Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Geo.plrd

2007-03-17T19:50:04Z

Arkracer:

What a dumbass

3 times

Christianity

2007-03-17T19:47:43Z

Arkracer:

Christianity is a lot of people trying to ignore thier own ignorance while killing people who aren't.

This is the meaning of their doing.

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-17T19:42:08Z

Arkracer:

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]

==PATHETIC==

Yes, this shows wikipedia is six times more liberal than the AMERICAN public. Is wikipedia America-centric and utterly insane? No. Is conservapedia? Ohh, yes. --[[User:Arkracer|Arkracer]] 15:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

===Reply (to [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Figured you'd find this interesting|this]])===
Aschafly: Sure, go ahead. Just remember to attribute. And i'm not hiding anything. I am a liberal.

Order: I took that view from looking at the above talk page. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia generally inflates that count since around 70-80% of those accounts are vandalism only by my estimates, even back when I was doing that study when there were only around 800,000 user names.

:: Even if there are only 10%, i.e. 380 000, active wikipedians, a group of 20 self selcted respondants is still insignificant. --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:35 (AEST)

Others: Feel free to add to the study if you want in any way you'd like. Just remember to attribute the initial research. I took it basically by word of mouth in metapedian areas, that old user name of mine ("I", the real world "I", Andrew Sylvia, has a few more user accounts that still edit actively, including a few admin accounts) had around 10,000 welcomes if I remember correctly.

And "I"(karmafist, not "me") didn't leave that place due to this survey, it was because I fought the tyrant that runs Wikipedia when he bullied an underage minor and sacrificed my reputation with those monsters for it. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Using fun statistics on wikipedia, just turn this site into a joke ==
I just saw that there is an additonal item on the list on bias using yet another fun statistic. You are now also quoting [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion| List of wikipedians by religion]. This has nothing to do with being a responsible serious site anymore. A very bad example for the rest of the editors. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 18:50 (AEST)

== Ratio (again) ==

Why hasn't the statistic displayed been changed, even though it has been ''conclusively'' demonstrated that the math is bad? In addition, I would not define "liberal bias" as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, that is simply anti-intellectual. If they were editing from a liberal POV, instead of an NPOV (the two are different things), ''then'' it might be somewhat reasonable. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 15:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I defined "liberal bias" in the only sensible way possible: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. If you have a different definition, then let's hear it. Based on my definition, the ratio of 6 is plainly correct. Liberal math to try to get a different result for 3 divided by 1/2 doesn't fly here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bible

2007-03-17T19:38:29Z

Arkracer:

==Article is too brief!==
This is '''The Bible!''' Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:

*Intro
*Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
*History of the Bible...as in '''who wrote it'''.
*Why the world accepts/rejects it.
*Current status
*Include pics and charts and links.

What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)

I say nay, as it is quite definitely NOT the word of God! What say you? Do you come back with Christian/Jewish propaganda? --[[User:Arkracer|Arkracer]] 15:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why describe it when we can transcribe it? ==

Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.

:Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.

:I also uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

The links I mentioned can be two-fold: a link to online Bible sites where complete versions have been transcribed and posted; and links to Bible software which can be downloaded and run off computers. I happen to have E-Sword, which is very good [www.e-sword.net]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:46, 11 March 2007 (EST)

==What happened so far==
I took the layout to the next step, which is subsections on both Testaments. The Old Testament has been written with emphasis on its Hebrew origins (Torah, Tanakh, etc), which I feel is a good description anyway, and does not detract from the Christian Bible with the exception of the actual arrangement of the books. I would like to see the Hebrew titles of these books in its own written language, but that may take a bit of editing the actual structure of Conservapedia to accept it.

The Apocrypha, if necessary, can have it's own subheading, but ''after'' the others as listed.

The History subsection can be written as either a history of the whole Bible, or divided into separate periods, as in history of the Torah; the Septuagint; the early Gospels, etc.

Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?==

Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --[[User:Timothyo|Timothyo]] 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rewrite, definately...what is there should suffice as a structure guide temporarily. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Two things that bug me about this. First and foremost, Wikipedia has a rule on it which states articles there fall under the GPFL thing, and they state specifically that all articles are free from copyright, to use, edit, misuse, whatever. So, if any content here is from Wikipedia, one can say "oh well" and leave it at that.

:Not quite... see my remarks below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

But that led to some thinking here, and I wanted to see if the original writer(s) of this article had violated copyrights when they posted the material for the first time. I have here at home a book titled "Unger's Bible Dictionary" copyright 1966 by the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and the article within titled "Bible" has a number of elements that simply dovetail with the Wikipedia article. Which means there will be a re-write here so that there is no question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, list the omitted conservative points you mentioned. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:The GDFL allows reuse only if the original authors are credited, and the article in which the material is reused is itself released under the GDFL, IIRC. So reuse of Wikipedia content is definitely not allowed here. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::When I posted that very question, it was never answered until now. Tolerate the material in question here for no more than a week, and only then for it's use as a template for something better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1) Aschafly has been pretty clear that he, at least, wants Conservapedia articles to be original, and not copies of anything, redacted or not.

:::2) Wikipedia is perfectly happy with the idea of building a "Wikipedia fork," that is a modified copy of Wikipedia. But. There are serious complications with this, due to the GFDL license (which is not easy for anyone to understand, apparently including Wikipedia).

:::3) The big GFDL issue, and the one that I sense Conservapedia will not agree to, is that if you copy and modify a Wikipedia article, you have to make the copy available under GFDL, too. This means a significant loss of control. For example, following the GFDL rules, if Conservapedia took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and rewrote them, and if a liberal cherrypicked the rewritten articles for the funniest examples of ludicrous over-the-top spin... including, of course, vandal edits... and published it in book form as "The Conservapedia Jokebook," I don't think Conservapedia could stop it. (Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer. Disclaimer 2: I don't think ordinary lawyers understand intellectual property law. Disclaimer 3: I'm not so sure intellectual property lawyers understand intellectual property law.).

:::4) Another issue with the GFDL is that anything published under the GFDL must "preserve the history," whatever that means. If someone starts a new article at Wikipedia in 2003, and there are a thousand edits to it, and in 2007 you copy it, rework it, and republish it on Conservapedia, there is supposed to be some way for readers of the Conservapedia article to retrace all those steps if they want to. Nobody seems to be completely sure how to do this, or what does and doesn't really comply with the GFDL, which wasn't really designed to cover anything like Wikipedia. (Somewhere Wikipedia makes a qualified suggestion that ''possibly'' a simple link to the version of the WIkipedia article that served as the jumping-off point ''might'' do). So, Wikipedia encourages re-use, and there are in fact numerous commercial "mirrors" that duplicate Wikipedia content, but Wikipedia does not give any nice clear recipe on exactly how to go about producing a censored or redacted or reworked derivative of Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be as original as possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Instead of waiting...==
Did a re-write of the article and removed the content in question. What remains is 1) that which is common to every work about the Bible, whether it's here, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or many other works; and 2) the references section...Wikipedia most certainly cannot copyright a list of external sources.

But double-check what is there, and let me know what can be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Remaining subheadings to add==
Just added "Name" and "References" subheadings. Need to add an over-all history of the Bible, and add a subheading for the various versions in print...possibly with brief histories of each? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Separate articles==
Clicked on [[Genesis]], and got redirected back to the Bible page. Not right. Every book in the Bible should have its own detailed article page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==History of the Bible subheading==
For this, I have a rough layout:
*From the time it was first written down, under Moses, to the last OT book.
*the style of the writing, i.e. by hand and on what.
*Between the Testaments, as in the Septuagint.
*The New Testament
*the early versions of the Bible until the printing press
*Gutenburg and versions up to the KJV
*very brief listing of versions since, including internet impact.
Any other suggestions would be helpful. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pictures==
I need two more pics to illustrate this. The first is a pic of a Torah scroll, and what I want to see are people near it with reverence. The second are good copies of New Testament fragments or pages which were hand-written. And of course, they need to be in the public domain, conforming to the rules, etc... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==As it stands now==
Although the "History" part of it is not done at this time, the article itself should be written as a straight-up article about the Bible, with none of the allegations, questions, etc. that scholars and historians have made over the years against it. My reasons for it are two:
*Such allegations have been proven wrong time and time again, so why even bother to repeat them here?
*If such allegations need to be written down, then they need a separate article for each where they can be detailed as to points made, reasons why, who postulated them, and all evidence refutting them.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
This article is done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Very '''very''' nice work there [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]!! Kudos! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hate kudos...but peanut M&M's is a nice stand-in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== ...sources? ==

Considering how long the article is (I'm certainly impressed!), I find it odd that the entire thing just has five external links inside the article. I'm ''totally'' not going to plaster "fact" tags through the entire thing, but I think that an article with so much information could use a few more sources. Doesn't have to be right now, but more as a general remark. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the order is for originality, which is what is here for the most part...but whether incorporated into the text or not, the article could benefit from additional sources. There are extensive links at the bottom of the article for internet info, but what I want are books from at least 50 years or more ago to include in the reference section. The article itself, which is laid out to be just ''about'' the Bible and a brief on its history, should remain the same without any of the controversial stuff others think has to be included...that is a subject for separate articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Mh, yes, agreed. Tangential topics should get their own articles, possibly with "See also" links at the bottom if they're closely connected to this article. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh yes...if there's an article about, say Biblical criticism, then there will be a link here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==E-Sword pic==
For the record, the image of the E-Sword screenshot is copyrighted, and used here with permission as per the summary. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authorship of Hebrews?==

Hebrews' author has been disputed for thousands of years - it seems questionable to me to list it as a Pauline epistle without any sort of note that Paul is not its verified author. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you; authorship of Hebrews is disputed, but it does lean toward Paul. The point here for this article is a straight history of the Bible as I outlined above, with no sidetracking. The thing you indicated should be put in, but as a subject topic for either the article on Hebrews, or a separate article altogether. If you're willing to take up the task, write what Hebrews is all about, it's history, etc, then write the authorship; what current and past scholars said about it.

:The thing is, because the subject is the Bible, ''every thing written here about the Bible and each book is going to respect Christians and Jews''. As it was said in the Commandments page, this is a family site, and a lot of families hold the Bible as precious. We are going to respect that. Right now I am re-doing the article on [[Genesis]] because the original editor decided not to do it in a respectful way. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?

2007-03-17T19:31:36Z

Arkracer:

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

Read the entry on Turkey

==='''yes...'''===

It depends how you do you interpret democracy. If democracy means walking around naked,not being interested in where your daughter sister or mom is sleeping tonight , being able to deny the presence of God, Drinking alcholol all night and then staggering like an ill-minded animal on the streets,not respecting your parents by putting them in retirement houses when they become old, kicking out your children out of your houses when they become 18,not knowing your neighbours after living 30 years door to door with them,having disposable marriages , watching two men kissing each other on the street AND yet claim to be socialized and free then the answer is NO.

but If democracy means having free right of speech in the ways that God permits,(by not doing all of above and some others) , being able to question the ruling authority , women's right of voting,equality of women and men in terms of religious moral ethical social conjugal and political rights, respecting each others lives and possessions, and many many more righteous aspects which have already been explained in the Holy Quran, then the answer is Yes.

and if you want to know more about democracy please do read the history of first 50 years of Islam where the complete democracy was introduced to the mankind for the first time.

It is not a matter of me being right or you being wrong, it is a matter between you and your God so contemplate before you leave.

==Disgusting==

May the reader above give a few reasons watching two men kiss in the street is antisocial? And why not two WOMEN kissing in a street?

You disgust me.

==='''We're not even democratic.'''===

Quite honestly, our system of government is only very loosely democratic(In that we "vote", but that's it-more of a Republic), and the structure of our government was based largely and a series of events. As well, there are forms of Democracy in the Mid-East, such as Iran does infact hold elections(Yes, they do). However, the largest problem dealing with countries such as Iraq is that the people are more or less split into a few prominent groups, with a minority of them actually causing the problems. But bleh, I don't want to go into specifics of Middle Eastern politics right now, so yes and no. Yes, a form can exist(Under the correct circumstance-which is why Iraq is a cesspool of a civil war right now-because of a lack of acknowedgement to the reality of the situation), but not actual democracy.

==='''no...'''===
democracy is likened unto a wolf, a fox and a sheep voting on what they will have for supper. The sheep will quickly lose.
democracy is likened unto a man and his dog out in the woods. the man gets real hungry. So he cuts off the dog's tail and cooks it and gives the bone to the dog.
the forefathers knew about a democracy. that is why they created a republic.

'''Comment:''' I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. The United States is a ''democratic'' republic. Are you saying that democracy alone is a bad form of government? If you are then I would have to agree with you...to an extent. After a while democracy, alone, begins to falter, as seen in ancient Athens. But building a republic on the foundation of a democracy is a very strong government. If you could please tell me if this was what you were getting at, it would be greatly appreciated. [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' The United States is not a democracy, and "democratic republic" is not the right term either. The U.S. is a republic, a republic is called a "democratic" form of government, but it is not a democracy, and not very similar to a democracy. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
In democracy the people ''are'' the government, they propose and vote on the laws, and there is no elcted legislature. A republic is different. A republic is better then a democracy because it recognizes the fact that the people in general do not know enough to govern properly. In a Republic the people choose representatives who are (hopefully) better informed and know enough to do the job. A republic takes the strong points of democracy, (no tyrants, self government...) without some of the problems, (uninformed government, rule by popular opinion) and creates a better form of government. that said, this debate was meant to apply to all kinds of self government, and was misnamed, it should say: "Is it even possible to install self government in a Muslim country." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:47, 4 February 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''
:There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning —the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which ''wasn't'' capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.

::—Mark Twain, ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:45, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Er, I rather suspect it would be better for everyone if, rather than "installing" democracy, one attempted to ''instill'' it. Just a thought.

:Some nations are born democracies, some achieve democracy, and some have democracy thrust upon them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the sake of argument here, let's presume that "republic with democratic elections" is the meaning of democracy in the question. Anything else is a bit nitpicky, that's obviously what's intended in context. This being said, however, something else makes the question rather hard to answer. Turkey has a large Muslim population, and is a republic. Iran is as well, but is most certainly not. Egypt? Syria? Just what country are we talking about here? Those aren't any more similar than the US and the Netherlands, despite the fact that both are predominantly Christian.

So, this being said, it is more than "possible" for a democracy to exist in a Muslim country, it is a fact of life in Turkey. (And perhaps more, but certainly that one offhand.) If we are speaking of ''Iraq'', on the other hand (and whoever wrote the question most certainly thinking of it)...

Unfortunately, to that one, no. Iraq has been botched terribly, and at this point is likely unsalvageable. There's going to be a long civil war there. I hope very much that I am wrong, but I don't see it ending any other way. I really don't know if it could've ever been salvaged, but at this point I don't think it's possible. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 00:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Yes==
Yes, indonesia is the the world's third largest democracy, and the world's largest muslim country. There you go.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:We're talking extremist, e.g. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have a strong foothold and will not abandon it without Jihad. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So, should the original question read "Is it possible to install a democracy in a country that's run by radical mideastern fundamentalist Muslims?". Perhaps the question should have been more precise. And what do you mean by "not abandon it without Jihad"? Indonesians aren't exactly fickle, and I don't think they'd abandon their power anytime soon without some sort of struggle (literal definition of jihad). Oh, and Lebanon and Yemen are middle-eastern Muslim republican democracies.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::I guess I should be more precise in my answer too. Installing democracy strikes me as fundamentally naive. The very nature of democracy is supposed to be power derived from the people. Coming in and artificially imposing a democracy strikes me as nearly impossible, especially in such a foreign environment. Yes, democracy is possible in a predominantly islamic country, no, "installing" it probably is an incredibly naive idea. Bush, bleh.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==='''no...'''===

Its not possible to "install" democracy. It is something that must evolve of the people. The question that needs to be asked is is it even right for us to try to install our system on anyone else? Why are we so assured that the way we do things is the only way that they can be done that will work. We came to our democratic system through our own will and process. No other country or people are going to replicate that process so why should they replicate the result? [[User:Little Suspicious|Little Suspicious]]