "edit" tab at the top. Please correct our grammar and sentence structure if you see something that needs work! It's rare, but we sometimes make mistakes ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism ==

While the left continues to deride just about any effort the right makes to build a solid knowledgebase on the web, I saw in Conservapedia from its earliest days an opportunity to really build a powerhouse of information. In today's age of information warfare (between corporations, nation-states, and political organizations), managing vasts amounts of information has now become key in gaining the upper hand in any dispute.

I confess, I'm merely a small fish among thousands here, so I have no idea what major priorities the admins of this site are currently working on. Does Conservapedia have plans to become a powerful political tool for serious students and leaders within the conservative movement, or is it just a hobby? Think about it: there exists no alternative general conservative knowledgebase out there. Conservapedia is the only major conservative wiki (that I know of) that can fill a great need within the conservative movement. But I'm not sure that we're using this opportunity toward having an immediate impact on the world of politics today.

I say this, because anytime there's a news article or editorial that comes up, I like to look up the political background and information behind people and organizations. And unless the personality is unavoidably famous, my searches on this site turn up nothing. Maybe this is because much of what Conservapedia focuses on are broad issues, categories, scientific and religious doctrine rather than the current big players in today's world?

Consider that this is an election year. In political terms, we are now in a state of war, and the battle is about go nuclear once the Democrats crawl their way out of the mess they're in. But you wouldn't know it when you look at the most recent edits on this site. With so many registered users, why isn't there a concerted effort to dig up and record every detail of each candidate's career and policies? There are literally hundreds of conservative blogs out there recording precious intel that could be of great use to someone looking for a central location to find all that info. But much of the info you see here on [[Obama]], for example, is mostly biographical.

I may be way off base in posting all of this, but I'm wondering, are there any plans like I'm describing already underway, or is this just beyond Conservapeida's priorities at this time? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: We welcome suggestions and criticisms but, frankly, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Your only example is our [[Obama]] entry, which you complain is "mostly biographical." But what else would one expect about a political candidate, particularly one who has no clear beliefs of his own?

: As to the supposedly great conservative blogs, I'm not sure what "precious intel" they are conveying that isn't in our entries. If you're referencing gossip, that's not going to make a difference and we're not going to waste time on it.

: We welcome your contributions, and perhaps in reviewing those we can learn what you have in mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], the kinds of "blogs" I consider to be higher quality are [http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com littlegreenfootballs.com], [http://www.hotair.com hotair.com], and so on. These, I consider to be semi-reliable sources of cutting edge news, and they come out daily with useful information that would be handy in debates about the current Democratic candidates. If we think of an Conservapedia as an ocean of archived knowledge, then such news blogs can be endless fountainstreams of new information. All of us, who have been following the election process closely will easily recall many of the reasons why, for example, Barack Obama would be a terrible president. From the Reverend Wright comments, to his most recent remark about "clinging to guns or religion," to even more recent uncoverings of his promises to abortion lobbyists: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." But a couple of years from now, few of us will remember those important details to pass down to those who come after us.

You can be sure Obama will continue to paint himself as someone who can "trascend party lines," but everything about the man's political (vice merely biographical) history paints a very different picture. In short, suppose Conservapedia were developed into an information war machine, where most efforts during the election season would be used to collect any information that would be useful for sustaining the conservative movement? I hope I'm making sense. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

: I might be a touch at odds with Aschlafly's aims here, but one problem I have with your (Alexander's) post is that it appears very American-centric. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]], I don't mean to offend your sensibilities by focusing my earlier remarks toward an exclusively American audience. I acknowledge we Yanks have like-minded friends in other countries, but the reason for my message being tailored to U.S. citizens is because ours happens to be the one nation currently embroiled in a very hotly contested election season, where the future of conservative values is at stake. Additionally, one might well accuse this entire web site of being American-centric... just look at the logo! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

I saw up above that it's ok to copy things if you wrote them yourself. What if you didn't write them yourself, but the information is entirely accurate and you give sources? Like Wikipedia's stuff on math is really good and I'd like to work on that (as a place to start!), but if we can't use that stuff, then I'll start from scratch. [[User:OhioChris|OhioChris]] 12:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can use their sources as a starting point, but our copyright clauses are incompatable so you can not actually copy the text itself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Kind of funny ==

This site is kind of funny, and it's rather nicely done to be convincing that it's serious, I especially like the American flag logo thingy, that's hilarious, but it's still somewhat lacking, are there any really amusing articles here? [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:An American flag logo is hilarious? Nevertheless, I'm glad we have brightened up your day. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well ya, in its context, as an ironic symbol of conservatism, also the way it's displayed as Americans tend to do as if it's a symbol of greatness, it's a good parody. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Okay, whatever. Please familiarize yourself with the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] before editing. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, I was hoping those would be funnier, I don't really like uncyclopedia, but this site has the potential to be funnier. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Website search option ==

Hello,
Please move the search box higher on the page, so when you open Conservapedia you can type into the Search box without having to scroll down to find it. I can't imagine why the search box is so low on the page that you have to scroll down.

Also, It's difficult to find a link to contact Conservapedia! Phew! You should make it easier to contact you with questions.

I love Conservapedia and I hope it becomes MUCH bigger than Wikipedia!

Thank you,
Barb
: I agree that it's a problem, and I've looked before into changing it. There appears to be only two ways to do so. One is simply to reduce the size of the menus above it (which means eliminating some entries) and the other (although I'm not certain about this one) is to put it above "master control". In other words, it's not possible to put it between "master control" and "help" or between "help" and "supreme court". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-04-14T18:58:36Z

Alexander: /* A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive2|2]]

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|right|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: Here you go.
::: [[Image:Conservlogo_logo_highres2.png|thumb|350px|left]]

[[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Confused by this message at my talk page ==

"Come back next year, when you're serious about helping write encyclopedia articles."

I didn't think there was restrictions on creating articles.{{unsigned|User:EkulR29}}

:I can't speak for why you were blocked, but the "next year" thing was a joke, I think. You were blocked on December 31st for one day, so "next year" would only be one day later. 15:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: You say it was 31st December, but when I look at his page history, it says that the message was left at 09:02 on 1st January, 2008. Of course, that is according to my time zone settings. What time zone is EkulR29 in? Yes, the message has 17:02 on 31st December on it, but at the very least, that could be "confusing".
:: EkulR29, I suspect that Ed Poor's comment may have been because you have made about 60 edits so far, only four of which were to anything other than this page and your user page. In other words, you seem to be more concerned with telling us about yourself (which is okay in itself) than with actually helping write an encyclopedia.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== How do you? ==

Ask for a change on a protected page? And is there any way to ask for a page to be unprotected? I imagine any vandalism could be fairly quickly reverted on many pages anyway. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:To ask for a change on a protected page, ask on that page's talk page. To ask for a page to be unprotected, it's best to ask the Administrator who protected it. If that is not practicable, ask another Administrator. If you ask on the page's talk page, the first administrator to notice it could unlock it, but it's possible that nobody will notice for a while. If you ask on an Administrator's talk page, that Administrator should notice very quickly if they are on, or as soon as they next log on, but that might take a day or so (assuming they are not on holidays). If you choose to ask more than one administrator on their talk pages, let them know that you have asked others. Of course, in all such cases, your request might be declined. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Editing Help ==

I am having a hard time editing articles. Could you explain me how to go about that process? I'm used to using wikipedia, where they just have an edit button by the text, but here at Conservapedia I can't seem to find the edit button. Please help!
:Same as on this page; third tab from the left at top of article. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Uploading an images or images ==

How do I obtain upload privileges? I want to upload a picture on a page.

Christopher Persaud

You hang around for a long time until you are trusted with them. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Please be more specific. Thanks. {{unsigned|Cperlobo}}

:If you have a specific image you want to be uploaded then please submit it at [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests|image upload request]]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: See [[Conservapedia:User rights|User rights]] (Requesting further rights), which is linked from [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's guide]] which is in the welcome box on your talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Firefox search bar ==

I'm not sure what is involved technically, but I use Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser and regularly use the search bar in the top right for Google and Wikipedia searches. Though this search bar recognizes Conservapedia as a possible search engine, Firefox won't allow me to add it as one. The message
Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/opensearch_desc.php
appears. I don't know if this is the correct place to report technical problems (or if you are already aware of this), but I thought I should report it. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Hampshire2600|Hampshire2600]] 20:10 29 January, 2008 (EST)

== Enlisting College Student Help ==

I'm a member of a campus conservatives organization, and I think Conservapedia could definitely benefit by enlisting the help of college students to improve the quality of articles, as well as expand Conservapedia's contents. I might recommend creating some sort of program to encourage campus conservative groups to have a part in Conservapedia's development? Thanks! [http://www.honor-bound.org Honorbound Conservatives] [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 19:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== "In The News ==

Under "in the news" on the "Main Page" there is this entry:
Liberal denial has begun for NIU killings: "Grad student killer didn't fit the profile," screams the Associated Press.
In fact, the killer did fit the profile of a public school-trained atheistic: dressed in all black, was an above-average student (at age 27!), and obsessed with self-injury.

The above entry implies that all people who have attended public school fit the profile of someone who would murder people. This is a woefully inaccurate and unwise statement. There are other ideas I would like to share concerning the inappropriateness this entry, but it I would not want these additional comments to become public.

{{unsigned|Blazer}}

== Question about Religion ==

Hi, I'm an atheist who stumbled upon this website after a friend told me about it. I am a Liberal, and although I disagree with some points you present on this site, one thing I found has truly offended me. In the artible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", the page begins with a graph showing the number of Wikipedia users by religion. It shows a large amount atheists compared to other religions. First of all, I read this as being considered a "problem", and I would like to know why. Secondly, I assume from the "Daily Bible Verse" that an overwhelming amount of Conservapedia users are Christians. Is that better? I assure you I'm not here to stir up a controversy, I'm just puzzled and would like a straight answer. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 19:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps the graph needs more explanation, but (not having put it there myself), I'd say that it's to illustrate the cause of much of the bias, with the number of atheists editing on Wikipedia being quite out of proportion of the number of atheists in society. Yes, a large proportion of Conservapedia users are Christians. This is more in proportion with their representation in society, particularly American society (where most of the editors would be from) and even if this were not so, Conservapedia is explicitly conservative, not neutral, as Wikipedia ''claims'' to be. Furthermore, I would claim that Christianity is the only true religion. People of other religions, including atheism, disagree, of course, but in most cases consider ''their'' religion to be the only correct one, so Christians are not alone in believing their religion to be correct. Atheists often claim that we shouldn't claim to be the correct religion because we can't know for sure, or they are ''all'' subjective, or some similar reasoning, but rarely substantiate this claim, and usually exempt their own beliefs from this statement on the self-serving grounds that atheism is not a religion (if you think that way, please read the [[Religion]] article). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== UKIP ==

The current article on UKIP is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Administrators/sysops might care to check this and take appropriate action [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've reverted it and given the editor a 1-day block. Repeats will be dealt with more severely. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::You don't waste much time - I hadn't even finished writing my first message! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm watching recent changes as I listen to the sport on TV so I spotted the plagiarism before I saw your message. It's always a big giveaway when the text is riddled with red-links and calls to templates that we don't have here. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Grammatical errors ==

Hi,
I just looked up Palestine in Conservapedia and found two errors in the first few lines. Do you have editing and correcting capability? I love the idea of this website to combat the terrible Wikipedia, but to be taken seriously you must have a way to correct grammatical errors and awkward sentences. Otherwise, people won't use the website for reference.
Thanks,
Barb
bhhawley4@gmail.com

:Yes, when you go to most pages there is an "edit" tab at the top. Please correct our grammar and sentence structure if you see something that needs work! It's rare, but we sometimes make mistakes ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism ==

While the left continues to deride just about any effort the right makes to build a solid knowledgebase on the web, I saw in Conservapedia from its earliest days an opportunity to really build a powerhouse of information. In today's age of information warfare (between corporations, nation-states, and political organizations), managing vasts amounts of information has now become key in gaining the upper hand in any dispute.

I confess, I'm merely a small fish among thousands here, so I have no idea what major priorities the admins of this site are currently working on. Does Conservapedia have plans to become a powerful political tool for serious students and leaders within the conservative movement, or is it just a hobby? Think about it: there exists no alternative general conservative knowledgebase out there. Conservapedia is the only major conservative wiki (that I know of) that can fill a great need within the conservative movement. But I'm not sure that we're using this opportunity toward having an immediate impact on the world of politics today.

I say this, because anytime there's a news article or editorial that comes up, I like to look up the political background and information behind people and organizations. And unless the personality is unavoidably famous, my searches on this site turn up nothing. Maybe this is because much of what Conservapedia focuses on are broad issues, categories, scientific and religious doctrine rather than the current big players in today's world?

Consider that this is an election year. In political terms, we are now in a state of war, and the battle is about go nuclear once the Democrats crawl their way out of the mess they're in. But you wouldn't know it when you look at the most recent edits on this site. With so many registered users, why isn't there a concerted effort to dig up and record every detail of each candidate's career and policies? There are literally hundreds of conservative blogs out there recording precious intel that could be of great use to someone looking for a central location to find all that info. But much of the info you see here on [[Obama]], for example, is mostly biographical.

I may be way off base in posting all of this, but I'm wondering, are there any plans like I'm describing already underway, or is this just beyond Conservapeida's priorities at this time? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: We welcome suggestions and criticisms but, frankly, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Your only example is our [[Obama]] entry, which you complain is "mostly biographical." But what else would one expect about a political candidate, particularly one who has no clear beliefs of his own?

: As to the supposedly great conservative blogs, I'm not sure what "precious intel" they are conveying that isn't in our entries. If you're referencing gossip, that's not going to make a difference and we're not going to waste time on it.

: We welcome your contributions, and perhaps in reviewing those we can learn what you have in mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], the kinds of "blogs" I consider to be higher quality are [http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com littlegreenfootballs.com], [http://www.hotair.com hotair.com], and so on. These, I consider to be semi-reliable sources of cutting edge news, and they come out daily with useful information that would be handy in debates about the current Democratic candidates. If we think of an Conservapedia as an ocean of archived knowledge, then such news blogs can be endless sources of information. All of us, who have been following the election process closely will easily recall many of the reasons why, for example, Barack Obama would be a terrible president. From the Reverend Wright comments, to his most recent remark about "clinging to guns or religion," to even more recent uncoverings of his promises to abortion lobbyists: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

You can be sure Obama will continue to paint himself as someone who can "trascend party lines," but everything about the man's political (vice merely biographical) history paints a very different picture. In short, suppose Conservapedia were developed into an information war machine, where most efforts during the election season would be used to collect any information that would be useful for sustaining the conservative movement? I hope I'm making sense. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

: I might be a touch at odds with Aschlafly's aims here, but one problem I have with your (Alexander's) post is that it appears very American-centric. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]], I don't mean to offend your sensibilities by focusing my earlier remarks toward an exclusively American audience. I acknowledge we Yanks have like-minded friends in other countries, but the reason for my message being tailored to U.S. citizens is because ours happens to be the one nation currently embroiled in a very hotly contested election season, where the future of conservative values is at stake. Additionally, one might well accuse this entire web site of being American-centric... just look at the logo! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

I saw up above that it's ok to copy things if you wrote them yourself. What if you didn't write them yourself, but the information is entirely accurate and you give sources? Like Wikipedia's stuff on math is really good and I'd like to work on that (as a place to start!), but if we can't use that stuff, then I'll start from scratch. [[User:OhioChris|OhioChris]] 12:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can use their sources as a starting point, but our copyright clauses are incompatable so you can not actually copy the text itself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Kind of funny ==

This site is kind of funny, and it's rather nicely done to be convincing that it's serious, I especially like the American flag logo thingy, that's hilarious, but it's still somewhat lacking, are there any really amusing articles here? [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:An American flag logo is hilarious? Nevertheless, I'm glad we have brightened up your day. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well ya, in its context, as an ironic symbol of conservatism, also the way it's displayed as Americans tend to do as if it's a symbol of greatness, it's a good parody. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Okay, whatever. Please familiarize yourself with the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] before editing. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, I was hoping those would be funnier, I don't really like uncyclopedia, but this site has the potential to be funnier. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Website search option ==

Hello,
Please move the search box higher on the page, so when you open Conservapedia you can type into the Search box without having to scroll down to find it. I can't imagine why the search box is so low on the page that you have to scroll down.

Also, It's difficult to find a link to contact Conservapedia! Phew! You should make it easier to contact you with questions.

I love Conservapedia and I hope it becomes MUCH bigger than Wikipedia!

Thank you,
Barb
: I agree that it's a problem, and I've looked before into changing it. There appears to be only two ways to do so. One is simply to reduce the size of the menus above it (which means eliminating some entries) and the other (although I'm not certain about this one) is to put it above "master control". In other words, it's not possible to put it between "master control" and "help" or between "help" and "supreme court". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-04-14T18:57:52Z

Alexander: /* A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive2|2]]

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|right|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: Here you go.
::: [[Image:Conservlogo_logo_highres2.png|thumb|350px|left]]

[[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Confused by this message at my talk page ==

"Come back next year, when you're serious about helping write encyclopedia articles."

I didn't think there was restrictions on creating articles.{{unsigned|User:EkulR29}}

:I can't speak for why you were blocked, but the "next year" thing was a joke, I think. You were blocked on December 31st for one day, so "next year" would only be one day later. 15:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: You say it was 31st December, but when I look at his page history, it says that the message was left at 09:02 on 1st January, 2008. Of course, that is according to my time zone settings. What time zone is EkulR29 in? Yes, the message has 17:02 on 31st December on it, but at the very least, that could be "confusing".
:: EkulR29, I suspect that Ed Poor's comment may have been because you have made about 60 edits so far, only four of which were to anything other than this page and your user page. In other words, you seem to be more concerned with telling us about yourself (which is okay in itself) than with actually helping write an encyclopedia.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== How do you? ==

Ask for a change on a protected page? And is there any way to ask for a page to be unprotected? I imagine any vandalism could be fairly quickly reverted on many pages anyway. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:To ask for a change on a protected page, ask on that page's talk page. To ask for a page to be unprotected, it's best to ask the Administrator who protected it. If that is not practicable, ask another Administrator. If you ask on the page's talk page, the first administrator to notice it could unlock it, but it's possible that nobody will notice for a while. If you ask on an Administrator's talk page, that Administrator should notice very quickly if they are on, or as soon as they next log on, but that might take a day or so (assuming they are not on holidays). If you choose to ask more than one administrator on their talk pages, let them know that you have asked others. Of course, in all such cases, your request might be declined. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Editing Help ==

I am having a hard time editing articles. Could you explain me how to go about that process? I'm used to using wikipedia, where they just have an edit button by the text, but here at Conservapedia I can't seem to find the edit button. Please help!
:Same as on this page; third tab from the left at top of article. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Uploading an images or images ==

How do I obtain upload privileges? I want to upload a picture on a page.

Christopher Persaud

You hang around for a long time until you are trusted with them. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Please be more specific. Thanks. {{unsigned|Cperlobo}}

:If you have a specific image you want to be uploaded then please submit it at [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests|image upload request]]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: See [[Conservapedia:User rights|User rights]] (Requesting further rights), which is linked from [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's guide]] which is in the welcome box on your talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Firefox search bar ==

I'm not sure what is involved technically, but I use Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser and regularly use the search bar in the top right for Google and Wikipedia searches. Though this search bar recognizes Conservapedia as a possible search engine, Firefox won't allow me to add it as one. The message
Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/opensearch_desc.php
appears. I don't know if this is the correct place to report technical problems (or if you are already aware of this), but I thought I should report it. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Hampshire2600|Hampshire2600]] 20:10 29 January, 2008 (EST)

== Enlisting College Student Help ==

I'm a member of a campus conservatives organization, and I think Conservapedia could definitely benefit by enlisting the help of college students to improve the quality of articles, as well as expand Conservapedia's contents. I might recommend creating some sort of program to encourage campus conservative groups to have a part in Conservapedia's development? Thanks! [http://www.honor-bound.org Honorbound Conservatives] [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 19:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== "In The News ==

Under "in the news" on the "Main Page" there is this entry:
Liberal denial has begun for NIU killings: "Grad student killer didn't fit the profile," screams the Associated Press.
In fact, the killer did fit the profile of a public school-trained atheistic: dressed in all black, was an above-average student (at age 27!), and obsessed with self-injury.

The above entry implies that all people who have attended public school fit the profile of someone who would murder people. This is a woefully inaccurate and unwise statement. There are other ideas I would like to share concerning the inappropriateness this entry, but it I would not want these additional comments to become public.

{{unsigned|Blazer}}

== Question about Religion ==

Hi, I'm an atheist who stumbled upon this website after a friend told me about it. I am a Liberal, and although I disagree with some points you present on this site, one thing I found has truly offended me. In the artible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", the page begins with a graph showing the number of Wikipedia users by religion. It shows a large amount atheists compared to other religions. First of all, I read this as being considered a "problem", and I would like to know why. Secondly, I assume from the "Daily Bible Verse" that an overwhelming amount of Conservapedia users are Christians. Is that better? I assure you I'm not here to stir up a controversy, I'm just puzzled and would like a straight answer. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 19:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps the graph needs more explanation, but (not having put it there myself), I'd say that it's to illustrate the cause of much of the bias, with the number of atheists editing on Wikipedia being quite out of proportion of the number of atheists in society. Yes, a large proportion of Conservapedia users are Christians. This is more in proportion with their representation in society, particularly American society (where most of the editors would be from) and even if this were not so, Conservapedia is explicitly conservative, not neutral, as Wikipedia ''claims'' to be. Furthermore, I would claim that Christianity is the only true religion. People of other religions, including atheism, disagree, of course, but in most cases consider ''their'' religion to be the only correct one, so Christians are not alone in believing their religion to be correct. Atheists often claim that we shouldn't claim to be the correct religion because we can't know for sure, or they are ''all'' subjective, or some similar reasoning, but rarely substantiate this claim, and usually exempt their own beliefs from this statement on the self-serving grounds that atheism is not a religion (if you think that way, please read the [[Religion]] article). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== UKIP ==

The current article on UKIP is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Administrators/sysops might care to check this and take appropriate action [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've reverted it and given the editor a 1-day block. Repeats will be dealt with more severely. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::You don't waste much time - I hadn't even finished writing my first message! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm watching recent changes as I listen to the sport on TV so I spotted the plagiarism before I saw your message. It's always a big giveaway when the text is riddled with red-links and calls to templates that we don't have here. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Grammatical errors ==

Hi,
I just looked up Palestine in Conservapedia and found two errors in the first few lines. Do you have editing and correcting capability? I love the idea of this website to combat the terrible Wikipedia, but to be taken seriously you must have a way to correct grammatical errors and awkward sentences. Otherwise, people won't use the website for reference.
Thanks,
Barb
bhhawley4@gmail.com

:Yes, when you go to most pages there is an "edit" tab at the top. Please correct our grammar and sentence structure if you see something that needs work! It's rare, but we sometimes make mistakes ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism ==

While the left continues to deride just about any effort the right makes to build a solid knowledgebase on the web, I saw in Conservapedia from its earliest days an opportunity to really build a powerhouse of information. In today's age of information warfare (between corporations, nation-states, and political organizations), managing vasts amounts of information has now become key in gaining the upper hand in any dispute.

I confess, I'm merely a small fish among thousands here, so I have no idea what major priorities the admins of this site are currently working on. Does Conservapedia have plans to become a powerful political tool for serious students and leaders within the conservative movement, or is it just a hobby? Think about it: there exists no alternative general conservative knowledgebase out there. Conservapedia is the only major conservative wiki (that I know of) that can fill a great need within the conservative movement. But I'm not sure that we're using this opportunity toward having an immediate impact on the world of politics today.

I say this, because anytime there's a news article or editorial that comes up, I like to look up the political background and information behind people and organizations. And unless the personality is unavoidably famous, my searches on this site turn up nothing. Maybe this is because much of what Conservapedia focuses on are broad issues, categories, scientific and religious doctrine rather than the current big players in today's world?

Consider that this is an election year. In political terms, we are now in a state of war, and the battle is about go nuclear once the Democrats crawl their way out of the mess they're in. But you wouldn't know it when you look at the most recent edits on this site. With so many registered users, why isn't there a concerted effort to dig up and record every detail of each candidate's career and policies? There are literally hundreds of conservative blogs out there recording precious intel that could be of great use to someone looking for a central location to find all that info. But much of the info you see here on [[Obama]], for example, is mostly biographical.

I may be way off base in posting all of this, but I'm wondering, are there any plans like I'm describing already underway, or is this just beyond Conservapeida's priorities at this time? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: We welcome suggestions and criticisms but, frankly, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Your only example is our [[Obama]] entry, which you complain is "mostly biographical." But what else would one expect about a political candidate, particularly one who has no clear beliefs of his own?

: As to the supposedly great conservative blogs, I'm not sure what "precious intel" they are conveying that isn't in our entries. If you're referencing gossip, that's not going to make a difference and we're not going to waste time on it.

: We welcome your contributions, and perhaps in reviewing those we can learn what you have in mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], the kinds of "blogs" I consider to be higher quality are [http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com], [http://www.hotair.com], and so on. These, I consider to be semi-reliable sources of cutting edge news, and they come out daily with useful information that would be handy in debates about the current Democratic candidates. If we think of an Conservapedia as an ocean of archived knowledge, then such news blogs can be endless sources of information. All of us, who have been following the election process closely will easily recall many of the reasons why, for example, Barack Obama would be a terrible president. From the Reverend Wright comments, to his most recent remark about "clinging to guns or religion," to even more recent uncoverings of his promises to abortion lobbyists: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

You can be sure Obama will continue to paint himself as someone who can "trascend party lines," but everything about the man's political (vice merely biographical) history paints a very different picture. In short, suppose Conservapedia were developed into an information war machine, where most efforts during the election season would be used to collect any information that would be useful for sustaining the conservative movement? I hope I'm making sense. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

: I might be a touch at odds with Aschlafly's aims here, but one problem I have with your (Alexander's) post is that it appears very American-centric. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]], I don't mean to offend your sensibilities by focusing my earlier remarks toward an exclusively American audience. I acknowledge we Yanks have like-minded friends in other countries, but the reason for my message being tailored to U.S. citizens is because ours happens to be the one nation currently embroiled in a very hotly contested election season, where the future of conservative values is at stake. Additionally, one might well accuse this entire web site of being American-centric... just look at the logo! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

I saw up above that it's ok to copy things if you wrote them yourself. What if you didn't write them yourself, but the information is entirely accurate and you give sources? Like Wikipedia's stuff on math is really good and I'd like to work on that (as a place to start!), but if we can't use that stuff, then I'll start from scratch. [[User:OhioChris|OhioChris]] 12:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can use their sources as a starting point, but our copyright clauses are incompatable so you can not actually copy the text itself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Kind of funny ==

This site is kind of funny, and it's rather nicely done to be convincing that it's serious, I especially like the American flag logo thingy, that's hilarious, but it's still somewhat lacking, are there any really amusing articles here? [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:An American flag logo is hilarious? Nevertheless, I'm glad we have brightened up your day. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well ya, in its context, as an ironic symbol of conservatism, also the way it's displayed as Americans tend to do as if it's a symbol of greatness, it's a good parody. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Okay, whatever. Please familiarize yourself with the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] before editing. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, I was hoping those would be funnier, I don't really like uncyclopedia, but this site has the potential to be funnier. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Website search option ==

Hello,
Please move the search box higher on the page, so when you open Conservapedia you can type into the Search box without having to scroll down to find it. I can't imagine why the search box is so low on the page that you have to scroll down.

Also, It's difficult to find a link to contact Conservapedia! Phew! You should make it easier to contact you with questions.

I love Conservapedia and I hope it becomes MUCH bigger than Wikipedia!

Thank you,
Barb
: I agree that it's a problem, and I've looked before into changing it. There appears to be only two ways to do so. One is simply to reduce the size of the menus above it (which means eliminating some entries) and the other (although I'm not certain about this one) is to put it above "master control". In other words, it's not possible to put it between "master control" and "help" or between "help" and "supreme court". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-04-14T18:56:00Z

Alexander: Nevermind. :P

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive2|2]]

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|right|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: Here you go.
::: [[Image:Conservlogo_logo_highres2.png|thumb|350px|left]]

[[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Confused by this message at my talk page ==

"Come back next year, when you're serious about helping write encyclopedia articles."

I didn't think there was restrictions on creating articles.{{unsigned|User:EkulR29}}

:I can't speak for why you were blocked, but the "next year" thing was a joke, I think. You were blocked on December 31st for one day, so "next year" would only be one day later. 15:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: You say it was 31st December, but when I look at his page history, it says that the message was left at 09:02 on 1st January, 2008. Of course, that is according to my time zone settings. What time zone is EkulR29 in? Yes, the message has 17:02 on 31st December on it, but at the very least, that could be "confusing".
:: EkulR29, I suspect that Ed Poor's comment may have been because you have made about 60 edits so far, only four of which were to anything other than this page and your user page. In other words, you seem to be more concerned with telling us about yourself (which is okay in itself) than with actually helping write an encyclopedia.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== How do you? ==

Ask for a change on a protected page? And is there any way to ask for a page to be unprotected? I imagine any vandalism could be fairly quickly reverted on many pages anyway. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:To ask for a change on a protected page, ask on that page's talk page. To ask for a page to be unprotected, it's best to ask the Administrator who protected it. If that is not practicable, ask another Administrator. If you ask on the page's talk page, the first administrator to notice it could unlock it, but it's possible that nobody will notice for a while. If you ask on an Administrator's talk page, that Administrator should notice very quickly if they are on, or as soon as they next log on, but that might take a day or so (assuming they are not on holidays). If you choose to ask more than one administrator on their talk pages, let them know that you have asked others. Of course, in all such cases, your request might be declined. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Editing Help ==

I am having a hard time editing articles. Could you explain me how to go about that process? I'm used to using wikipedia, where they just have an edit button by the text, but here at Conservapedia I can't seem to find the edit button. Please help!
:Same as on this page; third tab from the left at top of article. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Uploading an images or images ==

How do I obtain upload privileges? I want to upload a picture on a page.

Christopher Persaud

You hang around for a long time until you are trusted with them. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Please be more specific. Thanks. {{unsigned|Cperlobo}}

:If you have a specific image you want to be uploaded then please submit it at [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests|image upload request]]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: See [[Conservapedia:User rights|User rights]] (Requesting further rights), which is linked from [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's guide]] which is in the welcome box on your talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Firefox search bar ==

I'm not sure what is involved technically, but I use Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser and regularly use the search bar in the top right for Google and Wikipedia searches. Though this search bar recognizes Conservapedia as a possible search engine, Firefox won't allow me to add it as one. The message
Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/opensearch_desc.php
appears. I don't know if this is the correct place to report technical problems (or if you are already aware of this), but I thought I should report it. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Hampshire2600|Hampshire2600]] 20:10 29 January, 2008 (EST)

== Enlisting College Student Help ==

I'm a member of a campus conservatives organization, and I think Conservapedia could definitely benefit by enlisting the help of college students to improve the quality of articles, as well as expand Conservapedia's contents. I might recommend creating some sort of program to encourage campus conservative groups to have a part in Conservapedia's development? Thanks! [http://www.honor-bound.org Honorbound Conservatives] [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 19:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== "In The News ==

Under "in the news" on the "Main Page" there is this entry:
Liberal denial has begun for NIU killings: "Grad student killer didn't fit the profile," screams the Associated Press.
In fact, the killer did fit the profile of a public school-trained atheistic: dressed in all black, was an above-average student (at age 27!), and obsessed with self-injury.

The above entry implies that all people who have attended public school fit the profile of someone who would murder people. This is a woefully inaccurate and unwise statement. There are other ideas I would like to share concerning the inappropriateness this entry, but it I would not want these additional comments to become public.

{{unsigned|Blazer}}

== Question about Religion ==

Hi, I'm an atheist who stumbled upon this website after a friend told me about it. I am a Liberal, and although I disagree with some points you present on this site, one thing I found has truly offended me. In the artible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", the page begins with a graph showing the number of Wikipedia users by religion. It shows a large amount atheists compared to other religions. First of all, I read this as being considered a "problem", and I would like to know why. Secondly, I assume from the "Daily Bible Verse" that an overwhelming amount of Conservapedia users are Christians. Is that better? I assure you I'm not here to stir up a controversy, I'm just puzzled and would like a straight answer. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 19:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps the graph needs more explanation, but (not having put it there myself), I'd say that it's to illustrate the cause of much of the bias, with the number of atheists editing on Wikipedia being quite out of proportion of the number of atheists in society. Yes, a large proportion of Conservapedia users are Christians. This is more in proportion with their representation in society, particularly American society (where most of the editors would be from) and even if this were not so, Conservapedia is explicitly conservative, not neutral, as Wikipedia ''claims'' to be. Furthermore, I would claim that Christianity is the only true religion. People of other religions, including atheism, disagree, of course, but in most cases consider ''their'' religion to be the only correct one, so Christians are not alone in believing their religion to be correct. Atheists often claim that we shouldn't claim to be the correct religion because we can't know for sure, or they are ''all'' subjective, or some similar reasoning, but rarely substantiate this claim, and usually exempt their own beliefs from this statement on the self-serving grounds that atheism is not a religion (if you think that way, please read the [[Religion]] article). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== UKIP ==

The current article on UKIP is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Administrators/sysops might care to check this and take appropriate action [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've reverted it and given the editor a 1-day block. Repeats will be dealt with more severely. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::You don't waste much time - I hadn't even finished writing my first message! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm watching recent changes as I listen to the sport on TV so I spotted the plagiarism before I saw your message. It's always a big giveaway when the text is riddled with red-links and calls to templates that we don't have here. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Grammatical errors ==

Hi,
I just looked up Palestine in Conservapedia and found two errors in the first few lines. Do you have editing and correcting capability? I love the idea of this website to combat the terrible Wikipedia, but to be taken seriously you must have a way to correct grammatical errors and awkward sentences. Otherwise, people won't use the website for reference.
Thanks,
Barb
bhhawley4@gmail.com

:Yes, when you go to most pages there is an "edit" tab at the top. Please correct our grammar and sentence structure if you see something that needs work! It's rare, but we sometimes make mistakes ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism ==

While the left continues to deride just about any effort the right makes to build a solid knowledgebase on the web, I saw in Conservapedia from its earliest days an opportunity to really build a powerhouse of information. In today's age of information warfare (between corporations, nation-states, and political organizations), managing vasts amounts of information has now become key in gaining the upper hand in any dispute.

I confess, I'm merely a small fish among thousands here, so I have no idea what major priorities the admins of this site are currently working on. Does Conservapedia have plans to become a powerful political tool for serious students and leaders within the conservative movement, or is it just a hobby? Think about it: there exists no alternative general conservative knowledgebase out there. Conservapedia is the only major conservative wiki (that I know of) that can fill a great need within the conservative movement. But I'm not sure that we're using this opportunity toward having an immediate impact on the world of politics today.

I say this, because anytime there's a news article or editorial that comes up, I like to look up the political background and information behind people and organizations. And unless the personality is unavoidably famous, my searches on this site turn up nothing. Maybe this is because much of what Conservapedia focuses on are broad issues, categories, scientific and religious doctrine rather than the current big players in today's world?

Consider that this is an election year. In political terms, we are now in a state of war, and the battle is about go nuclear once the Democrats crawl their way out of the mess they're in. But you wouldn't know it when you look at the most recent edits on this site. With so many registered users, why isn't there a concerted effort to dig up and record every detail of each candidate's career and policies? There are literally hundreds of conservative blogs out there recording precious intel that could be of great use to someone looking for a central location to find all that info. But much of the info you see here on [[Obama]], for example, is mostly biographical.

I may be way off base in posting all of this, but I'm wondering, are there any plans like I'm describing already underway, or is this just beyond Conservapeida's priorities at this time? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: We welcome suggestions and criticisms but, frankly, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Your only example is our [[Obama]] entry, which you complain is "mostly biographical." But what else would one expect about a political candidate, particularly one who has no clear beliefs of his own?

: As to the supposedly great conservative blogs, I'm not sure what "precious intel" they are conveying that isn't in our entries. If you're referencing gossip, that's not going to make a difference and we're not going to waste time on it.

: We welcome your contributions, and perhaps in reviewing those we can learn what you have in mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: I might be a touch at odds with Aschlafly's aims here, but one problem I have with your (Alexander's) post is that it appears very American-centric. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

I saw up above that it's ok to copy things if you wrote them yourself. What if you didn't write them yourself, but the information is entirely accurate and you give sources? Like Wikipedia's stuff on math is really good and I'd like to work on that (as a place to start!), but if we can't use that stuff, then I'll start from scratch. [[User:OhioChris|OhioChris]] 12:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can use their sources as a starting point, but our copyright clauses are incompatable so you can not actually copy the text itself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Kind of funny ==

This site is kind of funny, and it's rather nicely done to be convincing that it's serious, I especially like the American flag logo thingy, that's hilarious, but it's still somewhat lacking, are there any really amusing articles here? [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:An American flag logo is hilarious? Nevertheless, I'm glad we have brightened up your day. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well ya, in its context, as an ironic symbol of conservatism, also the way it's displayed as Americans tend to do as if it's a symbol of greatness, it's a good parody. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Okay, whatever. Please familiarize yourself with the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] before editing. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, I was hoping those would be funnier, I don't really like uncyclopedia, but this site has the potential to be funnier. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Website search option ==

Hello,
Please move the search box higher on the page, so when you open Conservapedia you can type into the Search box without having to scroll down to find it. I can't imagine why the search box is so low on the page that you have to scroll down.

Also, It's difficult to find a link to contact Conservapedia! Phew! You should make it easier to contact you with questions.

I love Conservapedia and I hope it becomes MUCH bigger than Wikipedia!

Thank you,
Barb
: I agree that it's a problem, and I've looked before into changing it. There appears to be only two ways to do so. One is simply to reduce the size of the menus above it (which means eliminating some entries) and the other (although I'm not certain about this one) is to put it above "master control". In other words, it's not possible to put it between "master control" and "help" or between "help" and "supreme court". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-04-14T18:55:28Z

Alexander: A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism (Part II)

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive2|2]]

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|right|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: Here you go.
::: [[Image:Conservlogo_logo_highres2.png|thumb|350px|left]]

[[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Confused by this message at my talk page ==

"Come back next year, when you're serious about helping write encyclopedia articles."

I didn't think there was restrictions on creating articles.{{unsigned|User:EkulR29}}

:I can't speak for why you were blocked, but the "next year" thing was a joke, I think. You were blocked on December 31st for one day, so "next year" would only be one day later. 15:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: You say it was 31st December, but when I look at his page history, it says that the message was left at 09:02 on 1st January, 2008. Of course, that is according to my time zone settings. What time zone is EkulR29 in? Yes, the message has 17:02 on 31st December on it, but at the very least, that could be "confusing".
:: EkulR29, I suspect that Ed Poor's comment may have been because you have made about 60 edits so far, only four of which were to anything other than this page and your user page. In other words, you seem to be more concerned with telling us about yourself (which is okay in itself) than with actually helping write an encyclopedia.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== How do you? ==

Ask for a change on a protected page? And is there any way to ask for a page to be unprotected? I imagine any vandalism could be fairly quickly reverted on many pages anyway. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:To ask for a change on a protected page, ask on that page's talk page. To ask for a page to be unprotected, it's best to ask the Administrator who protected it. If that is not practicable, ask another Administrator. If you ask on the page's talk page, the first administrator to notice it could unlock it, but it's possible that nobody will notice for a while. If you ask on an Administrator's talk page, that Administrator should notice very quickly if they are on, or as soon as they next log on, but that might take a day or so (assuming they are not on holidays). If you choose to ask more than one administrator on their talk pages, let them know that you have asked others. Of course, in all such cases, your request might be declined. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Editing Help ==

I am having a hard time editing articles. Could you explain me how to go about that process? I'm used to using wikipedia, where they just have an edit button by the text, but here at Conservapedia I can't seem to find the edit button. Please help!
:Same as on this page; third tab from the left at top of article. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Uploading an images or images ==

How do I obtain upload privileges? I want to upload a picture on a page.

Christopher Persaud

You hang around for a long time until you are trusted with them. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Please be more specific. Thanks. {{unsigned|Cperlobo}}

:If you have a specific image you want to be uploaded then please submit it at [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests|image upload request]]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: See [[Conservapedia:User rights|User rights]] (Requesting further rights), which is linked from [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's guide]] which is in the welcome box on your talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Firefox search bar ==

I'm not sure what is involved technically, but I use Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser and regularly use the search bar in the top right for Google and Wikipedia searches. Though this search bar recognizes Conservapedia as a possible search engine, Firefox won't allow me to add it as one. The message
Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/opensearch_desc.php
appears. I don't know if this is the correct place to report technical problems (or if you are already aware of this), but I thought I should report it. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Hampshire2600|Hampshire2600]] 20:10 29 January, 2008 (EST)

== Enlisting College Student Help ==

I'm a member of a campus conservatives organization, and I think Conservapedia could definitely benefit by enlisting the help of college students to improve the quality of articles, as well as expand Conservapedia's contents. I might recommend creating some sort of program to encourage campus conservative groups to have a part in Conservapedia's development? Thanks! [http://www.honor-bound.org Honorbound Conservatives] [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 19:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== "In The News ==

Under "in the news" on the "Main Page" there is this entry:
Liberal denial has begun for NIU killings: "Grad student killer didn't fit the profile," screams the Associated Press.
In fact, the killer did fit the profile of a public school-trained atheistic: dressed in all black, was an above-average student (at age 27!), and obsessed with self-injury.

The above entry implies that all people who have attended public school fit the profile of someone who would murder people. This is a woefully inaccurate and unwise statement. There are other ideas I would like to share concerning the inappropriateness this entry, but it I would not want these additional comments to become public.

{{unsigned|Blazer}}

== Question about Religion ==

Hi, I'm an atheist who stumbled upon this website after a friend told me about it. I am a Liberal, and although I disagree with some points you present on this site, one thing I found has truly offended me. In the artible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", the page begins with a graph showing the number of Wikipedia users by religion. It shows a large amount atheists compared to other religions. First of all, I read this as being considered a "problem", and I would like to know why. Secondly, I assume from the "Daily Bible Verse" that an overwhelming amount of Conservapedia users are Christians. Is that better? I assure you I'm not here to stir up a controversy, I'm just puzzled and would like a straight answer. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 19:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps the graph needs more explanation, but (not having put it there myself), I'd say that it's to illustrate the cause of much of the bias, with the number of atheists editing on Wikipedia being quite out of proportion of the number of atheists in society. Yes, a large proportion of Conservapedia users are Christians. This is more in proportion with their representation in society, particularly American society (where most of the editors would be from) and even if this were not so, Conservapedia is explicitly conservative, not neutral, as Wikipedia ''claims'' to be. Furthermore, I would claim that Christianity is the only true religion. People of other religions, including atheism, disagree, of course, but in most cases consider ''their'' religion to be the only correct one, so Christians are not alone in believing their religion to be correct. Atheists often claim that we shouldn't claim to be the correct religion because we can't know for sure, or they are ''all'' subjective, or some similar reasoning, but rarely substantiate this claim, and usually exempt their own beliefs from this statement on the self-serving grounds that atheism is not a religion (if you think that way, please read the [[Religion]] article). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== UKIP ==

The current article on UKIP is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Administrators/sysops might care to check this and take appropriate action [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've reverted it and given the editor a 1-day block. Repeats will be dealt with more severely. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::You don't waste much time - I hadn't even finished writing my first message! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm watching recent changes as I listen to the sport on TV so I spotted the plagiarism before I saw your message. It's always a big giveaway when the text is riddled with red-links and calls to templates that we don't have here. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Grammatical errors ==

Hi,
I just looked up Palestine in Conservapedia and found two errors in the first few lines. Do you have editing and correcting capability? I love the idea of this website to combat the terrible Wikipedia, but to be taken seriously you must have a way to correct grammatical errors and awkward sentences. Otherwise, people won't use the website for reference.
Thanks,
Barb
bhhawley4@gmail.com

:Yes, when you go to most pages there is an "edit" tab at the top. Please correct our grammar and sentence structure if you see something that needs work! It's rare, but we sometimes make mistakes ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism ==

While the left continues to deride just about any effort the right makes to build a solid knowledgebase on the web, I saw in Conservapedia from its earliest days an opportunity to really build a powerhouse of information. In today's age of information warfare (between corporations, nation-states, and political organizations), managing vasts amounts of information has now become key in gaining the upper hand in any dispute.

I confess, I'm merely a small fish among thousands here, so I have no idea what major priorities the admins of this site are currently working on. Does Conservapedia have plans to become a powerful political tool for serious students and leaders within the conservative movement, or is it just a hobby? Think about it: there exists no alternative general conservative knowledgebase out there. Conservapedia is the only major conservative wiki (that I know of) that can fill a great need within the conservative movement. But I'm not sure that we're using this opportunity toward having an immediate impact on the world of politics today.

I say this, because anytime there's a news article or editorial that comes up, I like to look up the political background and information behind people and organizations. And unless the personality is unavoidably famous, my searches on this site turn up nothing. Maybe this is because much of what Conservapedia focuses on are broad issues, categories, scientific and religious doctrine rather than the current big players in today's world?

Consider that this is an election year. In political terms, we are now in a state of war, and the battle is about go nuclear once the Democrats crawl their way out of the mess they're in. But you wouldn't know it when you look at the most recent edits on this site. With so many registered users, why isn't there a concerted effort to dig up and record every detail of each candidate's career and policies? There are literally hundreds of conservative blogs out there recording precious intel that could be of great use to someone looking for a central location to find all that info. But much of the info you see here on [[Obama]], for example, is mostly biographical.

I may be way off base in posting all of this, but I'm wondering, are there any plans like I'm describing already underway, or is this just beyond Conservapeida's priorities at this time? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: We welcome suggestions and criticisms but, frankly, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Your only example is our [[Obama]] entry, which you complain is "mostly biographical." But what else would one expect about a political candidate, particularly one who has no clear beliefs of his own?

: As to the supposedly great conservative blogs, I'm not sure what "precious intel" they are conveying that isn't in our entries. If you're referencing gossip, that's not going to make a difference and we're not going to waste time on it.

: We welcome your contributions, and perhaps in reviewing those we can learn what you have in mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: I might be a touch at odds with Aschlafly's aims here, but one problem I have with your (Alexander's) post is that it appears very American-centric. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

I saw up above that it's ok to copy things if you wrote them yourself. What if you didn't write them yourself, but the information is entirely accurate and you give sources? Like Wikipedia's stuff on math is really good and I'd like to work on that (as a place to start!), but if we can't use that stuff, then I'll start from scratch. [[User:OhioChris|OhioChris]] 12:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can use their sources as a starting point, but our copyright clauses are incompatable so you can not actually copy the text itself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Kind of funny ==

This site is kind of funny, and it's rather nicely done to be convincing that it's serious, I especially like the American flag logo thingy, that's hilarious, but it's still somewhat lacking, are there any really amusing articles here? [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:An American flag logo is hilarious? Nevertheless, I'm glad we have brightened up your day. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well ya, in its context, as an ironic symbol of conservatism, also the way it's displayed as Americans tend to do as if it's a symbol of greatness, it's a good parody. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Okay, whatever. Please familiarize yourself with the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] before editing. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, I was hoping those would be funnier, I don't really like uncyclopedia, but this site has the potential to be funnier. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Website search option ==

Hello,
Please move the search box higher on the page, so when you open Conservapedia you can type into the Search box without having to scroll down to find it. I can't imagine why the search box is so low on the page that you have to scroll down.

Also, It's difficult to find a link to contact Conservapedia! Phew! You should make it easier to contact you with questions.

I love Conservapedia and I hope it becomes MUCH bigger than Wikipedia!

Thank you,
Barb
: I agree that it's a problem, and I've looked before into changing it. There appears to be only two ways to do so. One is simply to reduce the size of the menus above it (which means eliminating some entries) and the other (although I'm not certain about this one) is to put it above "master control". In other words, it's not possible to put it between "master control" and "help" or between "help" and "supreme court". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism (Part II) ==

This is slightly annoying. I know it's been a while, but I don't have a way to respond to comments w/o having to create a new entry. :P

Philip J. Rayment, I don't mean to offend your sensibilities by focusing my earlier remarks toward an exclusively American audience. I acknowledge we Yanks have like-minded friends in other countries, but the reason for my message being tailored to U.S. citizens is because ours happens to be the one nation currently embroiled in a very hotly contested election season, where the future of conservative values is at stake. Additionally, one might well accuse this entire web site of being American-centric... just look at the logo!

In any event, Aschlafly, the kinds of "blogs" I consider to be higher quality are [http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com], [http://www.hotair.com], and so on. These, I consider to be semi-reliable sources of cutting edge news, and they come out daily with useful information that would be handy in debates about the current Democratic candidates. If we think of an Conservapedia as an ocean of archived knowledge, then such news blogs can be endless sources of information. All of us, who have been following the election process closely will easily recall many of the reasons why, for example, Barack Obama would be a terrible president. From the Reverend Wright comments, to his most recent remark about "clinging to guns or religion," to even more recent uncoverings of his promises to abortion lobbyists: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

You can be sure Obama will continue to paint himself as someone who can "trascend party lines," but everything about the man's political (vice merely biographical) history paints a very different picture. In short, suppose Conservapedia were developed into an information war machine, where most efforts during the election season would be used to collect any information that would be useful for sustaining the conservative movement? I hope I'm making sense. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:55, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Political scandals

2008-04-02T17:29:47Z

Alexander: /* Examples */

Instances when conduct of a public official brings great discredit and embarrassment to oneself and one's office.

==Examples==
* February, 2007: [[Carl Stanley McGee]] (D), a Leftist gay official in Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration, is arrested for sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in the steam room of a Florida resort. [http://www.examiner.com/a-1207714~Gov_s_Aide_Accused_of_Sex_Assault_on_Boy.html] [http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/gay_massachuset.html]
* February 2007: Leftist New York Governor Eliot Spitzer breaks wife's heart when discovered to have solicited prostitutes while in office. [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/11/2008-03-11_spitzer_may_have_spent_tens_of_thousands-2.html]
* March, 2007: Leftist Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick charged in text-messaging sex scandal. [http://www.kswo.com/global/story.asp?s=8060071]
* April, 2007: Thomas Athans, co-founder of the liberal TalkUSA Radio network and a married Michigan Democrat is charged with soliciting a prostitute. [http://www.wxyz.com/news/story.aspx?content_id=bf5c0996-2d4e-48db-a3d5-a61fc917e935]
[[category:politics]]

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-04-01T02:35:06Z

Alexander: /* A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]]

=="A small thing"==
A small thing...the article "River Trent" is unable to be edited because of a "spam filter". Um...what gives? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:24, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

I fixed it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Page Creation ==

Hello,

A few days ago a small group of us tried to create a page on a local conservative activist named J.R. Hedrick to have the page deleted. We read the guidelines and adjusted our page and were hoping we could ask the conservapedia staff to reconsider. We currently have the page wewantjr.homeip.net if you could take a few minutes check out the website see our reasoning and message and reconsider it would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or would like a shortened verstion of our reasoning feel free to email us at wewantjr@yahoo.com.

*Sorry, this is an encyclopedia, not Vanity Fair. For inclusion, one would have to be of national prominence, not a "local hero". Sorry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Can't email other users ==

I try to email other users, I am logged in and I do have a valid email address in my preferences but it won't let me do it. What's up?

:Wismike, maybe the users you've tried to email haven't supplied an email address. When I went to your user page and clicked "Email this user", I got the following notice:
:*This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.{{unsigned|Wismike}}

:You can send me a test e-mail if you want. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

*Users need to supply their email on the preference page in order to send emails to other users. Even if the other user has it enabled, you need to have done it as well. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:20, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== What's wrong with Ishi Press? ==

I can't put ishi press dot com as a ref for Woody Allen marrying his stepdaughter. Spam filter blocks it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:42, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== Outages? ==

There seem to be times when the entire site is protected. What's going on? -[[User:Pipkin|Pipkin]] 16:34, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, indeed there is. Editing, except by those with special rights, is usually turned off over-night (generally 1:00AM to 6:00AM) East Coast United States time. This is due to the high degree of vandalism at the hands of [[deceit|deceitful]] Liberals. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Uncyclopedia]] and [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]] ==

I think these two articles serve no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, and as written are basically nonsense and inccurate to general knowlege about their subjects. Also it is to note that the alternate spelling of [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]], [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] has been salted. --[[User:WikiLeon|WikiLeon]] 20:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

*Your several posts about this has been noted. The articles will stay. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:48, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== I may have found some nonesense. ==

I am here to report what might be vandalism. I'm not sure, but someone called User: Clavicle made an ususual edit on [[William Shakespeare]]. The edit was on the list of Shakespeare's historical plays. He wrote *[[Austin Kenn]] (1999). I happen to know about Shakespeare's histories and had never heard of the play before. I also knew that Shakespeare died in the 1600s not any period after 1999. This sounded fishy and later on (some months later) when I recieved no reply on the discussion page about this, I investigated. I found that this User: Clavicle had put the play in just in one edit (without putting it in any good order.) He didn't have a page for me to contact him about this, so I decided to try to report this unusual edit. I admit I'm wording it badly and akwardly, but I just thought I'd explain this small case. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:52, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:The user was already blocked for an unrelated offense. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:02, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hopefully that vandalism has been removed? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I removed when I saw it. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 13:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Article Categorization ==

Many of the articles on accounting seem to be government accounting related. Nothing wrong with this, but I believe they should be in a different category, say, Government Accounting.

I would like to make this change, but, feel it would be impolite to simply make the change without contacting the author. However, I cannot seem to do so.

What is the right thing to do? Should I just create a new category (if I know how to do that) and make the changes?

*You go to my user page, find the link to my sandbox on categories, and plead your case to Azi. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:45, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

== Edit to page "gossip" ==

I made an edit to the [[gossip]] page, which has now been reverted. The nature of my edit was to clarify that although gossip is inherently negative, the fact is that the word has multiple connotations. The positive connotation: "gossip" can have a perfectly normal social context as innocuous chatter between groups of people who are interacting. The negative connotation: what was on the page before and now.

I'm used to seeing trollers blocked and edits reverted - most "permanent" edits are made by the sysops etc. But I take great personal offence when the sysop who reverted my edit, "BethanyS", flies off and says: "Don't go around trolling or I will personally block you from this site forever." I believe that to be completely injustified, absolutely insulting to my ideological position as a conservative (the implication being that I'm some sort of liberal who goes around Conservapedia making silly edits) and a baseless assault on my personal character without even considering the reasoning of my edit. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 09:27, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Before I even start posting! ==

I was an avid user in Wikipedia, (Quality) not edit warring and Spam.
Can I move my articles that I improved from Wikipedia?
I am conservative or Liberal, I just hate biased garbage and I am looking to focus mainly on history. (I could care less about politics and hypocrisy). I don't like politicians in general and I don't have a rpoblem with any race or religion.
Is this going to be a problem or should I go my own way, now before I waste my time?--[[User:Validquest|Validquest]] 15:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: In this context, one can always copy and reuse one's own work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Couldn't create account ==

I tried to create an account but could not find a button to click to do that. I searched around and eventually found a FAQ that account creation was enabled only at certain times of day. It would be helpful if you put that notice right up front on the login/create account screen so people won't wonder why they can't find how to create an account [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 08:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== problem ==

Please help. I tried to look up Christopher Columbus and what displayed was about 1 inch of text followed by a white space covering the rest of the screen with a Go to WP instead listed. I then tried to just email a screenshot of the problem to the administrator but there is no email address. I had to creat an account just to notify 'someone' of this problem. This was my first visit to Conservapedia and I am not sure if I will return, it has been somewhat of a hassle just to try and be kind to report a problem. {{unsigned|DebM}}

:Thank you Deb! I reverted the page and blocked the user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:10, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks Deb! That vandalism was recent, and rare in escaping detection. Thanks to HelpJazz for correcting it. Welcome and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Problem at Wikipedia ==

I noticed as I was looking at pro life groups on wikipedia they had the "abortion" logo and tag at the bottom, but planned parenthoods page did not
this seemed strange
~Andrew Infanger

== Lesbians ==

I notice that Lesbians is one of the "most wanted" pages, with 7 links to it. This
seems odd to me for a family friendly website. Is this an error, or something I'm misunderstanding? Please clarify, thank you. --Eliza Newton.

*Please sign all posts, Eliza, with four tildes (~). I guess family-friendly means different things to different people. Questions about sexuality are pretty normal, and one thing you can count on CP for is information being presented in a family-friendly manner. Lesbians exist, so ignoring them isn't going to be informative or instructive as to the perversion it is. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:58, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Breaking News" RSS Feed? ==
Hello.

This is my first time interacting here. I'm a member of my school's college conservatives and am working on building their web site. I'm just wondering if by chance Conservapedia has plans to provide an RSS feed of its "breaking news" section"? Do you know if it would be as simple as installing a plug-in of some kind such as "Wikifeed"? Thanks! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 11:33, 15 November 2007 (EST)

== Silly spelling error ==

I suppose this is the correct area to send this message. In the "Wikipedia" article under the "Scandals and Decline" section, paragraph 2, line 3: "which could affect, in thier (sic) words, "'life and death,'". I believe it is supposed to be "their", not "thier". It would be easier if I could just edit the page myself like on "Wikipedia".

Thank you.
-Kriegor191
:The correct place would have been the [[talk:Wikipedia|Wikipedia talk page]], but I see that it's been fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. And please sign your posts by typing four tildes ({{tt|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}}), or using the signature button on the editing toolbar. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:15, 4 December 2007 (EST)

== Serious? ==

I was just wondering, is this meant to be a serious site or a parody of conservatism?

~Sabazi
:Is that meant to be a serious question or a not-so-subtle dig at the site? And please see my comment to the previous poster about signing your posts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:16, 4 December 2007 (EST)

That was a serious question. I couldn't tell, though I take it from your response that it is?

[[User:Sabazi|Sabazi]] 16:34, 4 December 2007 (EST)Sabazi (is that the right way to sign?)
:Yes, it is serious. What makes you think otherwise? And that was the right way to sign, except that there is no need to append your name because it puts it anyway. ''Just'' the four tildes is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|right|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: Here you go.
::: [[Image:Conservlogo_logo_highres2.png|thumb|350px|left]]

[[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Confused by this message at my talk page ==

"Come back next year, when you're serious about helping write encyclopedia articles."

I didn't think there was restrictions on creating articles.{{unsigned|User:EkulR29}}

:I can't speak for why you were blocked, but the "next year" thing was a joke, I think. You were blocked on December 31st for one day, so "next year" would only be one day later. 15:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: You say it was 31st December, but when I look at his page history, it says that the message was left at 09:02 on 1st January, 2008. Of course, that is according to my time zone settings. What time zone is EkulR29 in? Yes, the message has 17:02 on 31st December on it, but at the very least, that could be "confusing".
:: EkulR29, I suspect that Ed Poor's comment may have been because you have made about 60 edits so far, only four of which were to anything other than this page and your user page. In other words, you seem to be more concerned with telling us about yourself (which is okay in itself) than with actually helping write an encyclopedia.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== How do you? ==

Ask for a change on a protected page? And is there any way to ask for a page to be unprotected? I imagine any vandalism could be fairly quickly reverted on many pages anyway. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:To ask for a change on a protected page, ask on that page's talk page. To ask for a page to be unprotected, it's best to ask the Administrator who protected it. If that is not practicable, ask another Administrator. If you ask on the page's talk page, the first administrator to notice it could unlock it, but it's possible that nobody will notice for a while. If you ask on an Administrator's talk page, that Administrator should notice very quickly if they are on, or as soon as they next log on, but that might take a day or so (assuming they are not on holidays). If you choose to ask more than one administrator on their talk pages, let them know that you have asked others. Of course, in all such cases, your request might be declined. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Editing Help ==

I am having a hard time editing articles. Could you explain me how to go about that process? I'm used to using wikipedia, where they just have an edit button by the text, but here at Conservapedia I can't seem to find the edit button. Please help!
:Same as on this page; third tab from the left at top of article. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Uploading an images or images ==

How do I obtain upload privileges? I want to upload a picture on a page.

Christopher Persaud

You hang around for a long time until you are trusted with them. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Please be more specific. Thanks. {{unsigned|Cperlobo}}

:If you have a specific image you want to be uploaded then please submit it at [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests|image upload request]]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: See [[Conservapedia:User rights|User rights]] (Requesting further rights), which is linked from [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's guide]] which is in the welcome box on your talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Firefox search bar ==

I'm not sure what is involved technically, but I use Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser and regularly use the search bar in the top right for Google and Wikipedia searches. Though this search bar recognizes Conservapedia as a possible search engine, Firefox won't allow me to add it as one. The message
Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/opensearch_desc.php
appears. I don't know if this is the correct place to report technical problems (or if you are already aware of this), but I thought I should report it. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Hampshire2600|Hampshire2600]] 20:10 29 January, 2008 (EST)

== Enlisting College Student Help ==

I'm a member of a campus conservatives organization, and I think Conservapedia could definitely benefit by enlisting the help of college students to improve the quality of articles, as well as expand Conservapedia's contents. I might recommend creating some sort of program to encourage campus conservative groups to have a part in Conservapedia's development? Thanks! [http://www.honor-bound.org Honorbound Conservatives] [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 19:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== "In The News ==

Under "in the news" on the "Main Page" there is this entry:
Liberal denial has begun for NIU killings: "Grad student killer didn't fit the profile," screams the Associated Press.
In fact, the killer did fit the profile of a public school-trained atheistic: dressed in all black, was an above-average student (at age 27!), and obsessed with self-injury.

The above entry implies that all people who have attended public school fit the profile of someone who would murder people. This is a woefully inaccurate and unwise statement. There are other ideas I would like to share concerning the inappropriateness this entry, but it I would not want these additional comments to become public.

{{unsigned|Blazer}}

== Question about Religion ==

Hi, I'm an atheist who stumbled upon this website after a friend told me about it. I am a Liberal, and although I disagree with some points you present on this site, one thing I found has truly offended me. In the artible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", the page begins with a graph showing the number of Wikipedia users by religion. It shows a large amount atheists compared to other religions. First of all, I read this as being considered a "problem", and I would like to know why. Secondly, I assume from the "Daily Bible Verse" that an overwhelming amount of Conservapedia users are Christians. Is that better? I assure you I'm not here to stir up a controversy, I'm just puzzled and would like a straight answer. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 19:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps the graph needs more explanation, but (not having put it there myself), I'd say that it's to illustrate the cause of much of the bias, with the number of atheists editing on Wikipedia being quite out of proportion of the number of atheists in society. Yes, a large proportion of Conservapedia users are Christians. This is more in proportion with their representation in society, particularly American society (where most of the editors would be from) and even if this were not so, Conservapedia is explicitly conservative, not neutral, as Wikipedia ''claims'' to be. Furthermore, I would claim that Christianity is the only true religion. People of other religions, including atheism, disagree, of course, but in most cases consider ''their'' religion to be the only correct one, so Christians are not alone in believing their religion to be correct. Atheists often claim that we shouldn't claim to be the correct religion because we can't know for sure, or they are ''all'' subjective, or some similar reasoning, but rarely substantiate this claim, and usually exempt their own beliefs from this statement on the self-serving grounds that atheism is not a religion (if you think that way, please read the [[Religion]] article). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== UKIP ==

The current article on UKIP is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Administrators/sysops might care to check this and take appropriate action [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've reverted it and given the editor a 1-day block. Repeats will be dealt with more severely. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::You don't waste much time - I hadn't even finished writing my first message! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm watching recent changes as I listen to the sport on TV so I spotted the plagiarism before I saw your message. It's always a big giveaway when the text is riddled with red-links and calls to templates that we don't have here. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Grammatical errors ==

Hi,
I just looked up Palestine in Conservapedia and found two errors in the first few lines. Do you have editing and correcting capability? I love the idea of this website to combat the terrible Wikipedia, but to be taken seriously you must have a way to correct grammatical errors and awkward sentences. Otherwise, people won't use the website for reference.
Thanks,
Barb
bhhawley4@gmail.com

:Yes, when you go to most pages there is an "edit" tab at the top. Please correct our grammar and sentence structure if you see something that needs work! It's rare, but we sometimes make mistakes ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism ==

While the left continues to deride just about any effort the right makes to build a solid knowledgebase on the web, I saw in Conservapedia from its earliest days an opportunity to really build a powerhouse of information. In today's age of information warfare (between corporations, nation-states, and political organizations), managing vasts amounts of information has now become key in gaining the upper hand in any dispute.

I confess, I'm merely a small fish among thousands here, so I have no idea what major priorities the admins of this site are currently working on. Does Conservapedia have plans to become a powerful political tool for serious students and leaders within the conservative movement, or is it just a hobby? Think about it: there exists no alternative general conservative knowledgebase out there. Conservapedia is the only major conservative wiki (that I know of) that can fill a great need within the conservative movement. But I'm not sure that we're using this opportunity toward having an immediate impact on the world of politics today.

I say this, because anytime there's a news article or editorial that comes up, I like to look up the political background and information behind people and organizations. And unless the personality is unavoidably famous, my searches on this site turn up nothing. Maybe this is because much of what Conservapedia focuses on are broad issues, categories, scientific and religious doctrine rather than the current big players in today's world?

Consider that this is an election year. In political terms, we are now in a state of war, and the battle is about go nuclear once the Democrats crawl their way out of the mess they're in. But you wouldn't know it when you look at the most recent edits on this site. With so many registered users, why isn't there a concerted effort to dig up and record every detail of each candidate's career and policies? There are literally hundreds of conservative blogs out there recording precious intel that could be of great use to someone looking for a central location to find all that info. But much of the info you see here on [[Obama]], for example, is mostly biographical.

I may be way off base in posting all of this, but I'm wondering, are there any plans like I'm describing already underway, or is this just beyond Conservapeida's priorities at this time? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-04-01T02:33:20Z

Alexander: A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]]

=="A small thing"==
A small thing...the article "River Trent" is unable to be edited because of a "spam filter". Um...what gives? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:24, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

I fixed it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Page Creation ==

Hello,

A few days ago a small group of us tried to create a page on a local conservative activist named J.R. Hedrick to have the page deleted. We read the guidelines and adjusted our page and were hoping we could ask the conservapedia staff to reconsider. We currently have the page wewantjr.homeip.net if you could take a few minutes check out the website see our reasoning and message and reconsider it would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or would like a shortened verstion of our reasoning feel free to email us at wewantjr@yahoo.com.

*Sorry, this is an encyclopedia, not Vanity Fair. For inclusion, one would have to be of national prominence, not a "local hero". Sorry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Can't email other users ==

I try to email other users, I am logged in and I do have a valid email address in my preferences but it won't let me do it. What's up?

:Wismike, maybe the users you've tried to email haven't supplied an email address. When I went to your user page and clicked "Email this user", I got the following notice:
:*This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.{{unsigned|Wismike}}

:You can send me a test e-mail if you want. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

*Users need to supply their email on the preference page in order to send emails to other users. Even if the other user has it enabled, you need to have done it as well. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:20, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== What's wrong with Ishi Press? ==

I can't put ishi press dot com as a ref for Woody Allen marrying his stepdaughter. Spam filter blocks it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:42, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== Outages? ==

There seem to be times when the entire site is protected. What's going on? -[[User:Pipkin|Pipkin]] 16:34, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, indeed there is. Editing, except by those with special rights, is usually turned off over-night (generally 1:00AM to 6:00AM) East Coast United States time. This is due to the high degree of vandalism at the hands of [[deceit|deceitful]] Liberals. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Uncyclopedia]] and [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]] ==

I think these two articles serve no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, and as written are basically nonsense and inccurate to general knowlege about their subjects. Also it is to note that the alternate spelling of [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]], [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] has been salted. --[[User:WikiLeon|WikiLeon]] 20:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

*Your several posts about this has been noted. The articles will stay. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:48, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== I may have found some nonesense. ==

I am here to report what might be vandalism. I'm not sure, but someone called User: Clavicle made an ususual edit on [[William Shakespeare]]. The edit was on the list of Shakespeare's historical plays. He wrote *[[Austin Kenn]] (1999). I happen to know about Shakespeare's histories and had never heard of the play before. I also knew that Shakespeare died in the 1600s not any period after 1999. This sounded fishy and later on (some months later) when I recieved no reply on the discussion page about this, I investigated. I found that this User: Clavicle had put the play in just in one edit (without putting it in any good order.) He didn't have a page for me to contact him about this, so I decided to try to report this unusual edit. I admit I'm wording it badly and akwardly, but I just thought I'd explain this small case. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:52, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:The user was already blocked for an unrelated offense. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:02, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hopefully that vandalism has been removed? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I removed when I saw it. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 13:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Article Categorization ==

Many of the articles on accounting seem to be government accounting related. Nothing wrong with this, but I believe they should be in a different category, say, Government Accounting.

I would like to make this change, but, feel it would be impolite to simply make the change without contacting the author. However, I cannot seem to do so.

What is the right thing to do? Should I just create a new category (if I know how to do that) and make the changes?

*You go to my user page, find the link to my sandbox on categories, and plead your case to Azi. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:45, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

== Edit to page "gossip" ==

I made an edit to the [[gossip]] page, which has now been reverted. The nature of my edit was to clarify that although gossip is inherently negative, the fact is that the word has multiple connotations. The positive connotation: "gossip" can have a perfectly normal social context as innocuous chatter between groups of people who are interacting. The negative connotation: what was on the page before and now.

I'm used to seeing trollers blocked and edits reverted - most "permanent" edits are made by the sysops etc. But I take great personal offence when the sysop who reverted my edit, "BethanyS", flies off and says: "Don't go around trolling or I will personally block you from this site forever." I believe that to be completely injustified, absolutely insulting to my ideological position as a conservative (the implication being that I'm some sort of liberal who goes around Conservapedia making silly edits) and a baseless assault on my personal character without even considering the reasoning of my edit. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 09:27, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Before I even start posting! ==

I was an avid user in Wikipedia, (Quality) not edit warring and Spam.
Can I move my articles that I improved from Wikipedia?
I am conservative or Liberal, I just hate biased garbage and I am looking to focus mainly on history. (I could care less about politics and hypocrisy). I don't like politicians in general and I don't have a rpoblem with any race or religion.
Is this going to be a problem or should I go my own way, now before I waste my time?--[[User:Validquest|Validquest]] 15:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: In this context, one can always copy and reuse one's own work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Couldn't create account ==

I tried to create an account but could not find a button to click to do that. I searched around and eventually found a FAQ that account creation was enabled only at certain times of day. It would be helpful if you put that notice right up front on the login/create account screen so people won't wonder why they can't find how to create an account [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 08:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== problem ==

Please help. I tried to look up Christopher Columbus and what displayed was about 1 inch of text followed by a white space covering the rest of the screen with a Go to WP instead listed. I then tried to just email a screenshot of the problem to the administrator but there is no email address. I had to creat an account just to notify 'someone' of this problem. This was my first visit to Conservapedia and I am not sure if I will return, it has been somewhat of a hassle just to try and be kind to report a problem. {{unsigned|DebM}}

:Thank you Deb! I reverted the page and blocked the user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:10, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks Deb! That vandalism was recent, and rare in escaping detection. Thanks to HelpJazz for correcting it. Welcome and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Problem at Wikipedia ==

I noticed as I was looking at pro life groups on wikipedia they had the "abortion" logo and tag at the bottom, but planned parenthoods page did not
this seemed strange
~Andrew Infanger

== Lesbians ==

I notice that Lesbians is one of the "most wanted" pages, with 7 links to it. This
seems odd to me for a family friendly website. Is this an error, or something I'm misunderstanding? Please clarify, thank you. --Eliza Newton.

*Please sign all posts, Eliza, with four tildes (~). I guess family-friendly means different things to different people. Questions about sexuality are pretty normal, and one thing you can count on CP for is information being presented in a family-friendly manner. Lesbians exist, so ignoring them isn't going to be informative or instructive as to the perversion it is. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:58, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Breaking News" RSS Feed? ==
Hello.

This is my first time interacting here. I'm a member of my school's college conservatives and am working on building their web site. I'm just wondering if by chance Conservapedia has plans to provide an RSS feed of its "breaking news" section"? Do you know if it would be as simple as installing a plug-in of some kind such as "Wikifeed"? Thanks! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 11:33, 15 November 2007 (EST)

== Silly spelling error ==

I suppose this is the correct area to send this message. In the "Wikipedia" article under the "Scandals and Decline" section, paragraph 2, line 3: "which could affect, in thier (sic) words, "'life and death,'". I believe it is supposed to be "their", not "thier". It would be easier if I could just edit the page myself like on "Wikipedia".

Thank you.
-Kriegor191
:The correct place would have been the [[talk:Wikipedia|Wikipedia talk page]], but I see that it's been fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. And please sign your posts by typing four tildes ({{tt|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}}), or using the signature button on the editing toolbar. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:15, 4 December 2007 (EST)

== Serious? ==

I was just wondering, is this meant to be a serious site or a parody of conservatism?

~Sabazi
:Is that meant to be a serious question or a not-so-subtle dig at the site? And please see my comment to the previous poster about signing your posts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:16, 4 December 2007 (EST)

That was a serious question. I couldn't tell, though I take it from your response that it is?

[[User:Sabazi|Sabazi]] 16:34, 4 December 2007 (EST)Sabazi (is that the right way to sign?)
:Yes, it is serious. What makes you think otherwise? And that was the right way to sign, except that there is no need to append your name because it puts it anyway. ''Just'' the four tildes is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|right|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: Here you go.
::: [[Image:Conservlogo_logo_highres2.png|thumb|350px|left]]

[[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Confused by this message at my talk page ==

"Come back next year, when you're serious about helping write encyclopedia articles."

I didn't think there was restrictions on creating articles.{{unsigned|User:EkulR29}}

:I can't speak for why you were blocked, but the "next year" thing was a joke, I think. You were blocked on December 31st for one day, so "next year" would only be one day later. 15:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: You say it was 31st December, but when I look at his page history, it says that the message was left at 09:02 on 1st January, 2008. Of course, that is according to my time zone settings. What time zone is EkulR29 in? Yes, the message has 17:02 on 31st December on it, but at the very least, that could be "confusing".
:: EkulR29, I suspect that Ed Poor's comment may have been because you have made about 60 edits so far, only four of which were to anything other than this page and your user page. In other words, you seem to be more concerned with telling us about yourself (which is okay in itself) than with actually helping write an encyclopedia.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== How do you? ==

Ask for a change on a protected page? And is there any way to ask for a page to be unprotected? I imagine any vandalism could be fairly quickly reverted on many pages anyway. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:To ask for a change on a protected page, ask on that page's talk page. To ask for a page to be unprotected, it's best to ask the Administrator who protected it. If that is not practicable, ask another Administrator. If you ask on the page's talk page, the first administrator to notice it could unlock it, but it's possible that nobody will notice for a while. If you ask on an Administrator's talk page, that Administrator should notice very quickly if they are on, or as soon as they next log on, but that might take a day or so (assuming they are not on holidays). If you choose to ask more than one administrator on their talk pages, let them know that you have asked others. Of course, in all such cases, your request might be declined. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Editing Help ==

I am having a hard time editing articles. Could you explain me how to go about that process? I'm used to using wikipedia, where they just have an edit button by the text, but here at Conservapedia I can't seem to find the edit button. Please help!
:Same as on this page; third tab from the left at top of article. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Uploading an images or images ==

How do I obtain upload privileges? I want to upload a picture on a page.

Christopher Persaud

You hang around for a long time until you are trusted with them. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Please be more specific. Thanks. {{unsigned|Cperlobo}}

:If you have a specific image you want to be uploaded then please submit it at [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests|image upload request]]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: See [[Conservapedia:User rights|User rights]] (Requesting further rights), which is linked from [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's guide]] which is in the welcome box on your talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Firefox search bar ==

I'm not sure what is involved technically, but I use Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser and regularly use the search bar in the top right for Google and Wikipedia searches. Though this search bar recognizes Conservapedia as a possible search engine, Firefox won't allow me to add it as one. The message
Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/opensearch_desc.php
appears. I don't know if this is the correct place to report technical problems (or if you are already aware of this), but I thought I should report it. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Hampshire2600|Hampshire2600]] 20:10 29 January, 2008 (EST)

== Enlisting College Student Help ==

I'm a member of a campus conservatives organization, and I think Conservapedia could definitely benefit by enlisting the help of college students to improve the quality of articles, as well as expand Conservapedia's contents. I might recommend creating some sort of program to encourage campus conservative groups to have a part in Conservapedia's development? Thanks! [http://www.honor-bound.org Honorbound Conservatives] [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 19:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== "In The News ==

Under "in the news" on the "Main Page" there is this entry:
Liberal denial has begun for NIU killings: "Grad student killer didn't fit the profile," screams the Associated Press.
In fact, the killer did fit the profile of a public school-trained atheistic: dressed in all black, was an above-average student (at age 27!), and obsessed with self-injury.

The above entry implies that all people who have attended public school fit the profile of someone who would murder people. This is a woefully inaccurate and unwise statement. There are other ideas I would like to share concerning the inappropriateness this entry, but it I would not want these additional comments to become public.

{{unsigned|Blazer}}

== Question about Religion ==

Hi, I'm an atheist who stumbled upon this website after a friend told me about it. I am a Liberal, and although I disagree with some points you present on this site, one thing I found has truly offended me. In the artible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", the page begins with a graph showing the number of Wikipedia users by religion. It shows a large amount atheists compared to other religions. First of all, I read this as being considered a "problem", and I would like to know why. Secondly, I assume from the "Daily Bible Verse" that an overwhelming amount of Conservapedia users are Christians. Is that better? I assure you I'm not here to stir up a controversy, I'm just puzzled and would like a straight answer. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 19:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps the graph needs more explanation, but (not having put it there myself), I'd say that it's to illustrate the cause of much of the bias, with the number of atheists editing on Wikipedia being quite out of proportion of the number of atheists in society. Yes, a large proportion of Conservapedia users are Christians. This is more in proportion with their representation in society, particularly American society (where most of the editors would be from) and even if this were not so, Conservapedia is explicitly conservative, not neutral, as Wikipedia ''claims'' to be. Furthermore, I would claim that Christianity is the only true religion. People of other religions, including atheism, disagree, of course, but in most cases consider ''their'' religion to be the only correct one, so Christians are not alone in believing their religion to be correct. Atheists often claim that we shouldn't claim to be the correct religion because we can't know for sure, or they are ''all'' subjective, or some similar reasoning, but rarely substantiate this claim, and usually exempt their own beliefs from this statement on the self-serving grounds that atheism is not a religion (if you think that way, please read the [[Religion]] article). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== UKIP ==

The current article on UKIP is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Administrators/sysops might care to check this and take appropriate action [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've reverted it and given the editor a 1-day block. Repeats will be dealt with more severely. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::You don't waste much time - I hadn't even finished writing my first message! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm watching recent changes as I listen to the sport on TV so I spotted the plagiarism before I saw your message. It's always a big giveaway when the text is riddled with red-links and calls to templates that we don't have here. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Grammatical errors ==

Hi,
I just looked up Palestine in Conservapedia and found two errors in the first few lines. Do you have editing and correcting capability? I love the idea of this website to combat the terrible Wikipedia, but to be taken seriously you must have a way to correct grammatical errors and awkward sentences. Otherwise, people won't use the website for reference.
Thanks,
Barb
bhhawley4@gmail.com

:Yes, when you go to most pages there is an "edit" tab at the top. Please correct our grammar and sentence structure if you see something that needs work! It's rare, but we sometimes make mistakes ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism ==

While the left continues to deride just about any effort the right makes to build a solid knowledgebase on the web, I saw in Conservapedia from its earliest days an opportunity to really build a powerhouse of information. In today's age of information warfare (between corporations, nation-states, and political organizations), managing vasts amounts of information has now become key in gaining the upper hand in any dispute.

I confess, I'm merely a small fish among thousands here, so I have no idea what major priorities the admins of this site are currently working on. Does Conservapedia have plans to become a powerful political tool for serious students and leaders within the conservative movement, or is it just a hobby? Think about it: there exists no alternative to a general conservative wiki out there. Conservapedia is the only major conservative blog (that I know of) that can fill a great need within the conservative movement. But I'm not sure that we're using this opportunity toward having an immediate impact on the world of politics today.

I say this, because anytime there's a news article or editorial that comes up, I like to look up the political background and information behind people and organizations. And unless the personality is unavoidably famous, my searches on this site turn up nothing. Maybe this is because much of what Conservapedia focuses on are broad issues, categories, scientific and religious doctrine rather than the current big players in today's world?

Consider that this is an election year. In political terms, we are now in a state of war, and the battle is about go nuclear once the Democrats crawl their way out of the mess they're in. But you wouldn't know it when you look at the most recent edits on this site. With so many registered users, why isn't there a concerted effort to dig up and record every detail of each candidate's career and policies? There are literally hundreds of conservative blogs out there recording precious intel that could be of great use to someone looking for a central location to find all that info. But much of the info you see here on [[Obama]], for example, is mostly biographical.

I may be way off base in posting all of this, but I'm wondering, are there any plans like I'm describing already underway, or is this just beyond Conservapeida's priorities at this time? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:United Nations

2008-03-30T22:15:09Z

Alexander: /* Edit Explanation */

Hold it!
This may be conservapedia but even so we should mention at least some poisitve actions of the UN or its associated agencies. The W.H.O did eradicate smallpox afterall.

:Good for you. Please do add that statement. Haha, I almost got banned for posting on the ACLU page about how the ACLU fought racism. Good times ;-). But DO add your words.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I heard somewhere the UN serves 102 million meals daily; so there is an arguement to keep some of the alleged functions it performs going. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Heavy political bias in this article. To say that Israel has been singled out is highly questionable and to state it as fact is intelletually indefencible. [[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]]

I've tried to add a bit about the five main UN organs. It basically seems to be a good idea to start out by explaining what the UN actually is, before going into what different people think is wrong with it. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

===ICJ jurisdiction===
RobS, your edit about the ICJ is incorrect, as it does not only have jurisdiction over questions of treaties. It can handle all kinds of conflicts and crises between states that relate to international law. Treaties are a part of that, certainly, but not the whole of it. See Article 36(2) of the [http://www.sovereignty.net/un-treaties/ICJ-STATUTE.txt Court's statutes], or the [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm list of previous cases] when their website is back online next week. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:What "legislation" exists in "International law", other than treaties? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::According to Article 38(1) of the Statutes, the Court rules on the basis of conventions, international custom, general principles of law and, to a lesser degree, "judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations" and ''ex aequo et bono''. Further, the fact is that not all cases are questions of treaties - all kinds of conflicts can be brought before the Court. As an example, it was attempted to settle the 1979 hostage crisis in Tehran in the Court. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::None of this is possible without Treaty law, IOW, it is Treeaty law that brings the disputants to this Court. There is no Supra-legistor whom they interpret. "conventions, international custom," directly refers to Treaty law; "general principles of law" is meaningless--the Koran does not recognize any "general principals of law" other than the Koran, so what practical place does this have in any context? Clearly that would require more research before we could include it. "judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations", agasin referes to Treaty law, and to some extent judicial decisions among member states who are parties to treaties that recognize the Courts jurisdiction in certain matters. But this is not without controversy either, and we cannot state it has some sort of blanket jurisdiction or authority here. ''ex aequo et bono'', according to Wikipedia is, ''according to the right and good''; I'm not certain if we can take either the ICJ ''or '' Wikipedia as source for this claim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::International law has always been based just as much in customary law as in treaties. This goes all the way back to the Roman ''jus gentium'', and the natural law of the Enlightenment. These are the principles that have arisen out of e.g. the Peace of Westphalia and such works as Hugo Grotius' ''De Jure Belli ac Pacis'' and ''Mare Liberum''. These are just as important sources of law for international law as treaties, if not more so. Besides, if the statutes of the Court themselves aren't an acceptable source of which cases the court are empowered to handle, what is? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 17:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::This Court was founded to mediate fishing rights between Icelanders & Englishmen; rumors like we're trying to spread here, like there is actually some sort of supra-national legal government to which the United States has ceeded its sovereignty, I think we need to nip in the bud. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::What in the world are you talking about? Nobody except you are talking about "supra-national legal governments". The whole point is that contemporary international customary law has been developed as a result of 400 years of interaction between sovereign states acting in an anarchic international system. If there was a supra-national government, it wouldn't be customary law in the first place. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 17:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, you cited the 1979 case of US v Iran [http://dl.lib.brown.edu/gateway/govinfo/un/UNICJ.html] The Court ordered their immediate release. This didn't happen. In otherwords, it is absolutely powerless. And where the power to enforce the law ceases to exist, the law ceases exist, to cite an old general principal of law. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Firstly, you cannot apply principles from domestic law to international law or compare the ICJ with the way a national court would function. Those share very few characteristics, because they are two completely different legal traditions. Secondly, yes, the Court is completely powerless if both parties to a given case do not agree to recognize its authority. That was the case in 1979: The new government of Iran refused to accept such authority, thus the case was dropped. I see very few sign of anything supra-national here. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Good. So we agree, they are completely different legal tradtions. This is why a phrase, " founded to settle legal disputes " can be deceptive. So it needs to be cleaned up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough. I propose something along the lines of this:
<blockquote>The International Court of Justice, based in the Dutch capital of The Hague, was founded to settle conflicts and disputes over questions of international law between sovereign states. It only has jurisdiction in cases where all parties to the case in question have agreed to recognize the authority of the Court. The Court bases its decisions primarily on international conventions and treaties, on customary international law, and on previous rulings by the court. However, previous rulings are not necessarily binding on the Court, that is, the principle of [["stare decisis"]] does not apply. Also, if both parties to the case agree, the Court can mediate disputes according to the principle of ''[[ex aequo et bono]]''. The Court also advices other organs and agencies of the United Nations on questions of international law.</blockquote>
This puts more emphasis on the specific nature of the court's legal tradition, and has the added virtue of being more exact overall. How does that look to you? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Excellent. Looks very good. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'll put it in the article, then. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Edit Explanation==
I should have made a brief comment earlier on an edit I made to this article, but I'm learning the rules and ways as I go along, so bear with me. I removed the "Complements" section of this article mainly because it didn't really contribute anything solid, and was riddled with misspellings anyway. I hope we can create a heading in the future where we can insert quantifiable facts of any good the U.N. has done (example: "delivered 28.3 tons of grain to Zimbabwe in June, 2004") [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:14, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:United Nations

2008-03-30T22:14:51Z

Alexander: /* Edit Explanation */

Hold it!
This may be conservapedia but even so we should mention at least some poisitve actions of the UN or its associated agencies. The W.H.O did eradicate smallpox afterall.

:Good for you. Please do add that statement. Haha, I almost got banned for posting on the ACLU page about how the ACLU fought racism. Good times ;-). But DO add your words.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I heard somewhere the UN serves 102 million meals daily; so there is an arguement to keep some of the alleged functions it performs going. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Heavy political bias in this article. To say that Israel has been singled out is highly questionable and to state it as fact is intelletually indefencible. [[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]]

I've tried to add a bit about the five main UN organs. It basically seems to be a good idea to start out by explaining what the UN actually is, before going into what different people think is wrong with it. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

===ICJ jurisdiction===
RobS, your edit about the ICJ is incorrect, as it does not only have jurisdiction over questions of treaties. It can handle all kinds of conflicts and crises between states that relate to international law. Treaties are a part of that, certainly, but not the whole of it. See Article 36(2) of the [http://www.sovereignty.net/un-treaties/ICJ-STATUTE.txt Court's statutes], or the [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm list of previous cases] when their website is back online next week. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:What "legislation" exists in "International law", other than treaties? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::According to Article 38(1) of the Statutes, the Court rules on the basis of conventions, international custom, general principles of law and, to a lesser degree, "judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations" and ''ex aequo et bono''. Further, the fact is that not all cases are questions of treaties - all kinds of conflicts can be brought before the Court. As an example, it was attempted to settle the 1979 hostage crisis in Tehran in the Court. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::None of this is possible without Treaty law, IOW, it is Treeaty law that brings the disputants to this Court. There is no Supra-legistor whom they interpret. "conventions, international custom," directly refers to Treaty law; "general principles of law" is meaningless--the Koran does not recognize any "general principals of law" other than the Koran, so what practical place does this have in any context? Clearly that would require more research before we could include it. "judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations", agasin referes to Treaty law, and to some extent judicial decisions among member states who are parties to treaties that recognize the Courts jurisdiction in certain matters. But this is not without controversy either, and we cannot state it has some sort of blanket jurisdiction or authority here. ''ex aequo et bono'', according to Wikipedia is, ''according to the right and good''; I'm not certain if we can take either the ICJ ''or '' Wikipedia as source for this claim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::International law has always been based just as much in customary law as in treaties. This goes all the way back to the Roman ''jus gentium'', and the natural law of the Enlightenment. These are the principles that have arisen out of e.g. the Peace of Westphalia and such works as Hugo Grotius' ''De Jure Belli ac Pacis'' and ''Mare Liberum''. These are just as important sources of law for international law as treaties, if not more so. Besides, if the statutes of the Court themselves aren't an acceptable source of which cases the court are empowered to handle, what is? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 17:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::This Court was founded to mediate fishing rights between Icelanders & Englishmen; rumors like we're trying to spread here, like there is actually some sort of supra-national legal government to which the United States has ceeded its sovereignty, I think we need to nip in the bud. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::What in the world are you talking about? Nobody except you are talking about "supra-national legal governments". The whole point is that contemporary international customary law has been developed as a result of 400 years of interaction between sovereign states acting in an anarchic international system. If there was a supra-national government, it wouldn't be customary law in the first place. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 17:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, you cited the 1979 case of US v Iran [http://dl.lib.brown.edu/gateway/govinfo/un/UNICJ.html] The Court ordered their immediate release. This didn't happen. In otherwords, it is absolutely powerless. And where the power to enforce the law ceases to exist, the law ceases exist, to cite an old general principal of law. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Firstly, you cannot apply principles from domestic law to international law or compare the ICJ with the way a national court would function. Those share very few characteristics, because they are two completely different legal traditions. Secondly, yes, the Court is completely powerless if both parties to a given case do not agree to recognize its authority. That was the case in 1979: The new government of Iran refused to accept such authority, thus the case was dropped. I see very few sign of anything supra-national here. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Good. So we agree, they are completely different legal tradtions. This is why a phrase, " founded to settle legal disputes " can be deceptive. So it needs to be cleaned up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough. I propose something along the lines of this:
<blockquote>The International Court of Justice, based in the Dutch capital of The Hague, was founded to settle conflicts and disputes over questions of international law between sovereign states. It only has jurisdiction in cases where all parties to the case in question have agreed to recognize the authority of the Court. The Court bases its decisions primarily on international conventions and treaties, on customary international law, and on previous rulings by the court. However, previous rulings are not necessarily binding on the Court, that is, the principle of [["stare decisis"]] does not apply. Also, if both parties to the case agree, the Court can mediate disputes according to the principle of ''[[ex aequo et bono]]''. The Court also advices other organs and agencies of the United Nations on questions of international law.</blockquote>
This puts more emphasis on the specific nature of the court's legal tradition, and has the added virtue of being more exact overall. How does that look to you? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Excellent. Looks very good. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'll put it in the article, then. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Edit Explanation==
I should have made a brief comment earlier on an edit I made to this page, but I'm learning the rules and ways as I go along, so bear with me. I removed the "Complements" section of this article mainly because it didn't really contribute anything solid, and was riddled with misspellings anyway. I hope we can create a heading in the future where we can insert quantifiable facts of any good the U.N. has done (example: "delivered 28.3 tons of grain to Zimbabwe in June, 2004") [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:14, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:United Nations

2008-03-30T22:14:37Z

Alexander:

Hold it!
This may be conservapedia but even so we should mention at least some poisitve actions of the UN or its associated agencies. The W.H.O did eradicate smallpox afterall.

:Good for you. Please do add that statement. Haha, I almost got banned for posting on the ACLU page about how the ACLU fought racism. Good times ;-). But DO add your words.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I heard somewhere the UN serves 102 million meals daily; so there is an arguement to keep some of the alleged functions it performs going. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Heavy political bias in this article. To say that Israel has been singled out is highly questionable and to state it as fact is intelletually indefencible. [[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]]

I've tried to add a bit about the five main UN organs. It basically seems to be a good idea to start out by explaining what the UN actually is, before going into what different people think is wrong with it. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

===ICJ jurisdiction===
RobS, your edit about the ICJ is incorrect, as it does not only have jurisdiction over questions of treaties. It can handle all kinds of conflicts and crises between states that relate to international law. Treaties are a part of that, certainly, but not the whole of it. See Article 36(2) of the [http://www.sovereignty.net/un-treaties/ICJ-STATUTE.txt Court's statutes], or the [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm list of previous cases] when their website is back online next week. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:What "legislation" exists in "International law", other than treaties? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::According to Article 38(1) of the Statutes, the Court rules on the basis of conventions, international custom, general principles of law and, to a lesser degree, "judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations" and ''ex aequo et bono''. Further, the fact is that not all cases are questions of treaties - all kinds of conflicts can be brought before the Court. As an example, it was attempted to settle the 1979 hostage crisis in Tehran in the Court. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::None of this is possible without Treaty law, IOW, it is Treeaty law that brings the disputants to this Court. There is no Supra-legistor whom they interpret. "conventions, international custom," directly refers to Treaty law; "general principles of law" is meaningless--the Koran does not recognize any "general principals of law" other than the Koran, so what practical place does this have in any context? Clearly that would require more research before we could include it. "judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations", agasin referes to Treaty law, and to some extent judicial decisions among member states who are parties to treaties that recognize the Courts jurisdiction in certain matters. But this is not without controversy either, and we cannot state it has some sort of blanket jurisdiction or authority here. ''ex aequo et bono'', according to Wikipedia is, ''according to the right and good''; I'm not certain if we can take either the ICJ ''or '' Wikipedia as source for this claim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:45, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::International law has always been based just as much in customary law as in treaties. This goes all the way back to the Roman ''jus gentium'', and the natural law of the Enlightenment. These are the principles that have arisen out of e.g. the Peace of Westphalia and such works as Hugo Grotius' ''De Jure Belli ac Pacis'' and ''Mare Liberum''. These are just as important sources of law for international law as treaties, if not more so. Besides, if the statutes of the Court themselves aren't an acceptable source of which cases the court are empowered to handle, what is? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 17:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::This Court was founded to mediate fishing rights between Icelanders & Englishmen; rumors like we're trying to spread here, like there is actually some sort of supra-national legal government to which the United States has ceeded its sovereignty, I think we need to nip in the bud. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::What in the world are you talking about? Nobody except you are talking about "supra-national legal governments". The whole point is that contemporary international customary law has been developed as a result of 400 years of interaction between sovereign states acting in an anarchic international system. If there was a supra-national government, it wouldn't be customary law in the first place. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 17:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, you cited the 1979 case of US v Iran [http://dl.lib.brown.edu/gateway/govinfo/un/UNICJ.html] The Court ordered their immediate release. This didn't happen. In otherwords, it is absolutely powerless. And where the power to enforce the law ceases to exist, the law ceases exist, to cite an old general principal of law. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Firstly, you cannot apply principles from domestic law to international law or compare the ICJ with the way a national court would function. Those share very few characteristics, because they are two completely different legal traditions. Secondly, yes, the Court is completely powerless if both parties to a given case do not agree to recognize its authority. That was the case in 1979: The new government of Iran refused to accept such authority, thus the case was dropped. I see very few sign of anything supra-national here. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Good. So we agree, they are completely different legal tradtions. This is why a phrase, " founded to settle legal disputes " can be deceptive. So it needs to be cleaned up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough. I propose something along the lines of this:
<blockquote>The International Court of Justice, based in the Dutch capital of The Hague, was founded to settle conflicts and disputes over questions of international law between sovereign states. It only has jurisdiction in cases where all parties to the case in question have agreed to recognize the authority of the Court. The Court bases its decisions primarily on international conventions and treaties, on customary international law, and on previous rulings by the court. However, previous rulings are not necessarily binding on the Court, that is, the principle of [["stare decisis"]] does not apply. Also, if both parties to the case agree, the Court can mediate disputes according to the principle of ''[[ex aequo et bono]]''. The Court also advices other organs and agencies of the United Nations on questions of international law.</blockquote>
This puts more emphasis on the specific nature of the court's legal tradition, and has the added virtue of being more exact overall. How does that look to you? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Excellent. Looks very good. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'll put it in the article, then. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Edit Explanation==
I should have made a brief comment earlier on an edit I made to this page, but I'm learning the rules and ways as I go along, so bear with me. I removed the "Complements" section of this article mainly because it didn't really contribute anything solid, and was riddled with misspellings anyway. I hope we can create a heading in the future where we can insert quantifiable facts of any good the U.N. has done (example: "delivered 28.3 tons of grain to Zimbabwe in June, 2004")

Talk:United Nations Human Rights Council

2008-03-30T21:58:43Z

Alexander:

The Human Rights Council, established on 15 March 2006 by the General Assembly and reporting directly to it, replaced the 60-year-old United Nations Commission on Human Rights as the key United Nations intergovernmental body responsible for human rights. <ref>[http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx Frequently asked questions - What is the Human Rights Council? Is it different from OHCHR?], United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights</ref> It appears that this article needs to be re-directed to a new article on the [[Human Rights Council]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:15, 16 December 2007 (EST)

==Article Name Change==
How do we change the name of the article from "Human Rights Commission" to "Human Rights Council"? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 17:58, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

United Nations Human Rights Council

2008-03-30T21:57:34Z

Alexander:

The '''Human Rights Council''' of the [[United Nations]] is supposed to identify and publicize violators of [[human rights]]. Some countries, however, have been able to get elected to the commission and use their membership to conceal their [[human rights violations]], such as [[genocide]] and [[crimes against humanity]].

The [[United States of America]] and its allies consider the US to be the world's foremost defender of human rights, but America's opponents have used selective citations to make the US look bad and other countries look good.

[[category:United Nations]]

Muammar Qaddafi

2008-03-30T21:56:06Z

Alexander:

{{merge|Muammar al-Gaddafi}}

[[Image:Htfr658.jpg|right|thumb|260px]]

Colonel '''Muammar Qaddafi''' (born 1942) has been the tyrannical dictator of [[Libya]] since 1969, when he seized power in a military coup against King Idriss. Once he became dictator, he renamed all the months in the calendar and published the Green Book, which was a series of pamphlets on [[democracy]], [[economics]], and sociology.

President [[Ronald Reagan]] was a frequent target of Qaddafi's rants. Reagan responded with this assessment:<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/641/000026563/</ref>

:"I find he's not only a barbarian, but he's flaky. ... I just think that the man is a zealot."

Reportedly Qaddafi supported [[terrorism]], and may have ordered Lybian agents to bomb Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland in 1988, killing 270 people from 21 countries, including 189 Americans. <ref>http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291597467978635</ref>

Due largely to his fear of becoming a target in the American [[War on Terror]], Qaddafi decided to change his ways, giving up his WMD programs and renouncing terrorism; this marked one of the clear successes of the war, as it brought a measure of stability to North Africa without a single shot being fired. Full diplomatic relations with the [[United States]] were restored in 2006, and the Qaddafi regime's turnaround has been heralded by Secretary of State [[Condoleezza Rice]] as a model for others to follow.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Qaddafi, Muammar}}

[[Category:Heads of state]]

Jean Ziegler

2008-03-30T21:53:22Z

Alexander: /* Political Background */

Jean Ziegler is a former Swiss Socialist lawmaker.

==Career==

===Nomination to U.N. Human Rights Council===
Jean Ziegler was nominated by the Swiss government to occupy one of 18 advisory positions on the U.N. Human Rights Council in March of 2008.

====Reaction====
The nomination for this position has been highly controversial due to his political background. As a result, U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based nongovernmental organization, and 14 other NGOs to write the Swiss government urging it to withdraw his candidacy.

==Political Background==
* In 2004, Venezuelan dictator [[Hugo Chavez]] nominated Ziegler for this same post.
* Ziegler has said the U.S. is committing "genocide" in [[Cuba]]
* Ziegler has also accused Israel of "state terror" and "war crimes" with the U.S.'s blessing.
* Earlier in March of 2008, Ziegler filed a report with the U.N. [[Human Rights Council]] blaming not a half-century of Communist rule, but America's "illegal blockade" of the island as Cuba's main obstacle to feeding its people.
* From 2000 to 2004, Ziegler remained silent on a number of food emergencies in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere.
* In 1986, Ziegler served as adviser to Ethiopian dictator [[Colonel Mengistu]] on a constitution instituting one-party rule.
* In 2002, Ziegler praised Zimbabwe dictator [[Robert Mugabe]], saying, "Mugabe has history and morality with him."
* During a 2008 interview in [[Lebanon]], Ziegler said, "I refuse to describe [[Hezbollah]] as a terrorist organization. It is a national resistance movement. I can understand Hezbollah when they kidnap soldiers."
* In 1989 Ziegler went to [[Libya]] to co-found the "[[Muammar Qaddafi]] Human Rights Prize." Recipients of this prestigious honor have included [[Fidel Castro]], Hugo Chavez, [[Louis Farrakhan]]. and Ziegler himself in 2002.
* In an unprecedented move, both Secretary-General [[Kofi Annan]] and High Commissioner [[Louise Arbour]] publicly denounced Ziegler in 2005 for comparing Israeli soldiers to concentration camp guards. <ref>IBD Editorial, [http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291597467978635 U.N.-Believable Choice], Retrieved 30 April, 2008</ref>

[[Category:United Nations]]

Jean Ziegler

2008-03-30T21:51:10Z

Alexander: /* Political Background */

Jean Ziegler is a former Swiss Socialist lawmaker.

==Career==

===Nomination to U.N. Human Rights Council===
Jean Ziegler was nominated by the Swiss government to occupy one of 18 advisory positions on the U.N. Human Rights Council in March of 2008.

====Reaction====
The nomination for this position has been highly controversial due to his political background. As a result, U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based nongovernmental organization, and 14 other NGOs to write the Swiss government urging it to withdraw his candidacy.

==Political Background==
* In 2004, Venezuelan dictator [[Hugo Chavez]] nominated Ziegler for this same post.
* Ziegler has said the U.S. is committing "genocide" in [[Cuba]]
* Ziegler has also accused Israel of "state terror" and "war crimes" with the U.S.'s blessing.
* Earlier in March of 2008, Ziegler filed a report with the U.N. [[Human Rights Council]] blaming not a half-century of Communist rule, but America's "illegal blockade" of the island as Cuba's main obstacle to feeding its people.
* From 2000 to 2004, Ziegler remained silent on a number of food emergencies in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere.
* In 1986, Ziegler served as adviser to Ethiopian dictator [[Colonel Mengistu]] on a constitution instituting one-party rule.
* In 2002, Ziegler praised Zimbabwe dictator [[Robert Mugabe]], saying, "Mugabe has history and morality with him."
* During a 2008 interview in [[Lebanon]], Ziegler said, "I refuse to describe [[Hezbollah]] as a terrorist organization. It is a national resistance movement. I can understand Hezbollah when they kidnap soldiers."
* In an unprecedented move, both Secretary-General [[Kofi Annan]] and High Commissioner [[Louise Arbour]] publicly denounced Ziegler in 2005 for comparing Israeli soldiers to concentration camp guards. <ref>IBD Editorial, [http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291597467978635 U.N.-Believable Choice], Retrieved 30 April, 2008</ref>

[[Category:United Nations]]

Jean Ziegler

2008-03-30T21:47:43Z

Alexander: /* Political Background */

Jean Ziegler is a former Swiss Socialist lawmaker.

==Career==

===Nomination to U.N. Human Rights Council===
Jean Ziegler was nominated by the Swiss government to occupy one of 18 advisory positions on the U.N. Human Rights Council in March of 2008.

====Reaction====
The nomination for this position has been highly controversial due to his political background. As a result, U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based nongovernmental organization, and 14 other NGOs to write the Swiss government urging it to withdraw his candidacy.

==Political Background==
* In 2004, Venezuelan dictator [[Hugo Chavez]] nominated Ziegler for this same post.
* Ziegler has said the U.S. is committing "genocide" in [[Cuba]]
* Ziegler has also accused Israel of "state terror" and "war crimes" with the U.S.'s blessing.
* Earlier in March of 2008, Ziegler filed a report with the U.N. [[Human Rights Council]] blaming not a half-century of Communist rule, but America's "illegal blockade" of the island as Cuba's main obstacle to feeding its people.
* From 2000 to 2004, Ziegler remained silent on a number of food emergencies in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere.
* In 1986, Ziegler served as adviser to Ethiopian dictator [[Colonel Mengistu]] on a constitution instituting one-party rule.
* In 2002, Ziegler praised Zimbabwe dictator [[Robert Mugabe]], saying, "Mugabe has history and morality with him." <ref>IBD Editorial, [http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291597467978635 U.N.-Believable Choice], Retrieved 30 April, 2008</ref>

[[Category:United Nations]]

Jean Ziegler

2008-03-30T21:46:54Z

Alexander: /* Political Background */

Jean Ziegler is a former Swiss Socialist lawmaker.

==Career==

===Nomination to U.N. Human Rights Council===
Jean Ziegler was nominated by the Swiss government to occupy one of 18 advisory positions on the U.N. Human Rights Council in March of 2008.

====Reaction====
The nomination for this position has been highly controversial due to his political background. As a result, U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based nongovernmental organization, and 14 other NGOs to write the Swiss government urging it to withdraw his candidacy.

==Political Background==
* In 2004, Venezuelan dictator [[Hugo Chavez]] nominated Ziegler for this same post.
* Ziegler has said the U.S. is committing "genocide" in Cuba
* Ziegler has also accused Israel of "state terror" and "war crimes" with the U.S.'s blessing.
* Earlier in March of 2008, Ziegler filed a report with the U.N. Human Rights Council blaming not a half-century of Communist rule, but America's "illegal blockade" of the island as Cuba's main obstacle to feeding its people.
* From 2000 to 2004, Ziegler remained silent on a number of food emergencies in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere.
* In 1986, Ziegler served as adviser to Ethiopian dictator [[Colonel Mengistu]] on a constitution instituting one-party rule.
* In 2002, Ziegler praised Zimbabwe dictator [[Robert Mugabe]], saying, "Mugabe has history and morality with him." <ref>IBD Editorial, [http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291597467978635 U.N.-Believable Choice], Retrieved 30 April, 2008</ref>

[[Category:United Nations]]

Jean Ziegler

2008-03-30T21:46:22Z

Alexander: New page: Jean Ziegler is a former Swiss Socialist lawmaker. ==Career== ===Nomination to U.N. Human Rights Council=== Jean Ziegler was nominated by the Swiss government to occupy one of 18 advisor...

Jean Ziegler is a former Swiss Socialist lawmaker.

==Career==

===Nomination to U.N. Human Rights Council===
Jean Ziegler was nominated by the Swiss government to occupy one of 18 advisory positions on the U.N. Human Rights Council in March of 2008.

====Reaction====
The nomination for this position has been highly controversial due to his political background. As a result, U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based nongovernmental organization, and 14 other NGOs to write the Swiss government urging it to withdraw his candidacy.

==Political Background==
* In 2004, Venezuelan dictator [Hugo Chavez] nominated Ziegler for this same post.
* Ziegler has said the U.S. is committing "genocide" in Cuba
* Ziegler has also accused Israel of "state terror" and "war crimes" with the U.S.'s blessing.
* Earlier in March of 2008, Ziegler filed a report with the U.N. Human Rights Council blaming not a half-century of Communist rule, but America's "illegal blockade" of the island as Cuba's main obstacle to feeding its people.
* From 2000 to 2004, Ziegler remained silent on a number of food emergencies in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere.
* In 1986, Ziegler served as adviser to Ethiopian dictator [Colonel Mengistu] on a constitution instituting one-party rule.
* In 2002, Ziegler praised Zimbabwe dictator [Robert Mugabe], saying, "Mugabe has history and morality with him." <ref>IBD Editorial, [http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291597467978635 U.N.-Believable Choice], Retrieved 30 April, 2008</ref>

[[Category:United Nations]]

United Nations

2008-03-30T21:32:32Z

Alexander: /* Criticism */

[[Image:UN1.jpg|thumb|right|Seal of the United Nations]]
The '''United Nations''' is an organization of countries all over the world, originally created to facilitate cooperation in [[international law]], international security, economic development, and [[human rights]]. It has since devolved into a radical debating society which has ironically blocked most of the goals for which it has been formed. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html Why the Security Council Failed], Michael J. Glennon, ''Foreign Affairs'', May/June 2003.</ref> Critics view the UN as an agent for eroding the sovereignty of the [[United States]] and instead promoting forms of world government. President [[Bill Clinton]] rejected and ignored the position of the United Nations when he ordered U.S. military "police actions" in foreign countries. President [[George W. Bush]] also rejected the inaction of the UN when he authorized military action against the regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] in [[Iraq]] for ignoring various UN resolutions.

The UN was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 51 countries, replacing the League of Nations, founded in 1919. The UN currently has 192 members, including every country in the world except [[Taiwan]] and [[Vatican City]].<ref>Switzerland finally joined in 2002. [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/GA10041.doc.htm]</ref>

==Organization==
[[Image:Int Atomic Ag.jpg|thumb|Flag of the International Atomic Energy Agency]]
The main deliberative organ is the '''General Assembly''' which usually meets annually in September with representation by all member states. The General Assembly votes on the annual budget of the United Nations, elects members to other UN organs and committees, and makes non-binding recommendations to member states through resolutions.

The '''[[Security Council]]''' handles matters relating to international [[peace]] and stability. It consists of five permanent members (USA, UK, France, Russia and PR China), and ten temporary members, which are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The Security Council decides by vote. On substantive issues, nine members must support the proposal, including all five permanent members, giving each permanent member an effective veto power. The chair of the Security Council rotates each month among its members, in alphabetic order.

The '''International Court of Justice''', based in [[The Hague]], was founded to settle conflicts and disputes over questions arising from the [[international law|interpretation of treaties]] among member states. It only may entertain <ref> International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 How the Court works], retrieved 26 April 2007.</ref> cases where all parties to the case in question have agreed to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also advices other organs and agencies of the United Nations on questions of the interpretation of treaties.

The '''United Nations Economic and Social Council''' is a deliberative and advisory organ dedicated to promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. It cooperates with the [[International Monetary Fund]], the World Bank Group and similar international agencies.

The '''United Nations Secretariat''' is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the UN system. The head of the Secretariat is the [[Secretary-General]], who is nominated by the Security Council and appointed by the General Assembly for renewable five-year terms. The current Secretary-General is [[Ban Ki-moon]], the former Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea. It is customary to let the position rotate among the different world regions.

==Criticism==
The U.N. has at various times in its history been accused of inefficiency and waste, which some critics have attributed to its cumbersome and excessive bureaucracy. Probably the most controversial issue with the United Nations is the Oil-for-Food scandal.

As a meeting place for many different nations, the UN can only act as a mechanism for international consensus. The UN has been unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted crises in which this consensus is not present. Recent examples include the [[Iran]]ian nuclear program and the genocides in Darfur, Sudan and Rwanda. Because each of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no action can be agreed upon. Typically but not always this division includes the [[United States]] on one side with either [[China]], [[Russia]] or both on the other. Other times the Security Council has been able to agree but lacks the will or means to enforce its resolutions. A recent example is the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Crisis, where no action has been taken to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1559 and Resolution 1701 to disarm terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. There usually are no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution.

Inclusion on the old United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) of nations such as Sudan and Libya, whose leaderships have dubious records on human rights, and Libya's chairmanship of this Commission, has been a highly controversial issue.
[[Image:un_building.jpg|thumb|left|250px|The UN headquarters, on the east side of Manhattan, opened its doors on January 10th, 1951.]]
The United Nations has on many occasions ignored the plight of people across the world, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Current examples include the UN's inaction toward the Sudanese government in Darfur, the Chinese government's ethnic cleansing in Tibet, and the Israel-Arab conflict. <ref> IBD Editorial, [http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291423057524689 U.N. Fiddles As China Torches Tibet], retrieved 30 March 2008.</ref>

During the Rwandan genocide the UN did not authorize UNAMIR to intervene or use force to prevent or halt the killing.

===Arab-Israel dispute===
The UN has taken a one-sided approach to issues relating to the [[Israel]]-Arab conflict. Israel has consistently been singled out by the UN for uniquely critical treatment. In 1975 the General Assembly passed a resolution declaring that "Zionism is racism" <ref>[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/761c1063530766a7052566a2005b74d1!OpenDocument 16/12/1991, A/RES/46/86, Elimination of racism and racial discrimination/Zionism]</ref>, and UN-sponsored meetings supposedly opposing [[racism]] have criticized Israel (which grants equal political and religious rights to Arabs) while suppressing all criticism of those Arab countries (where non-Muslims are second-class citizens and [[anti-Semitism]] enjoys state support).

Unlike other refugee groups, the Palestinian Arabs have their own agency within the United Nations, and are beneficiaries of special events such as an "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People."<ref>[http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/palestinian/ UN Web Site for International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, retried June 29, 2007]</ref> Israel was excluded from membership in any of the UN's regional groups until 2000. In effect, this meant Israel was forbidden from serving on UN bodies such as the Security Council. Israel's recent permission to participate more fully within the UN as a member of the Western European and Others regional group is temporary and subject to renewal. Israel is allowed to participate only in the New York operations of the UN and is excluded from the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna which handle such issues as human rights and arms control. Censure of Israel has apparently been instituted as a routine agenda item for various UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council. The 1975 Resolution 3379 qualified Zionism as a form of racism (later revoked with Resolution 4686).

==UN Peacekeepers Child Sexual Abuse==
The United Nations since its founding has been enmeshed in various scandals.

In July 1997 the UN announced an investigation into [[United Nations Peacekeeping Force]]s in [[Cote d'Ivoire]] on charges of widespread sexual abuse with a large number of underage girls. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/21/un.ivory.coast.reut/ U.N. suspends peacekeepers amid sex abuse charges], CNN, July 21, 2007.</ref> More than 300 members of UN peacekeeping missions around the world have been investigated for sexual exploitation and abuse since 2004, including some stationed in [[Congo]], [[Cambodia]] and [[Haiti]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm UN probes 'abuse' in Ivory Coast], BBC, July 23, 2007.</ref>

=== Incidents ===
*1998 - Bosnia <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YVWZRGS4V2AGJQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml Teenagers 'used for sex by UN in Bosnia'], By Stewart Payne, London Telegraph, 25/04/2002.</ref>
*2003 - Nepalese troops accused of sexual abuse while serving in DR Congo. Six are later jailed
*2004 - Two UN peacekeepers repatriated after being accused of abuse in Burundi
*2005 - UN troops accused of rape and sexual abuse in Sudan <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/03/wsudan03.xml UN staff accused of raping children in Sudan], By Kate Holt in Juba and Sarah Hughes, London Telegraph, 04/01/2007.</ref>
*2006 - UN personnel accused of rape and exploitation on missions is Haiti and Liberia
*2007 - UN launches probe into sexual abuse claims in Ivory Coast

==History==
The term "United Nations" was widely used during [[World War II]] to denote the allied powers making war against Germany and Japan. As an organization, the UN originated as a bureau within the US State Department during [[World War II]] tasked with planning and organizing a post-War future. President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] envisaged "four policemen", the British Empire, United States, Soviet Union, and [[Republic of China]] to be the major forces on what later became the UN Security Council to enforce the peace worldwide. This was deemed a modern approach to replace the old [[spheres of influence]] as they were called during the age of Imperialism. In 1971, following United States recognition of the [[People's Republic of China]], the 'mainland' Chinese government took over the UN membership and seat on the [[Security Council]] hitherto held by the Republic of China, although that entity had only controlled the island province of [[Taiwan]] since the Nationalist collapse after the resumption of the [[Chinese Civil War]] in 1945 to 1949.
In the original planning stages State Department employee and KGB Agent [[Alger Hiss]] was tasked with much of the organizational work and later became the first Secretary General at the United Nations Charter Conference in San Francisco. US Secretary of State Cordell Hull said a the time while selling the idea to Congress, "there will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power, or any other of the separate alliances through which in the unhappy past the nations strove to safeguard their security or promote their interest." [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Comunist party]] General Secretary [[Josef Stalin]] got the United Nations precisely on his own terms and in a form that has enabled him to intervene into every problem in the world and to completely frustrate the British and Americans in every effort to introduce order, peace and security. <ref>John R. Deane, ''The Strange Alliance: the Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Co-Operation with Russia'', New York: The Viking Press, 1947, p. 43.</ref> Nonetheless, the separate alliance of [[NATO]] came into existence at the same time and played a much greater role in US foreign policy commitments and decisions during the [[Cold War]] than the UN ever did.{{fact}}

In its earliest years, the United Nations was not dominated by the Asian and African "Third World" nations which ultimately poisoned the organization, but was of only limited use in controlling international conflict.

A General Assembly resolution led to the partition of Palestine in 1947, but the UN was useless in preventing armed Arab aggression against the new State of Israel in 1948. In 1950, A UN Security Council resolution authorized use of force to combat North Korean aggression, but that was possible only because the Soviet Union was boycotting the council and unable to veto. It was the only instance during the Cold War in which the UN took a stand against Communist aggression.

In the years to come, the Security Council became frequently paralyzed because of the Soviet veto, and the General Assembly became a shrill sounding board for anti-American sentiment.

==Further reading==
*[http://www.nysun.com/article/56061 UNDP Officials Said To Hamper Probe Into Counterfeit Cash], By Benny Avni, ''The New York Sun'', June 7, 2007.
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00972:@@@D&summ2=m& H.R. 972 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005] - Title I: Combatting International Trafficking in Persons - (Sec. 101); Directs the U.S. Secretary of State, prior to voting for a peacekeeping mission, to notify the appropriate Congressional committees respecting measures taken to prevent Peacekeeping personnel from involvement in human trafficking or sexual exploitation.

==External links==
*[http://www.un.org/ United Nations] - Official site
*[http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833 All about the United Nations Budget] June 2006
*[http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2007/May/theuae_May569.xml&section=theuae&col UN General Assembly President Shaikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa calls for Islamic texts re-interpretation,]Khaleej Times Online, 19 May 2007.

===Sites critical of the U.N.===
*[http://www.unwatch.org UN Watch]
*[http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm UN is Evil]
[[category:United Nations]]
[[category:politics]]
[[category:International organizations]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[category:diplomacy]]

==References==
<references/>

United Nations

2008-03-30T21:30:45Z

Alexander: /* Criticism */

[[Image:UN1.jpg|thumb|right|Seal of the United Nations]]
The '''United Nations''' is an organization of countries all over the world, originally created to facilitate cooperation in [[international law]], international security, economic development, and [[human rights]]. It has since devolved into a radical debating society which has ironically blocked most of the goals for which it has been formed. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html Why the Security Council Failed], Michael J. Glennon, ''Foreign Affairs'', May/June 2003.</ref> Critics view the UN as an agent for eroding the sovereignty of the [[United States]] and instead promoting forms of world government. President [[Bill Clinton]] rejected and ignored the position of the United Nations when he ordered U.S. military "police actions" in foreign countries. President [[George W. Bush]] also rejected the inaction of the UN when he authorized military action against the regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] in [[Iraq]] for ignoring various UN resolutions.

The UN was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 51 countries, replacing the League of Nations, founded in 1919. The UN currently has 192 members, including every country in the world except [[Taiwan]] and [[Vatican City]].<ref>Switzerland finally joined in 2002. [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/GA10041.doc.htm]</ref>

==Organization==
[[Image:Int Atomic Ag.jpg|thumb|Flag of the International Atomic Energy Agency]]
The main deliberative organ is the '''General Assembly''' which usually meets annually in September with representation by all member states. The General Assembly votes on the annual budget of the United Nations, elects members to other UN organs and committees, and makes non-binding recommendations to member states through resolutions.

The '''[[Security Council]]''' handles matters relating to international [[peace]] and stability. It consists of five permanent members (USA, UK, France, Russia and PR China), and ten temporary members, which are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The Security Council decides by vote. On substantive issues, nine members must support the proposal, including all five permanent members, giving each permanent member an effective veto power. The chair of the Security Council rotates each month among its members, in alphabetic order.

The '''International Court of Justice''', based in [[The Hague]], was founded to settle conflicts and disputes over questions arising from the [[international law|interpretation of treaties]] among member states. It only may entertain <ref> International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 How the Court works], retrieved 26 April 2007.</ref> cases where all parties to the case in question have agreed to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also advices other organs and agencies of the United Nations on questions of the interpretation of treaties.

The '''United Nations Economic and Social Council''' is a deliberative and advisory organ dedicated to promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. It cooperates with the [[International Monetary Fund]], the World Bank Group and similar international agencies.

The '''United Nations Secretariat''' is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the UN system. The head of the Secretariat is the [[Secretary-General]], who is nominated by the Security Council and appointed by the General Assembly for renewable five-year terms. The current Secretary-General is [[Ban Ki-moon]], the former Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea. It is customary to let the position rotate among the different world regions.

==Criticism==
The U.N. has at various times in its history been accused of inefficiency and waste, which some critics have attributed to its cumbersome and excessive bureaucracy. Probably the most controversial issue with the United Nations is the Oil-for-Food scandal.

As a meeting place for many different nations, the UN can only act as a mechanism for international consensus. The UN has been unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted crises in which this consensus is not present. Recent examples include the [[Iran]]ian nuclear program and the genocides in Darfur, Sudan and Rwanda. Because each of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no action can be agreed upon. Typically but not always this division includes the [[United States]] on one side with either [[China]], [[Russia]] or both on the other. Other times the Security Council has been able to agree but lacks the will or means to enforce its resolutions. A recent example is the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Crisis, where no action has been taken to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1559 and Resolution 1701 to disarm terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. There usually are no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution.

Inclusion on the old United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) of nations such as Sudan and Libya, whose leaderships have dubious records on human rights, and Libya's chairmanship of this Commission, has been a highly controversial issue.
[[Image:un_building.jpg|thumb|left|250px|The UN headquarters, on the east side of Manhattan, opened its doors on January 10th, 1951.]]
The United Nations has on many occasions ignored the plight of people across the world, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Current examples include the UN's inaction toward the Sudanese government in Darfur, the Chinese government's ethnic cleansing in Tibet, and the Israel-Arab conflict. <ref> IBD Editorial, [U.N. Fiddles As China Torches Tibet | http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291423057524689], retrieved 30 March 2008.</ref>

During the Rwandan genocide the UN did not authorize UNAMIR to intervene or use force to prevent or halt the killing.

===Arab-Israel dispute===
The UN has taken a one-sided approach to issues relating to the [[Israel]]-Arab conflict. Israel has consistently been singled out by the UN for uniquely critical treatment. In 1975 the General Assembly passed a resolution declaring that "Zionism is racism" <ref>[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/761c1063530766a7052566a2005b74d1!OpenDocument 16/12/1991, A/RES/46/86, Elimination of racism and racial discrimination/Zionism]</ref>, and UN-sponsored meetings supposedly opposing [[racism]] have criticized Israel (which grants equal political and religious rights to Arabs) while suppressing all criticism of those Arab countries (where non-Muslims are second-class citizens and [[anti-Semitism]] enjoys state support).

Unlike other refugee groups, the Palestinian Arabs have their own agency within the United Nations, and are beneficiaries of special events such as an "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People."<ref>[http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/palestinian/ UN Web Site for International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, retried June 29, 2007]</ref> Israel was excluded from membership in any of the UN's regional groups until 2000. In effect, this meant Israel was forbidden from serving on UN bodies such as the Security Council. Israel's recent permission to participate more fully within the UN as a member of the Western European and Others regional group is temporary and subject to renewal. Israel is allowed to participate only in the New York operations of the UN and is excluded from the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna which handle such issues as human rights and arms control. Censure of Israel has apparently been instituted as a routine agenda item for various UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council. The 1975 Resolution 3379 qualified Zionism as a form of racism (later revoked with Resolution 4686).

==UN Peacekeepers Child Sexual Abuse==
The United Nations since its founding has been enmeshed in various scandals.

In July 1997 the UN announced an investigation into [[United Nations Peacekeeping Force]]s in [[Cote d'Ivoire]] on charges of widespread sexual abuse with a large number of underage girls. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/21/un.ivory.coast.reut/ U.N. suspends peacekeepers amid sex abuse charges], CNN, July 21, 2007.</ref> More than 300 members of UN peacekeeping missions around the world have been investigated for sexual exploitation and abuse since 2004, including some stationed in [[Congo]], [[Cambodia]] and [[Haiti]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm UN probes 'abuse' in Ivory Coast], BBC, July 23, 2007.</ref>

=== Incidents ===
*1998 - Bosnia <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YVWZRGS4V2AGJQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml Teenagers 'used for sex by UN in Bosnia'], By Stewart Payne, London Telegraph, 25/04/2002.</ref>
*2003 - Nepalese troops accused of sexual abuse while serving in DR Congo. Six are later jailed
*2004 - Two UN peacekeepers repatriated after being accused of abuse in Burundi
*2005 - UN troops accused of rape and sexual abuse in Sudan <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/03/wsudan03.xml UN staff accused of raping children in Sudan], By Kate Holt in Juba and Sarah Hughes, London Telegraph, 04/01/2007.</ref>
*2006 - UN personnel accused of rape and exploitation on missions is Haiti and Liberia
*2007 - UN launches probe into sexual abuse claims in Ivory Coast

==History==
The term "United Nations" was widely used during [[World War II]] to denote the allied powers making war against Germany and Japan. As an organization, the UN originated as a bureau within the US State Department during [[World War II]] tasked with planning and organizing a post-War future. President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] envisaged "four policemen", the British Empire, United States, Soviet Union, and [[Republic of China]] to be the major forces on what later became the UN Security Council to enforce the peace worldwide. This was deemed a modern approach to replace the old [[spheres of influence]] as they were called during the age of Imperialism. In 1971, following United States recognition of the [[People's Republic of China]], the 'mainland' Chinese government took over the UN membership and seat on the [[Security Council]] hitherto held by the Republic of China, although that entity had only controlled the island province of [[Taiwan]] since the Nationalist collapse after the resumption of the [[Chinese Civil War]] in 1945 to 1949.
In the original planning stages State Department employee and KGB Agent [[Alger Hiss]] was tasked with much of the organizational work and later became the first Secretary General at the United Nations Charter Conference in San Francisco. US Secretary of State Cordell Hull said a the time while selling the idea to Congress, "there will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power, or any other of the separate alliances through which in the unhappy past the nations strove to safeguard their security or promote their interest." [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Comunist party]] General Secretary [[Josef Stalin]] got the United Nations precisely on his own terms and in a form that has enabled him to intervene into every problem in the world and to completely frustrate the British and Americans in every effort to introduce order, peace and security. <ref>John R. Deane, ''The Strange Alliance: the Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Co-Operation with Russia'', New York: The Viking Press, 1947, p. 43.</ref> Nonetheless, the separate alliance of [[NATO]] came into existence at the same time and played a much greater role in US foreign policy commitments and decisions during the [[Cold War]] than the UN ever did.{{fact}}

In its earliest years, the United Nations was not dominated by the Asian and African "Third World" nations which ultimately poisoned the organization, but was of only limited use in controlling international conflict.

A General Assembly resolution led to the partition of Palestine in 1947, but the UN was useless in preventing armed Arab aggression against the new State of Israel in 1948. In 1950, A UN Security Council resolution authorized use of force to combat North Korean aggression, but that was possible only because the Soviet Union was boycotting the council and unable to veto. It was the only instance during the Cold War in which the UN took a stand against Communist aggression.

In the years to come, the Security Council became frequently paralyzed because of the Soviet veto, and the General Assembly became a shrill sounding board for anti-American sentiment.

==Further reading==
*[http://www.nysun.com/article/56061 UNDP Officials Said To Hamper Probe Into Counterfeit Cash], By Benny Avni, ''The New York Sun'', June 7, 2007.
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00972:@@@D&summ2=m& H.R. 972 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005] - Title I: Combatting International Trafficking in Persons - (Sec. 101); Directs the U.S. Secretary of State, prior to voting for a peacekeeping mission, to notify the appropriate Congressional committees respecting measures taken to prevent Peacekeeping personnel from involvement in human trafficking or sexual exploitation.

==External links==
*[http://www.un.org/ United Nations] - Official site
*[http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833 All about the United Nations Budget] June 2006
*[http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2007/May/theuae_May569.xml&section=theuae&col UN General Assembly President Shaikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa calls for Islamic texts re-interpretation,]Khaleej Times Online, 19 May 2007.

===Sites critical of the U.N.===
*[http://www.unwatch.org UN Watch]
*[http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm UN is Evil]
[[category:United Nations]]
[[category:politics]]
[[category:International organizations]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[category:diplomacy]]

==References==
<references/>

United Nations

2008-03-30T21:29:54Z

Alexander: /* Criticism */

[[Image:UN1.jpg|thumb|right|Seal of the United Nations]]
The '''United Nations''' is an organization of countries all over the world, originally created to facilitate cooperation in [[international law]], international security, economic development, and [[human rights]]. It has since devolved into a radical debating society which has ironically blocked most of the goals for which it has been formed. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html Why the Security Council Failed], Michael J. Glennon, ''Foreign Affairs'', May/June 2003.</ref> Critics view the UN as an agent for eroding the sovereignty of the [[United States]] and instead promoting forms of world government. President [[Bill Clinton]] rejected and ignored the position of the United Nations when he ordered U.S. military "police actions" in foreign countries. President [[George W. Bush]] also rejected the inaction of the UN when he authorized military action against the regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] in [[Iraq]] for ignoring various UN resolutions.

The UN was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 51 countries, replacing the League of Nations, founded in 1919. The UN currently has 192 members, including every country in the world except [[Taiwan]] and [[Vatican City]].<ref>Switzerland finally joined in 2002. [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/GA10041.doc.htm]</ref>

==Organization==
[[Image:Int Atomic Ag.jpg|thumb|Flag of the International Atomic Energy Agency]]
The main deliberative organ is the '''General Assembly''' which usually meets annually in September with representation by all member states. The General Assembly votes on the annual budget of the United Nations, elects members to other UN organs and committees, and makes non-binding recommendations to member states through resolutions.

The '''[[Security Council]]''' handles matters relating to international [[peace]] and stability. It consists of five permanent members (USA, UK, France, Russia and PR China), and ten temporary members, which are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The Security Council decides by vote. On substantive issues, nine members must support the proposal, including all five permanent members, giving each permanent member an effective veto power. The chair of the Security Council rotates each month among its members, in alphabetic order.

The '''International Court of Justice''', based in [[The Hague]], was founded to settle conflicts and disputes over questions arising from the [[international law|interpretation of treaties]] among member states. It only may entertain <ref> International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 How the Court works], retrieved 26 April 2007.</ref> cases where all parties to the case in question have agreed to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also advices other organs and agencies of the United Nations on questions of the interpretation of treaties.

The '''United Nations Economic and Social Council''' is a deliberative and advisory organ dedicated to promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. It cooperates with the [[International Monetary Fund]], the World Bank Group and similar international agencies.

The '''United Nations Secretariat''' is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the UN system. The head of the Secretariat is the [[Secretary-General]], who is nominated by the Security Council and appointed by the General Assembly for renewable five-year terms. The current Secretary-General is [[Ban Ki-moon]], the former Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea. It is customary to let the position rotate among the different world regions.

==Criticism==
The U.N. has at various times in its history been accused of inefficiency and waste, which some critics have attributed to its cumbersome and excessive bureaucracy. Probably the most controversial issue with the United Nations is the Oil-for-Food scandal.

As a meeting place for many different nations, the UN can only act as a mechanism for international consensus. The UN has been unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted crises in which this consensus is not present. Recent examples include the [[Iran]]ian nuclear program and the genocides in Darfur, Sudan and Rwanda. Because each of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no action can be agreed upon. Typically but not always this division includes the [[United States]] on one side with either [[China]], [[Russia]] or both on the other. Other times the Security Council has been able to agree but lacks the will or means to enforce its resolutions. A recent example is the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Crisis, where no action has been taken to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1559 and Resolution 1701 to disarm terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. There usually are no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution.

Inclusion on the old United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) of nations such as Sudan and Libya, whose leaderships have dubious records on human rights, and Libya's chairmanship of this Commission, has been a highly controversial issue.
[[Image:un_building.jpg|thumb|left|250px|The UN headquarters, on the east side of Manhattan, opened its doors on January 10th, 1951.]]
The United Nations has on many occasions ignored the plight of people across the world, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Current examples include the UN's inaction toward the Sudanese government in Darfur, the Chinese government's ethnic cleansing in Tibet, and the Israel-Arab conflict. <ref> IBD Editorial, [http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291423057524689], retrieved 30 March 2008.</ref>

During the Rwandan genocide the UN did not authorize UNAMIR to intervene or use force to prevent or halt the killing.

===Arab-Israel dispute===
The UN has taken a one-sided approach to issues relating to the [[Israel]]-Arab conflict. Israel has consistently been singled out by the UN for uniquely critical treatment. In 1975 the General Assembly passed a resolution declaring that "Zionism is racism" <ref>[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/761c1063530766a7052566a2005b74d1!OpenDocument 16/12/1991, A/RES/46/86, Elimination of racism and racial discrimination/Zionism]</ref>, and UN-sponsored meetings supposedly opposing [[racism]] have criticized Israel (which grants equal political and religious rights to Arabs) while suppressing all criticism of those Arab countries (where non-Muslims are second-class citizens and [[anti-Semitism]] enjoys state support).

Unlike other refugee groups, the Palestinian Arabs have their own agency within the United Nations, and are beneficiaries of special events such as an "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People."<ref>[http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/palestinian/ UN Web Site for International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, retried June 29, 2007]</ref> Israel was excluded from membership in any of the UN's regional groups until 2000. In effect, this meant Israel was forbidden from serving on UN bodies such as the Security Council. Israel's recent permission to participate more fully within the UN as a member of the Western European and Others regional group is temporary and subject to renewal. Israel is allowed to participate only in the New York operations of the UN and is excluded from the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna which handle such issues as human rights and arms control. Censure of Israel has apparently been instituted as a routine agenda item for various UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council. The 1975 Resolution 3379 qualified Zionism as a form of racism (later revoked with Resolution 4686).

==UN Peacekeepers Child Sexual Abuse==
The United Nations since its founding has been enmeshed in various scandals.

In July 1997 the UN announced an investigation into [[United Nations Peacekeeping Force]]s in [[Cote d'Ivoire]] on charges of widespread sexual abuse with a large number of underage girls. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/21/un.ivory.coast.reut/ U.N. suspends peacekeepers amid sex abuse charges], CNN, July 21, 2007.</ref> More than 300 members of UN peacekeeping missions around the world have been investigated for sexual exploitation and abuse since 2004, including some stationed in [[Congo]], [[Cambodia]] and [[Haiti]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm UN probes 'abuse' in Ivory Coast], BBC, July 23, 2007.</ref>

=== Incidents ===
*1998 - Bosnia <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YVWZRGS4V2AGJQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml Teenagers 'used for sex by UN in Bosnia'], By Stewart Payne, London Telegraph, 25/04/2002.</ref>
*2003 - Nepalese troops accused of sexual abuse while serving in DR Congo. Six are later jailed
*2004 - Two UN peacekeepers repatriated after being accused of abuse in Burundi
*2005 - UN troops accused of rape and sexual abuse in Sudan <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/03/wsudan03.xml UN staff accused of raping children in Sudan], By Kate Holt in Juba and Sarah Hughes, London Telegraph, 04/01/2007.</ref>
*2006 - UN personnel accused of rape and exploitation on missions is Haiti and Liberia
*2007 - UN launches probe into sexual abuse claims in Ivory Coast

==History==
The term "United Nations" was widely used during [[World War II]] to denote the allied powers making war against Germany and Japan. As an organization, the UN originated as a bureau within the US State Department during [[World War II]] tasked with planning and organizing a post-War future. President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] envisaged "four policemen", the British Empire, United States, Soviet Union, and [[Republic of China]] to be the major forces on what later became the UN Security Council to enforce the peace worldwide. This was deemed a modern approach to replace the old [[spheres of influence]] as they were called during the age of Imperialism. In 1971, following United States recognition of the [[People's Republic of China]], the 'mainland' Chinese government took over the UN membership and seat on the [[Security Council]] hitherto held by the Republic of China, although that entity had only controlled the island province of [[Taiwan]] since the Nationalist collapse after the resumption of the [[Chinese Civil War]] in 1945 to 1949.
In the original planning stages State Department employee and KGB Agent [[Alger Hiss]] was tasked with much of the organizational work and later became the first Secretary General at the United Nations Charter Conference in San Francisco. US Secretary of State Cordell Hull said a the time while selling the idea to Congress, "there will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power, or any other of the separate alliances through which in the unhappy past the nations strove to safeguard their security or promote their interest." [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Comunist party]] General Secretary [[Josef Stalin]] got the United Nations precisely on his own terms and in a form that has enabled him to intervene into every problem in the world and to completely frustrate the British and Americans in every effort to introduce order, peace and security. <ref>John R. Deane, ''The Strange Alliance: the Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Co-Operation with Russia'', New York: The Viking Press, 1947, p. 43.</ref> Nonetheless, the separate alliance of [[NATO]] came into existence at the same time and played a much greater role in US foreign policy commitments and decisions during the [[Cold War]] than the UN ever did.{{fact}}

In its earliest years, the United Nations was not dominated by the Asian and African "Third World" nations which ultimately poisoned the organization, but was of only limited use in controlling international conflict.

A General Assembly resolution led to the partition of Palestine in 1947, but the UN was useless in preventing armed Arab aggression against the new State of Israel in 1948. In 1950, A UN Security Council resolution authorized use of force to combat North Korean aggression, but that was possible only because the Soviet Union was boycotting the council and unable to veto. It was the only instance during the Cold War in which the UN took a stand against Communist aggression.

In the years to come, the Security Council became frequently paralyzed because of the Soviet veto, and the General Assembly became a shrill sounding board for anti-American sentiment.

==Further reading==
*[http://www.nysun.com/article/56061 UNDP Officials Said To Hamper Probe Into Counterfeit Cash], By Benny Avni, ''The New York Sun'', June 7, 2007.
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00972:@@@D&summ2=m& H.R. 972 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005] - Title I: Combatting International Trafficking in Persons - (Sec. 101); Directs the U.S. Secretary of State, prior to voting for a peacekeeping mission, to notify the appropriate Congressional committees respecting measures taken to prevent Peacekeeping personnel from involvement in human trafficking or sexual exploitation.

==External links==
*[http://www.un.org/ United Nations] - Official site
*[http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833 All about the United Nations Budget] June 2006
*[http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2007/May/theuae_May569.xml&section=theuae&col UN General Assembly President Shaikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa calls for Islamic texts re-interpretation,]Khaleej Times Online, 19 May 2007.

===Sites critical of the U.N.===
*[http://www.unwatch.org UN Watch]
*[http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm UN is Evil]
[[category:United Nations]]
[[category:politics]]
[[category:International organizations]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[category:diplomacy]]

==References==
<references/>

United Nations

2008-03-30T21:27:55Z

Alexander: /* Criticism */

[[Image:UN1.jpg|thumb|right|Seal of the United Nations]]
The '''United Nations''' is an organization of countries all over the world, originally created to facilitate cooperation in [[international law]], international security, economic development, and [[human rights]]. It has since devolved into a radical debating society which has ironically blocked most of the goals for which it has been formed. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html Why the Security Council Failed], Michael J. Glennon, ''Foreign Affairs'', May/June 2003.</ref> Critics view the UN as an agent for eroding the sovereignty of the [[United States]] and instead promoting forms of world government. President [[Bill Clinton]] rejected and ignored the position of the United Nations when he ordered U.S. military "police actions" in foreign countries. President [[George W. Bush]] also rejected the inaction of the UN when he authorized military action against the regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] in [[Iraq]] for ignoring various UN resolutions.

The UN was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 51 countries, replacing the League of Nations, founded in 1919. The UN currently has 192 members, including every country in the world except [[Taiwan]] and [[Vatican City]].<ref>Switzerland finally joined in 2002. [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/GA10041.doc.htm]</ref>

==Organization==
[[Image:Int Atomic Ag.jpg|thumb|Flag of the International Atomic Energy Agency]]
The main deliberative organ is the '''General Assembly''' which usually meets annually in September with representation by all member states. The General Assembly votes on the annual budget of the United Nations, elects members to other UN organs and committees, and makes non-binding recommendations to member states through resolutions.

The '''[[Security Council]]''' handles matters relating to international [[peace]] and stability. It consists of five permanent members (USA, UK, France, Russia and PR China), and ten temporary members, which are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The Security Council decides by vote. On substantive issues, nine members must support the proposal, including all five permanent members, giving each permanent member an effective veto power. The chair of the Security Council rotates each month among its members, in alphabetic order.

The '''International Court of Justice''', based in [[The Hague]], was founded to settle conflicts and disputes over questions arising from the [[international law|interpretation of treaties]] among member states. It only may entertain <ref> International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 How the Court works], retrieved 26 April 2007.</ref> cases where all parties to the case in question have agreed to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also advices other organs and agencies of the United Nations on questions of the interpretation of treaties.

The '''United Nations Economic and Social Council''' is a deliberative and advisory organ dedicated to promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. It cooperates with the [[International Monetary Fund]], the World Bank Group and similar international agencies.

The '''United Nations Secretariat''' is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the UN system. The head of the Secretariat is the [[Secretary-General]], who is nominated by the Security Council and appointed by the General Assembly for renewable five-year terms. The current Secretary-General is [[Ban Ki-moon]], the former Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea. It is customary to let the position rotate among the different world regions.

==Criticism==
The U.N. has at various times in its history been accused of inefficiency and waste, which some critics have attributed to its cumbersome and excessive bureaucracy. Probably the most controversial issue with the United Nations is the Oil-for-Food scandal.

As a meeting place for many different nations, the UN can only act as a mechanism for international consensus. The UN has been unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted crises in which this consensus is not present. Recent examples include the [[Iran]]ian nuclear program and the genocides in Darfur, Sudan and Rwanda. Because each of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no action can be agreed upon. Typically but not always this division includes the [[United States]] on one side with either [[China]], [[Russia]] or both on the other. Other times the Security Council has been able to agree but lacks the will or means to enforce its resolutions. A recent example is the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Crisis, where no action has been taken to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1559 and Resolution 1701 to disarm terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. There usually are no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution.

Inclusion on the old United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) of nations such as Sudan and Libya, whose leaderships have dubious records on human rights, and Libya's chairmanship of this Commission, has been a highly controversial issue.
[[Image:un_building.jpg|thumb|left|250px|The UN headquarters, on the east side of Manhattan, opened its doors on January 10th, 1951.]]
The United Nations has on many occasions ignored the plight of people across the world, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Current examples include the UN's inaction toward the Sudanese government in Darfur, the Chinese government's ethnic cleansing in Tibet, and the Israel-Arab conflict. [http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291423057524689]

During the Rwandan genocide the UN did not authorize UNAMIR to intervene or use force to prevent or halt the killing.

===Arab-Israel dispute===
The UN has taken a one-sided approach to issues relating to the [[Israel]]-Arab conflict. Israel has consistently been singled out by the UN for uniquely critical treatment. In 1975 the General Assembly passed a resolution declaring that "Zionism is racism" <ref>[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/761c1063530766a7052566a2005b74d1!OpenDocument 16/12/1991, A/RES/46/86, Elimination of racism and racial discrimination/Zionism]</ref>, and UN-sponsored meetings supposedly opposing [[racism]] have criticized Israel (which grants equal political and religious rights to Arabs) while suppressing all criticism of those Arab countries (where non-Muslims are second-class citizens and [[anti-Semitism]] enjoys state support).

Unlike other refugee groups, the Palestinian Arabs have their own agency within the United Nations, and are beneficiaries of special events such as an "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People."<ref>[http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/palestinian/ UN Web Site for International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, retried June 29, 2007]</ref> Israel was excluded from membership in any of the UN's regional groups until 2000. In effect, this meant Israel was forbidden from serving on UN bodies such as the Security Council. Israel's recent permission to participate more fully within the UN as a member of the Western European and Others regional group is temporary and subject to renewal. Israel is allowed to participate only in the New York operations of the UN and is excluded from the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna which handle such issues as human rights and arms control. Censure of Israel has apparently been instituted as a routine agenda item for various UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council. The 1975 Resolution 3379 qualified Zionism as a form of racism (later revoked with Resolution 4686).

==UN Peacekeepers Child Sexual Abuse==
The United Nations since its founding has been enmeshed in various scandals.

In July 1997 the UN announced an investigation into [[United Nations Peacekeeping Force]]s in [[Cote d'Ivoire]] on charges of widespread sexual abuse with a large number of underage girls. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/21/un.ivory.coast.reut/ U.N. suspends peacekeepers amid sex abuse charges], CNN, July 21, 2007.</ref> More than 300 members of UN peacekeeping missions around the world have been investigated for sexual exploitation and abuse since 2004, including some stationed in [[Congo]], [[Cambodia]] and [[Haiti]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm UN probes 'abuse' in Ivory Coast], BBC, July 23, 2007.</ref>

=== Incidents ===
*1998 - Bosnia <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YVWZRGS4V2AGJQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml Teenagers 'used for sex by UN in Bosnia'], By Stewart Payne, London Telegraph, 25/04/2002.</ref>
*2003 - Nepalese troops accused of sexual abuse while serving in DR Congo. Six are later jailed
*2004 - Two UN peacekeepers repatriated after being accused of abuse in Burundi
*2005 - UN troops accused of rape and sexual abuse in Sudan <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/03/wsudan03.xml UN staff accused of raping children in Sudan], By Kate Holt in Juba and Sarah Hughes, London Telegraph, 04/01/2007.</ref>
*2006 - UN personnel accused of rape and exploitation on missions is Haiti and Liberia
*2007 - UN launches probe into sexual abuse claims in Ivory Coast

==History==
The term "United Nations" was widely used during [[World War II]] to denote the allied powers making war against Germany and Japan. As an organization, the UN originated as a bureau within the US State Department during [[World War II]] tasked with planning and organizing a post-War future. President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] envisaged "four policemen", the British Empire, United States, Soviet Union, and [[Republic of China]] to be the major forces on what later became the UN Security Council to enforce the peace worldwide. This was deemed a modern approach to replace the old [[spheres of influence]] as they were called during the age of Imperialism. In 1971, following United States recognition of the [[People's Republic of China]], the 'mainland' Chinese government took over the UN membership and seat on the [[Security Council]] hitherto held by the Republic of China, although that entity had only controlled the island province of [[Taiwan]] since the Nationalist collapse after the resumption of the [[Chinese Civil War]] in 1945 to 1949.
In the original planning stages State Department employee and KGB Agent [[Alger Hiss]] was tasked with much of the organizational work and later became the first Secretary General at the United Nations Charter Conference in San Francisco. US Secretary of State Cordell Hull said a the time while selling the idea to Congress, "there will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power, or any other of the separate alliances through which in the unhappy past the nations strove to safeguard their security or promote their interest." [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Comunist party]] General Secretary [[Josef Stalin]] got the United Nations precisely on his own terms and in a form that has enabled him to intervene into every problem in the world and to completely frustrate the British and Americans in every effort to introduce order, peace and security. <ref>John R. Deane, ''The Strange Alliance: the Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Co-Operation with Russia'', New York: The Viking Press, 1947, p. 43.</ref> Nonetheless, the separate alliance of [[NATO]] came into existence at the same time and played a much greater role in US foreign policy commitments and decisions during the [[Cold War]] than the UN ever did.{{fact}}

In its earliest years, the United Nations was not dominated by the Asian and African "Third World" nations which ultimately poisoned the organization, but was of only limited use in controlling international conflict.

A General Assembly resolution led to the partition of Palestine in 1947, but the UN was useless in preventing armed Arab aggression against the new State of Israel in 1948. In 1950, A UN Security Council resolution authorized use of force to combat North Korean aggression, but that was possible only because the Soviet Union was boycotting the council and unable to veto. It was the only instance during the Cold War in which the UN took a stand against Communist aggression.

In the years to come, the Security Council became frequently paralyzed because of the Soviet veto, and the General Assembly became a shrill sounding board for anti-American sentiment.

==Further reading==
*[http://www.nysun.com/article/56061 UNDP Officials Said To Hamper Probe Into Counterfeit Cash], By Benny Avni, ''The New York Sun'', June 7, 2007.
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00972:@@@D&summ2=m& H.R. 972 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005] - Title I: Combatting International Trafficking in Persons - (Sec. 101); Directs the U.S. Secretary of State, prior to voting for a peacekeeping mission, to notify the appropriate Congressional committees respecting measures taken to prevent Peacekeeping personnel from involvement in human trafficking or sexual exploitation.

==External links==
*[http://www.un.org/ United Nations] - Official site
*[http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833 All about the United Nations Budget] June 2006
*[http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2007/May/theuae_May569.xml&section=theuae&col UN General Assembly President Shaikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa calls for Islamic texts re-interpretation,]Khaleej Times Online, 19 May 2007.

===Sites critical of the U.N.===
*[http://www.unwatch.org UN Watch]
*[http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm UN is Evil]
[[category:United Nations]]
[[category:politics]]
[[category:International organizations]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[category:diplomacy]]

==References==
<references/>

United Nations

2008-03-30T21:16:39Z

Alexander: /* Criticism */

[[Image:UN1.jpg|thumb|right|Seal of the United Nations]]
The '''United Nations''' is an organization of countries all over the world, originally created to facilitate cooperation in [[international law]], international security, economic development, and [[human rights]]. It has since devolved into a radical debating society which has ironically blocked most of the goals for which it has been formed. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faessay11217/michael-j-glennon/why-the-security-council-failed.html Why the Security Council Failed], Michael J. Glennon, ''Foreign Affairs'', May/June 2003.</ref> Critics view the UN as an agent for eroding the sovereignty of the [[United States]] and instead promoting forms of world government. President [[Bill Clinton]] rejected and ignored the position of the United Nations when he ordered U.S. military "police actions" in foreign countries. President [[George W. Bush]] also rejected the inaction of the UN when he authorized military action against the regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] in [[Iraq]] for ignoring various UN resolutions.

The UN was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 51 countries, replacing the League of Nations, founded in 1919. The UN currently has 192 members, including every country in the world except [[Taiwan]] and [[Vatican City]].<ref>Switzerland finally joined in 2002. [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/GA10041.doc.htm]</ref>

==Organization==
[[Image:Int Atomic Ag.jpg|thumb|Flag of the International Atomic Energy Agency]]
The main deliberative organ is the '''General Assembly''' which usually meets annually in September with representation by all member states. The General Assembly votes on the annual budget of the United Nations, elects members to other UN organs and committees, and makes non-binding recommendations to member states through resolutions.

The '''[[Security Council]]''' handles matters relating to international [[peace]] and stability. It consists of five permanent members (USA, UK, France, Russia and PR China), and ten temporary members, which are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The Security Council decides by vote. On substantive issues, nine members must support the proposal, including all five permanent members, giving each permanent member an effective veto power. The chair of the Security Council rotates each month among its members, in alphabetic order.

The '''International Court of Justice''', based in [[The Hague]], was founded to settle conflicts and disputes over questions arising from the [[international law|interpretation of treaties]] among member states. It only may entertain <ref> International Court of Justice, [http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 How the Court works], retrieved 26 April 2007.</ref> cases where all parties to the case in question have agreed to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also advices other organs and agencies of the United Nations on questions of the interpretation of treaties.

The '''United Nations Economic and Social Council''' is a deliberative and advisory organ dedicated to promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. It cooperates with the [[International Monetary Fund]], the World Bank Group and similar international agencies.

The '''United Nations Secretariat''' is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the UN system. The head of the Secretariat is the [[Secretary-General]], who is nominated by the Security Council and appointed by the General Assembly for renewable five-year terms. The current Secretary-General is [[Ban Ki-moon]], the former Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea. It is customary to let the position rotate among the different world regions.

==Criticism==
The U.N. has at various times in its history been accused of inefficiency and waste, which some critics have attributed to its cumbersome and excessive bureaucracy. Probably the most controversial issue with the United Nations is the Oil-for-Food scandal.

As a meeting place for many different nations, the UN can only act as a mechanism for international consensus. The UN has been unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted crises in which this consensus is not present. Recent examples include the [[Iran]]ian nuclear program and the genocides in Darfur, Sudan and Rwanda. Because each of the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, and because they often disagree, many times no action can be agreed upon. Typically but not always this division includes the [[United States]] on one side with either [[China]], [[Russia]] or both on the other. Other times the Security Council has been able to agree but lacks the will or means to enforce its resolutions. A recent example is the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Crisis, where no action has been taken to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1559 and Resolution 1701 to disarm terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. There usually are no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution.

Inclusion on the old United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) of nations such as Sudan and Libya, whose leaderships have dubious records on human rights, and Libya's chairmanship of this Commission, has been a highly controversial issue.
[[Image:un_building.jpg|thumb|left|250px|The UN headquarters, on the east side of Manhattan, opened its doors on January 10th, 1951.]]
The United Nations has on many occasions ignored the plight of people across the world, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Current examples include the UN's inaction toward the Sudanese government in Darfur, the Chinese government's ethnic cleansing in Tibet, and the Israel-Arab conflict.{{fact}}

During the Rwandan genocide the UN did not authorize UNAMIR to intervene or use force to prevent or halt the killing.

===Arab-Israel dispute===
The UN has taken a one-sided approach to issues relating to the [[Israel]]-Arab conflict. Israel has consistently been singled out by the UN for uniquely critical treatment. In 1975 the General Assembly passed a resolution declaring that "Zionism is racism" <ref>[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/761c1063530766a7052566a2005b74d1!OpenDocument 16/12/1991, A/RES/46/86, Elimination of racism and racial discrimination/Zionism]</ref>, and UN-sponsored meetings supposedly opposing [[racism]] have criticized Israel (which grants equal political and religious rights to Arabs) while suppressing all criticism of those Arab countries (where non-Muslims are second-class citizens and [[anti-Semitism]] enjoys state support).

Unlike other refugee groups, the Palestinian Arabs have their own agency within the United Nations, and are beneficiaries of special events such as an "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People."<ref>[http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/palestinian/ UN Web Site for International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, retried June 29, 2007]</ref> Israel was excluded from membership in any of the UN's regional groups until 2000. In effect, this meant Israel was forbidden from serving on UN bodies such as the Security Council. Israel's recent permission to participate more fully within the UN as a member of the Western European and Others regional group is temporary and subject to renewal. Israel is allowed to participate only in the New York operations of the UN and is excluded from the UN offices in Geneva, Nairobi, Rome and Vienna which handle such issues as human rights and arms control. Censure of Israel has apparently been instituted as a routine agenda item for various UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council. The 1975 Resolution 3379 qualified Zionism as a form of racism (later revoked with Resolution 4686).

==UN Peacekeepers Child Sexual Abuse==
The United Nations since its founding has been enmeshed in various scandals.

In July 1997 the UN announced an investigation into [[United Nations Peacekeeping Force]]s in [[Cote d'Ivoire]] on charges of widespread sexual abuse with a large number of underage girls. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/21/un.ivory.coast.reut/ U.N. suspends peacekeepers amid sex abuse charges], CNN, July 21, 2007.</ref> More than 300 members of UN peacekeeping missions around the world have been investigated for sexual exploitation and abuse since 2004, including some stationed in [[Congo]], [[Cambodia]] and [[Haiti]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm UN probes 'abuse' in Ivory Coast], BBC, July 23, 2007.</ref>

=== Incidents ===
*1998 - Bosnia <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YVWZRGS4V2AGJQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml Teenagers 'used for sex by UN in Bosnia'], By Stewart Payne, London Telegraph, 25/04/2002.</ref>
*2003 - Nepalese troops accused of sexual abuse while serving in DR Congo. Six are later jailed
*2004 - Two UN peacekeepers repatriated after being accused of abuse in Burundi
*2005 - UN troops accused of rape and sexual abuse in Sudan <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/03/wsudan03.xml UN staff accused of raping children in Sudan], By Kate Holt in Juba and Sarah Hughes, London Telegraph, 04/01/2007.</ref>
*2006 - UN personnel accused of rape and exploitation on missions is Haiti and Liberia
*2007 - UN launches probe into sexual abuse claims in Ivory Coast

==History==
The term "United Nations" was widely used during [[World War II]] to denote the allied powers making war against Germany and Japan. As an organization, the UN originated as a bureau within the US State Department during [[World War II]] tasked with planning and organizing a post-War future. President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] envisaged "four policemen", the British Empire, United States, Soviet Union, and [[Republic of China]] to be the major forces on what later became the UN Security Council to enforce the peace worldwide. This was deemed a modern approach to replace the old [[spheres of influence]] as they were called during the age of Imperialism. In 1971, following United States recognition of the [[People's Republic of China]], the 'mainland' Chinese government took over the UN membership and seat on the [[Security Council]] hitherto held by the Republic of China, although that entity had only controlled the island province of [[Taiwan]] since the Nationalist collapse after the resumption of the [[Chinese Civil War]] in 1945 to 1949.
In the original planning stages State Department employee and KGB Agent [[Alger Hiss]] was tasked with much of the organizational work and later became the first Secretary General at the United Nations Charter Conference in San Francisco. US Secretary of State Cordell Hull said a the time while selling the idea to Congress, "there will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power, or any other of the separate alliances through which in the unhappy past the nations strove to safeguard their security or promote their interest." [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Comunist party]] General Secretary [[Josef Stalin]] got the United Nations precisely on his own terms and in a form that has enabled him to intervene into every problem in the world and to completely frustrate the British and Americans in every effort to introduce order, peace and security. <ref>John R. Deane, ''The Strange Alliance: the Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Co-Operation with Russia'', New York: The Viking Press, 1947, p. 43.</ref> Nonetheless, the separate alliance of [[NATO]] came into existence at the same time and played a much greater role in US foreign policy commitments and decisions during the [[Cold War]] than the UN ever did.{{fact}}

In its earliest years, the United Nations was not dominated by the Asian and African "Third World" nations which ultimately poisoned the organization, but was of only limited use in controlling international conflict.

A General Assembly resolution led to the partition of Palestine in 1947, but the UN was useless in preventing armed Arab aggression against the new State of Israel in 1948. In 1950, A UN Security Council resolution authorized use of force to combat North Korean aggression, but that was possible only because the Soviet Union was boycotting the council and unable to veto. It was the only instance during the Cold War in which the UN took a stand against Communist aggression.

In the years to come, the Security Council became frequently paralyzed because of the Soviet veto, and the General Assembly became a shrill sounding board for anti-American sentiment.

==Further reading==
*[http://www.nysun.com/article/56061 UNDP Officials Said To Hamper Probe Into Counterfeit Cash], By Benny Avni, ''The New York Sun'', June 7, 2007.
*[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00972:@@@D&summ2=m& H.R. 972 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005] - Title I: Combatting International Trafficking in Persons - (Sec. 101); Directs the U.S. Secretary of State, prior to voting for a peacekeeping mission, to notify the appropriate Congressional committees respecting measures taken to prevent Peacekeeping personnel from involvement in human trafficking or sexual exploitation.

==External links==
*[http://www.un.org/ United Nations] - Official site
*[http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833 All about the United Nations Budget] June 2006
*[http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2007/May/theuae_May569.xml&section=theuae&col UN General Assembly President Shaikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa calls for Islamic texts re-interpretation,]Khaleej Times Online, 19 May 2007.

===Sites critical of the U.N.===
*[http://www.unwatch.org UN Watch]
*[http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm UN is Evil]
[[category:United Nations]]
[[category:politics]]
[[category:International organizations]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[category:diplomacy]]

==References==
<references/>