Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Aye-aye

2008-07-30T23:50:57Z

Aspire: New page: The '''Aye-aye''' is primate native to Madagascar it looks like a rodent and has a long middle finger that it uses like wood peckers use to get insect.

The '''Aye-aye''' is [[primate]] native to [[Madagascar]] it looks like a rodent and has a long [[middle finger]] that it uses like wood peckers use to get [[insect]].

User talk:Aspire

2008-07-30T23:47:33Z

Aspire:

Can a list of the peer-reviewed papers he's published be added to the John A. Davidson article? Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:46, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
:Do you want the list or just a link to his University of Vermont website that lists them? [[User:Aspire|Aspire]] 19:47, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

John A Davison

2008-07-23T22:40:33Z

Aspire: New page: '''John A. Davison''' is a renowned biologist at the University of Vermont best known for his ground breaking scientific alternative to Darwinism the [[Prescribed Evolutionary Hypo...

'''John A. Davison''' is a renowned biologist at the [[University of Vermont]] best known for his ground breaking scientific alternative to [[Darwinism]] the [[Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis]]. He has published his work extensively in peer review journals and has been banned from most forums and websites of [[evolutionist]] because they do not want to debate facts.

Naked mole rat

2008-07-18T15:22:47Z

Aspire:

The '''naked mole rat''' is a burrowing [[rodent]] most known for its peculiar [[adaptation]]s to living underground. These include limited vision, the loss of most hair, and [[incest | incestuous]] based mating system similar to [[ants]] with a dominant female and infertile worker females which defer to the dominant females every need and whim. The dominant female also has sons which compete for mating access to their mother all of this makes the naked mole rats [[eusocial]] like bees, ants and wasps. They are the only [[mammal]]s to have adopted this strategy. When the dominant female dies the worker females compete for dominance and when one wins they go through a hormonal change that allows them to reproduce while the other workers stay infertile. The largest domestic collection of mole rats is at the [[Rio Grande Zoo]] in [[Albuquerque]], [[New Mexico]].

[[Category:Rodents]]

User talk:Ed Poor/8

2008-07-18T04:06:48Z

Aspire:

You want a religion that justifies hate, look at the [[Honor killing]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Opposition to homosexuality is not a "phobia" or a [[hate crime]]. Phelps is a lone fanatic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

The answer is a return to civility and community-mindedness, not special laws which can be "taken a step farther" and used to muzzle Christians - as in Europe, where in some countries it is a CRIME to say that the Bible forbids homosexual acts. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:02, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

My own chief dispute with "fundamentalism" is that it spends way too much time on asserting that "I am right and you are wrong". Too much talk, and not enough practice.

I'd like people of all religious persuasions, as well as non-religious "persons of conscience" to go about doing good! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:22, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not subtle enough to send hints. For subtlety, see Genesis 2. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:"''...as in Europe, where in some countries it is a CRIME to say that the Bible forbids homosexual acts.''" In which European contries is it is a CRIME to say that the Bible forbids homosexual acts? I'm going there on vacation soon and such information may help avoid unpleasant experiences. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 06:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Scotland==
Ed, I like your changes to the Scotland article ... much cleaner and concise. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:44, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Help ==

Could a Sysop redirect Peter to Saint Peter? It is already merged.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:13, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==Rugby==
I'd like an article about [[Rugby]] to explain the origin of the game and how it is played. Another article or two on rugby leagues and teams would be good.
I don't want dozens or hundreds of tiny article on individual teams (clubs). Please merge these into [[List of rugby teams]].
When an article gets too big, we can split it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:13, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[Marquis de Sade]]==
If I objected to a picture of a kilted soldier exposing his bare buttocks, then I think I have to express some concern over the [[Marquis de Sade]] article morphing into a guide to well-written, literate, sadism-themed pornography

I personally (with the agreement of my wife) left a copy of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue out in the living room when my kids were in their early teens, as communication of the simple truth that Dad leches after pictures of lightly-clad women, and discussion of our attitude toward erotic feelings.

But the books you mention exceed my threshold for what I consider to be "family-friendly," and in I think they really would be emotionally disturbing to children in their young teens. If pressed I'd say it's not good for people under age 18 or thereabouts to read them. I could be old-fashioned about that, let's say 16.

As always, the issue is not whether they already know about it or whether they find see this material someplace else or whether it's already hidden somewhere in their rooms. Or whether it's protected by the First Amendment. It's whether Conservapedia is comfortable mentioning these tiles on a site which I think is still intended to be a reference for homeschooled teenagers. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:03, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:I censored the titles and the link. Is that enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::I think so. Mostly just wanted to make sure you'd ''thought'' about it. I can't quite stop nit-picking, though. I'd change or leave out the phrase "as innocent as Disneyland." I'm not even sure what Rice's quoted line about "a Disneyland of S&M" was supposed to mean. Maybe change it to "acceptable for sale in mall bookstores?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Please make the required changes. I trust you more than I trust myself, on such matters as this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Mockery ==
Ed, I'd like to discuss with you something from the [[mockery]] article. I'm fine with the fact if you want to attrible it as a liberal trait, even though I may disagree with it, but it seems to me using the phrase '''always''' is out of line. I've attempted to get rid of this particular statement, only to be reverted by RobS. I'd like to open a dialogue with you about it since you are the author of the statement. Thanks. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 14:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Mousterian ==

I'd love to see an article about tools which people used before recorded history began. Just make sure that nothing in it is 'calculated' to offend Young Earth creationists. You'll have to pepper your article with disclaimers like ''According to archaeologists'' and ''Based on the theory of [[carbon dating]]''.

If your article looks like a thinly disguised attack on religious faith, I'll probably delete it again. But if it explicitly mentions any assumptions which differ from the POV of Young Earth creationism, it will probably be okay.

You simply have to decide whether you want to make a trustworthy article or not. A trustworthy article will merit (or earn!) the trust of all readers, including those who begin with assumptions which are different from yours. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:56, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Notice ==

Please tell others about: [[Conservapedia:New Sysops Training Page]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding cooperation ==

I just added an article on [[Vasili Mitrokhin]]. It is not bad, but could contain a wealth of information. I am postponing work on the theory of evolution article alternative submission because it will take a lot of time and may not go anywhere. Other new articles will help reach the 10,000 goal. If you have any references or information on Vasili Mitrokhin, please contribute. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 02:47, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:I appreciate the update. Also, your signature is regal and smart. What country are you the princess of again? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:14, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

== "Proven" theories ==
You're confusing math & logic with science. Theorems and theories are different, you know.
I'd be justified in saying that the Theory of Evolution has never been proven. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Articles to be deleted..... ==

[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Idea_for_process_and_workflow]]'''Can we try to make some progress reforming the whole deal?''' --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:46, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[ Politicization of science]] ==

Ed I know what you are trying to say, but the banning of DDT did not affect malaria sufferers, it was too late for them. However it did cause an rise in the number of cases. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 06:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know what you mean. If it caused a rise in the number of cases, then it affected them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::Maybe I'm being too pedantic but DDT was not much help to the sufferers, they need medicines. Of course it gave rise to more future sufferers but to my mind the phrasing seems to say that people with malaria were affected by the banning of DDT. The only way that this might be true is that an increase in other sufferers affected their access to treatment. I just wondered if you might consider rephrasing for clarity, I'm not disputing your case. Otherwise I'll forget that I ever raised the issue. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 06:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, well obviously prevention doesn't help someone who already has the disease. The point is to keep them from getting it. If your aim is to reduce the total amount of suffering, then prevention is much more effective than medicine.

Think about seat belts and traffic lights and guard rails - compared to hospital technology like X-rays and blood transfusions. The hospital stuff is great for accident victims, but I'd rather spend money on accident prevention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:23, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I accept all your points about prevention and the efficacy of DDT, all I am saying is that the phrasing of your passage that the banning of DDT was to the "detriment of malaria ''sufferers''" doesn't make sense. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 08:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:Phew! I would have done that but I don't like to tread on sysops toes. Now you've given your blessing I'll have a go, without changing the meaning of course.[[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 08:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well, go ahead and rephrase it so that it does. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:29, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion in [[Talk:Homosexuality]]==
Not quite sure where you're going with
:Either way is fine. The point is to avoid endorsing the "finding".
Are you saying that my language seems to endorse the finding and therefore objecting to it?

Or are you just putting a stake in the ground saying with regard to possible suggested rewordings, that you will object to any rewording that seems to be going in the direction of endorsing the finding? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:LOL, you were the one who wanted me to join this project :-)

::And I still think that was one of my better ideas. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:We need an article about science which separates the politics from the, um, "actual science". So many times in recent years I've heard pressure groups say that "the science" supports this or that thing. And by coincidence, that just happens to be the same thing they've always wanted. Like groups who oppose third world population increases saying that "science finds DDT harmful to the shells of bird eggs in the wild" - when all they really want is to reduce population by increasing malaria deaths!

:I get angry when people misuse my beloved, i.e., [[science]], the handmaiden of reason.

:The whole idea that "science says", is ridiculous. Science is an institution; science is a way of examining the world (including human beings and - maybe - even religious phenomena). Science is also a body of knowledge, divided more or less into areas (even if many of these areas overlap).

:What I'm saying - and where I'm going - is driving a stake through the heart of the vampire of [[scientific endorsement]]! Nothing is true or valid or "scientific" just because a committee or its spokesman declares that they have made an assessment or a finding. Still less if they took a poll or a vote. A saying attributed to [[Albert Einstein]]:
:*I'm not worried that 500 scientists have called my theory into question. It only takes one scientist to prove me wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Another request ==

Hi Ed. Thanks for noticing and correcting my 'Ester' entry and changing it to Esther. That's what I get for not having a Bible in front of me. ;-) Now, do you think you could help me out with renaming the Luficer article? Yes, that was a bad typo. ;-0 [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, I, moved [[Luficer]] to [[Lucifer (angel)]]. <s>But you might want to merge the contents into [[Satan]].</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, I didn't notice that the page is "protected" from edits. Sorry. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

*No problem! I unlocked DanH's protection so you can proceed to merge. No use putting this off. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Category list inclusion ==

Ed, is there any way to include a category listing on a page. For example, if I put <nowiki>{{category:Australians on Conservapedia}}</nowiki> here, I get...
{{QuoteBox|{{category:Australians on Conservapedia}}}}
...the text of the category page, but not the list of pages in that category. Is there a way to get the list itself included? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know any way of doing that without some PHP programming. I just bought an elementary PHP/MySQL book last week so I could learn enough to help a client. But you'd have to contact an expert. I would try Rob Church at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:54, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Hmmm, he's left Wikipedia and is upset with wiki stuff in general. That might not be a good idea. Thanks anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== == Articles to be deleted..... == ==

[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Idea_for_process_and_workflow]]Can we try to make some progress reforming the whole deal? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:46, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==Response==

Hi, I left a response to your query on my [[User talk:MatteeNeutra|user talk page]] to keep the discussion together. I look forward to your response! Cheers. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 20:21, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Gay Disease ==

A vandal must have hacked your account and created a piece of hate propaganda at [Gay disease]. I deleted and protected, though I suppose I shouldn't have not being a Sysop. Um, hope you appreciate it anyway! [[User:Skitters|Skitters]] 08:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:About as hateful to homosexuals as Mark Twain was to blacks when he used "nigger" 900 times in ''[[Huckleberry Finn]]''? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:56, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== AIM ==

What is your AIM s/n? Mine is "Hojimachong", please message me. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Rhetorical questioning==

I disagree. Do we not brag of the premium we place on conciseness? In any case, the use of a narrator's voice is extremely unprofessional. ("I doubt it...") Presented with the factual evidence I'm sure most readers will be capable of forming their own opinions on the inadequacy of democrat leadership. --[[User:Kelpan|Kelpan]] 13:53, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

:Who's we? You just got here. ;-)

:Perhaps you missed my editorial comment about quoting critics. A lot of politics is about misdirection and deception. I think your idea is an oversimplification.

:Perhaps we should debate this at [[Conservapedia:Should an encyclopedia simply present readers with the factual evidence on issues?]] I'd welcome your input. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:58, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Some minor issues ==

Please see my talk page [[User_talk:CScience]] and, if so inclined, reply/discuss there. [[User:CScience|CScience]] 22:26, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal alert ==

Ed, user Moochu is doing a lot of vandalism. [[User:NatWest|NatWest]] 07:44, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks, but [[User:TK]] beat me to it.
:*07:46, 28 May 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Moochu (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Subhuman Cabal Member?)
:You can also report vandalism at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Concern ==

Hi Ed, I have a concern with the addition of [[agnostic]] into the [[atheism]] article definition. I've known a number of agnostics who were certainly not atheists -- they simply didn't know. I'm afraid if we blur the distinctions we are bunching together groups that are separate. Please consider my thought. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:18, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't want to fit square pegs into round holes, let's try to figure out what the best usage of terms is. But also let's include any "alternate usage" so no one can hide anything behind the "snow" of [[shifting ground]].

:The evolutionists do this, and I wouldn't put it past other advocates as well. Let's be innocent as doves, but also wise as serpents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==American/US History category==
I saw you just made an American History category. I just got done moving a big chunk of articles from the History category into the United States History one, trying to get things a bit more organized. I actually prefer the term American History, but I figured I would go with what was established already. Either way, we need a consensus on one or the other, I think. Let me know. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 15:24, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think that "what you think" is what I should have thought! :-) In other words, I made a mistake, and I'd like to ask you (1) to fix my mistake for me and (2) keep on going as you have been.

:You're doing a splendid job, and I messed you up. Sorry. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks, and no worries. I'll fix it up. You might want to check it in a minute here and delete the American History category so no one else sees it and uses it on accident. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 15:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Curious as how you would feel about creating a "Biblical History" subcategory, or would you prefer we just lump things like the [[Elijah]], etc, into an "Ancient History" category? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:43, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't like lumps. Those are what you get when you sweep things under the carpet. No, your idea is better. Go for it! :-0 --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't like things that give the impression that Biblical History is something distinct from other history. But couldn't you have ''both'' Biblical History and Ancient History on appropriate articles? Or, I suppose an alternative is to make Biblical History a sub-category of Ancient History. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:03, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Let's not be hasty. Maybe the categories overlap. We should discuss this a bit more before committing ourselves to a lot of work that might have to be done twice. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:04, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So far I've just moved a few things into Ancient History. There really wasn't a lot of articles so far so it won't be a big deal. Also, since we have a Bible category and a Biblical Persons category, having them in Ancient History and with a Bible tag is easy to come by. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 09:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== 7500 Edits ==
I am not worthy of even posting here...[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 15:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Don't say that; I had a lot of free time while waiting for a new assignment at work. I also make a lot of small edits. You're doing fine. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== American usage ==

I thought non american usage was acceptable for British entries. I'm not protesting about your edit but if I need to use US spellings then it should be one of the rules. [[User:Dafydd|Dafydd]] 16:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Not a rule, I just was using my spell-checker. You can revert. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:32, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::I will not revert. If someone else finds the need then it is ub to them, I'll just go with the flow. [[User:Dafydd|Dafydd]] 16:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Do I need special access or something to upload a file? I have an old picture of the Blaenau Ffestiniog railway and I get a message that only sysopps can upload! [[User:Dafydd|Dafydd]] 17:18, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Image uploads ==

Hi, I formally request permission to upload images. My previous image uploads and edits have been in the spirit and direction of c/p. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 18:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*I won't even comment about this, since I was never asked. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:59, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
*I'm mereley asking the Sysop who left the message on my talk page saying that I need to ask permission to upload pictures. [[User_talk:Hannibal_ad_portas#Image_uploads|My talk page]].. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 08:53, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, Hannibal, you mistook my vagueness. I never knew anything about the pending change, nor received a notice of it like you did. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:That's OK. I'm actually a bit intrigued as to why it was done in the first place. In my opinion it kind of changes the tone of c/p. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 09:08, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm guessing that someone must have played a prank, such as replacing an authentic image with a vulgar one or something like that? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:13, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: That or, I can recall an event where there was one placed on tons of pages by a brand new account. With the nature of this site, I think they have decided they need to develop trust in a user before they grant them full blown access. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 09:15, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Exactly. The vandals would upload a sickening pic and then start replacing articles with this pic. First, a sysop or editor would have to see the pic(s), the vandal would have to be blocked, then go about deleting the pic and restoring the articles. Even though this image uploading block will not stop all the vandals, it will remove one of their favorite tactics. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 09:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Hmm.. That would do it. In any case I'm still waiting for my account to be given that status. My edits are all well thought out and non-controversial.[[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 09:20, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
*If I had even one clue, I would tell you. I guess Ed can grant the rights, or Andy, but I don't know how to, or if I can. I posted on Andy's page asking, but no answer. :-( --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:47, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:: TK, if it helps, I saw Andy "promote" some of us (me, fox, crocoite, dpbsmith) to "Upload". You could probably check the access log or whatever it's called and see what he did. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 09:50, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Oh well it's almost midnight here. I have school/work in the morning. I'm sure it'll be all resolved when I wake up.[[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 09:54, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
*Colest, I would assume, being a sysop here, if Andy or Ed Poor wanted me involved, they would have sent me an email. I get several per day from him, but no mention of this. See his talk page. I am happy you can upload, however. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:02, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::Crocoite - you're right, just last week there were a few incidents where vandals used the "Upload a new version of this file" function to replace images (the [[Fat Man]] A-bomb comes to mind) in articles with totally inappropriate files [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:06, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:::It was a sudden decision by Andy, based on info TK gave him a month ago. This week, he asked some of us techno-geeks about it and found out the exact way to configure the system to take advantage of TK's original suggestion.

:::I guess he was so eager to try it out - and so relieved when it worked - that he just went right ahead and left the new feature in place. I'm sure he didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers.

:::Only a bureaucrat can give a user image upload rights. So that means Andy - or or the webmaster, I guess - certainly not me.

:::If Andy wants to he could make TK a bureaucrat. I'd certainly support that! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cajones ==

Ed, you have some ''big'' Cajones to compare US liberal politicians to world socialists, and people who accuse Bush of being like Hitler [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=184091&oldid=184086]. I would take up this issue if you would like to respond, but I won't be back online for a few hours. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::Isn't that spelled ''cojones?'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]]

:I'm like the wolf in ''Little Red Riding Hood''. I have big eyes, the better to see you.

:"If the shoe fits, wear it." If not, i.e., if Pelosi did ''not'' echo a world socialist sentiment then please correct the article in question. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps when you have read as much on the subject as Ed and RobS, Hoji, you will finally see they (and me, since I believe I was the original poster of that fact) are right, and you too will have big ones. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
*:Liberals like to deny their connection to socialism. Why all the denial? It smacks of [[deceit]], like the [[gay rights]] movement denying the existence of the [[Homosexual agenda]]. No one trusts people after they catch them lying too many times. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:47, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Re:Funny Sig ==

I'll have you know those are Hebrew words :p! No, don't worry, they're gone. Bye-bye, pretty letters! --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter woo!]

:I figured as much. --[[User:Ed Poor|에드 푸어]] 21:42, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== stubs ==
I've seen numerous times posted that using stubs here is not accepted, yet the stub template appears on a ton of articles - should we be removing these if we see them? What is the official policy? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 09:12, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:I usually change {{tl|stub}} to {{tl|expand}} when I run across it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:39, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks Ed. I discussed this with TK while you are away, and have just been removing the stub all together on articles that fit the concise article model, and only putting a {{tl|stub}}/{{tl|expand}} on the ones that obviously need serious attention. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:43, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== France map ==

You just screwed up the map on [[France]], it used to fit the template box and now it doesn't. I'd revert but I'm pretty sure I'd get my fingers broken for reverting a sysop. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 22:31, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:The problem with it before was that it was too big, and the table it was in was sizing itself on the map. Rather than revert, how about simply adjusting its size somehow to fit the table as it is (that might mean making the table a fixed width, and having the map fill the table width). Go on, I give you permission! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:: I think I sized it down to an acceptable size, you might want to verify. I don't have enough expierence with tables and such to modify them.--[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:56, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That will do for now. The info box really needs to be turned into a template (and made common with other countries' articles), and when that is done it can be fixed up better. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

== L.A. Times interview request ==

Hi, I'm a reporter for the Los Angeles Times writing about Conservapedia. I'd love to talk with some frequent writers and editors about the project.... but unfortunately, i have a tight deadline and would have to complete the interviews by mid-day Wed. June 13. Please e-mail me ASAP at stephanie.simon@latimes.com if you'd be able to talk before then. Thanks very much! Stephanie

Before you think about telling this individual anything, it would be good to look at her writings. [http://adoptionblogs.typepad.com/adoption/2007/05/la_times_report.html][http://www.e-vangelism.com/2006/05/faustian-bargain-of-digitized.html][http://www.greatsociety.org/forums/index.php?topic=556.0 reprinted on a forum website; don't mind the dead-guy pic] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:36, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==[[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
Could you add this to the [[Debate topics]] page... I suggest under a new heading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:03, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

== Can you please help me with this? ==

Hi Ed, it's Tasha, I haven't seen you around much recently, but if you are, could you please help me again with learning how to do something in "wiki"? (I can upload images fine now, lol, and thank you for your help with that) but now I am trying to create a "Category" page (the page that lists all the articles in a category) and can't seem to figure it out :( I posted about it here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Help_talk:Contents but no one has replied and I am afraid it may get overlooked. If you have time, could you please help me? Thank you very much! --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 00:04, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:I've replied to this on the page you posted about this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== [[Global Warming]] ==

Is there some communication I don't know about? Someone has posted wanting to edit it? I cannot find it. I don't imagine that article ever being unlocked for more time than it takes a ''trusted'' editor to make their changes, Ed. But you can make whatever changes you want to! :D --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:56, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Be Not Dismayed==

You told the above-referenced user that if he posted misinformation again, you would block him. Before the user made another post, you blocked him. One might think you're getting a bit trigger happy. --[[User:JHubertN|JHubertN]] 17:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:You are confusing "time out" with "shooting". It does a person no harm to exclude him from the project, while he goes and reads up on the subject he was so mistaken about. I'll be watching ''you'' now, since you were so 'quick on the trigger' in response (to borrow your metaphor).

:Try to think about how you can help this project, or don't be here. That's what I tell everyone. You want to promote liberal ideas, go to Wikipedia! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:37, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== [[Sex change operation]] ==

Ed, another Sysop messaged me about this article of yours. Do you think its ok? Should we change or delete? Let me know. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:20, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:Deleted. Not needed for a family site.

:Someday in the farflung future, when we the ''basic'' articles we need, we can get into some of the strange stuff. For now, we need to explain the normal stuff. Like what is a [[family]] or a [[nuclear family]]? What is [[marriage]] all about?

:Where are are articles on [[education]], and the basics of [[cell biology]]? Our liberal friends were far too interested in proving their theory of [[evolution though natural selection]] to bother giving even an ''introduction'' to [[microbiology]] or [[biochemistry]]. I don't even know if we have an article on comparative [[anatomy]]! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:26, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== [[John the Baptist]] ==

Hello Ed, Please look at the recent edit made to John the Baptist and the choice to protect that edit. We could use your thoughts on this manner as this would seem to be going a direction that would be inappropriate. Thank you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Response==

Thanks. It's great to be back. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:20, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== French and Indian War/s ==

Hey Ed, can I get you to look at both [[French and Indian War]] and [[French and Indian Wars]]. Everything I've ever read refers to it in the singular form, so I think we need a merger. I made a comment on the talk page a few weeks ago and go no response there, so I'm bringing it to your attention since you were involved with one of the articles. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:27, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, there were a series of French and Indian Wars fought over a fairly long time period, each with its own name. The French and Indian War that we usually associate with that title was the last, and an extension of a much larger war that was occurring in Europe at that time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, Learn is correct. I've responded to your comment on the talk page, and think we need two separate articles, so I didn't perform the merge like you asked for. Just wanted to alert you to this, sorry if I made a mistake. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:26, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Golly, no. I know very little about history. I only know about the ''mechanisms'' of formatting and arranging wiki articles.

In most of my writing and editing, I am learning as I go along.

I would really like to know which "war" or "wars" we're talking about here. We have to get a good name for each one. Then we can say what it was about, who started it (and why), and what the outcome was.

You both obviously know '''much''' more about this than I do, so I leave it to y'all. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:47, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==Team contest==

I would like to have you on my team in our new [[Conservapedia:Team contest|team contest]]. Please let me know if you are able to compete. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 16:29, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ed: Where is your contest record directory? [[User:Ed Poor/contest]] and [[User:Ed Poor/Contest]] don't seem to exist. We need that to tally your contributions. -- Judge [[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:05, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, sorry, I didn't know I had to keep track. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:08, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== A picture of the US flag ==
[[Image:Usflag.png|right|thumb|USA Flag]]
Is there a decent picture of the US flag somewhere? I'd like to write an article on the [[United States Flag Code]]. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:54, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:This one looks nice to me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:58, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::I was ideally looking for an image of the flag in use, since the law is about how to use the American flag. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 00:00, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I'm not sure if you saw [[Faggot|this unfortunateness]]. I noticed it's Conservapedia practice to redirect such unpleasantness somewhere appropriate then protect the redirect. I made [[slur]] for this purpose; can you think of a decent slur nobody could really get angry at? A classical example would probably be best, as I'd like to avoid all the political and social wars and whatever nonsense. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 00:02, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:You make it sound like homosexual persons should be exempt from teasing or insults, or given special treatment of a similar sort. Tell me, how do you feel about people who commit adultery, incest, child molesting, etc.? How about pimps, prostitutes, drug pushers, mafia ''enforcers''? Corrupt politicians, lying used car salesmen, dictators who funnel off foreign aid to build palaces for themselves, etc?

:Should ''no one'' ever be insulted, put down or criticized? No matter how selfish they are, no matter how much they hurt other people? Should a cop be polite when returning fire? How about soldiers in a firefight, must they say and think nice, kind gentle thoughts about the enemy? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:42, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::I don't mean that at all! Instead, I mean that I feel that that kind of ugly slur is not at all family friendly. I know I'm a bit new, but I put "family friendly" somewhere between "appropriate for mixed company" and "would use it in front of the kids," and that particular slur is up there at "censored even on the news." (Wouldn't you block someone who used that word casually on a talk page?) This way, we can keep things family-friendly, while still informing someone who genuinely doesn't know better what the word is.

::I don't think any good would come of me preemptively looking for words to redirect to [[slur]]. (In fact, I think that'd be a good way to get myself banned.) If I did, I would redirect at least three I can think of for black people, one for Jews, one for Jewish lawyers, a couple for Arabs, one for Mexicans, a couple mostly archaic ones for Irish, and probably more if I put my mind to it. It's not about homosexuals; it's about being family friendly.

::I'm glad to see that many of the unfortunate slurs I thought of were redlinks. Some of them aren't, though, and could easily be protected redirects to [[slur]], to help readers who genuinely don't know better.

::All you need to do to make this my last comment on the subject is to ask that it be. I'm not here on Conservapedia to get involved in more controversy; heavens know I have enough of it on Wikipedia, and I don't even edit contentious subjects there. -_- [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 14:51, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

=="Ad Hominem"==

Not to be confrontational, but if you think my remarks are out of line, then as a sysop it's your prerogative to delete them. You already temp-banned me for them, and left no indication to remove them until several days after the fact.

As for keeping to correcting the vast amounts of meteorological and climatological misinformation I find on this site, by all means, as I have free time, that's what I plan to do. Now, I'll repeat this in a more civil tone: I'm well-educated in Meteorology. I've spent my entire life studying the atmosphere. When anyone edits this wiki, spewing anti-global warming rhetoric based on unsound science, it's a smack in the face to me and the thousands of other American meteorologists who are spending our lives trying to further humanity's understanding of the atmosphere so we may live safer and enjoy the outdoors. I'll tell you from personal experience - you will be hard pressed to find a scientist at the National Weather Service or NOAA who isn't concerned with global climate change. The skeptics are most definitely right - there is a lot we don't know and don't understand. However, every day, new research is completed that piles on the evidence that human industrialization may not be the '''cause''' of global warming, but is catalyzing the natural phenomenon. We don't know what the outcome of that phenomenon will be, but until then, why take any chances? Why not institute changes that help save the atmosphere in the environment, just for the pleasure of protecting this paradise the G-- himself blessed us with? Heck, if not for the pleasure, why don't we do it for saving the money that gets wasted on dirty fuels?

Please - and I'm really trying to ask nicely - cease and desist from spreading anti global climate change propaganda and rhetoric. If you're a meteorologist, then do so because you know that the jury is out, and '''neither''' side has all the science concrete to back up their claims. If you're not a meteorologist but some other scientist, do it because you value objectivity, and you see the bias in the so called "scientific" organizations that spend their time debunking claims without ever submitting their rebuttals to serious journals. If you're just a lay person with an interest in the topic, then please, subscribe to several journals such as Nature, and spend the time reading the articles that are published. They're absolutely fascinating - some of them even revolutionary - and I guarantee for every 10 minutes you spend reading a serious scientific paper, you'll come away with at least a dozen new learnings that you'll be able to apply to any other scientific endeavour you may embark upon.

If this comment is still out of line, then please - go ahead and remove me from this wiki. That's probably a sign that I should quit amusing myself and get back to serious work (phD's don't earn themselves!) [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 23:23, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:Not out of line, just a bit confused. You're making a fruitcake out of apples and oranges. There are two separate questions: (1) what evidence supports the [[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]? and (2) how much evidence is needed to justify radical measures such as [[emissions trading]] or [[energy rationing]]?

:I'd be happy to talk with you on the phone (without revealing your identity publicly, if you fear professional reprisals for speaking out in your own name). Just email me using the convenient link to the left (under ''toolbox'').

:Until then, I have to go with what the science says: global warming is a benign phenomenon which is almost entirely natural. If you have evidence to the contrary, please submit it. If an article you want to edit is locked, just create a rival version like [[global warming 2]] and drop me a line here. Actual scientists will get special privileges around here, as long as I have any say in the matter! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Powers of ten mess ==

Could you please sort out this "mess" (sorry to call it that, but...)? You seem to be the main one responsible for it.

Back in April, you moved "Powers of ten" to be a template, so that it could be included in other articles. But about 40 minutes later, you moved it again, to "List of number words". That latter article has since been considerably expanded and renamed ''twice'' (now [[Large numbers]]), but in the meantime there are two articles ([[Billion]] and a recreated [[Powers of ten]]) which include the redirected "Powers of ten" template in them.

In other words, [[Billion]] and [[Powers of ten]] both contain the entire text of [[Large numbers]]. I very much doubt that this was the intention.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:As the author of the most recent expansion of the [[Large numbers]] article, I can attest to the above. The problem is that the page [[Template:Powers of ten]] redirects to [[Large numbers]]--so that if you ''include'' this template, you wind up reproducing the [[Large numbers]] article!

:Maybe I can help. I'll copy the table out of [[Large numbers]] into the template and cancel the redirection.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:06, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Done. The template now has some very simple documentation. If the template should have more text than the table, let me know.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:14, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::You know, Terry, I started to put this message on your page, then realised that it was more a problem of Ed's doing.
::There is no need to hide the table on the template page. Sometimes that is useful, if the result doesn't show much or looks a mess, but in this case there's no problem. I've altered the page accordingly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==DB==
The Database was locked due to a major vandal attack. --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 10:51, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== [[Health insurance]] ==

You previously deleted [[Health insurance]] as being dreadfully inadequate. I made a sort of stubby replacement; is it acceptable? I imagine I'm going to end up fleeing the article as controversy inevitably sets in, but I figured some simple facts would be a good start. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 14:56, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Why block?==
I sent you an e-mail asking why you blocked me earlier but so far I have not received a response. I would very much appreciate it if you would read my e-mail and address the concerns I listed therein.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:18, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Universal health care ==

I have created a basic article for [[universal health care]]. It needs some expanding, but I think it's neutral and only discusses the facts. I didn't know if it would be appropriate to go into the different opinions on UHC, so I just linked to some sources on both sides without actually commenting on the pros and cons. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:23, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Team contest==

Ed, the judges need you to keep track of your work so they can give you points for it. Please start a record similar to mine: [[User:SharonS/contest]]. Thanks, ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 17:37, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Re: sexual orientation ==

Would it not be a better argument to say that ANY specific enumeration needs to be documented? Where does this one in fifty benchmark come from? Sysop or not, you put it in, it should be cited. PFoster 15:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==A couple of questions==
I've recently moved here from Wikipedia and noticed you obviously know what you're doing. I wanted to get started creating articles having to do with Classical music, but have a few questions first. 1: Are there any restrictions on the articles we're allowed to write? 2: Can Wikipedia be used as a source for article witting on Conservapedia? 3: How can I upload images? 4: I'm often not able to edit ANY page and it doesn't really give me a proper reason. Is there any particular reason for this? 5: How does one get on the list to become a 'sysop?' That's all for now, and thanks for your help! [[User:NewYork1956|NewYork1956]] 06:31, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the flattery. I am (with all due modesty) just about the most experienced wiki encyclopedia sysop in the world.

:#There are hardly any restrictions. Just don't insert liberal bias ''as fact''. If there is any question about what is true or not, leave the matter open.
:#You can link to Wikipedia if you can't find anything better, but Conservapedia prefers to cite its sources directly. Try following a Wikipedia link, and if the source says what the article claims it does, all well and good (around 10% of the time, it doesn't; Wikipedia has no fact-checking program)
:#A bureaucrat has to give you image uploading rights. Until then, ask for assistance on each image you need.
:#Conservapedia is the target of coordinated vandal attacks, by (surprise! liberals!) who are trying to make the project fail. We have to shut down from time to time in response. Trusted writers are exempt from this, so please work hard to earn our trust. It only took me 6 days here to be made a sysop, but then again "I know what I'm doing" as you put it. ;-)
:#To become a sysop, write a lot of articles, and improve existing ones. Become known as a trustworthy contributor, and we'll promote you.

:In general, communicate. Most of Raul's Laws [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654/Raul%27s_laws] apply here just as well as at Wikipedia. The main difference is that we are still small enough that the herd instinct hasn't taken over and subverted our original ideal (as it has at Wikipedia; they de-sysopped me and put me on probation, for pete's sake!). We also have a hierarchy with our editor-in-chief Andy Schlafly at the top.

:Welcome, and happy writing! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:56, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

::Reading the links in the welcome that is now on your talk page will answer most of those questions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Help desk ==

"If you need immediate assistance from a sysop...". So who mans the help desk to provide ''immediate'' assistance? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Talk page unprotect ==

Hi and thanks again for the unblock! Any chance you could unprotect my talk page, too? (crossposted to TK's talk page since he's the original protecting sysop.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:58, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:Nevermind, has been resolved :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== [[National League]] ==

Would it be possible for you to unlock [[National League]] for me? I was planning to work on it anyway after doing several MLB teams, and it seems to be locked for some reason. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]]

:Talk to [[User:Will N.]], the sysop who protected that page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::He's unprotected it, in any case. Thanks anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 10:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

:Sure. Similar requests can go to the [[Conservapedia:Help Desk]]. That's better than contacting sysops at random. (Consider me a last resort. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:17, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

==Human Being/Social Science==
Thank you. I would hope I would know a thing or two since my B.S. in in Interdisciplinary Social Science :-)--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:41, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

==Why the reversion?==
I'm confused. You said I did good work but then you just removed all of my edits. What's going on?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:41, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, [[edit conflict]]. We can't all three of us edit so quickly without stepping on each other's toes. Please dredge up anything that was lost, and place it on the [[Talk:Human being]] page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:53, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

==TK's block of [[User:Sid 3050]]==
TK blocked User:Sid after "checking with other Sysops;" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TK&diff=230431&oldid=230415] where is the transcript of these discussions? I cannot find it in the Sysop area. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

:There's always private email, instant messaging, and IRC.

:Look, Rob, clearly you and TK don't get along. I don't know why, and I'd rather not get into it here in public. But I must say this: take a chill pill. If you want me to use my highly sought-after mediation skills, ask me privately.

:There's a reason Jimbo Wales put me on the Wikipedia Mediation Committee - and a reason the current chairmen begged me to come back and help reduce the backlog. I'm good at it. But I only work in private.

:Best wishes, --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:34, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== small request ==

Dear Ed,

Out of 112,000,000 articles for the www.google.com search term "Theory of evolution" the Conservapedia article ranks #31. I want to move the article into the top 5. So my first request is to please keep the redirect for the search term [[Evolution]] at Conservapedia. It will create more traffic and perhaps we can get a good ranking for the search term [[evolution]] for Google. Besides most evolutionists strenuously assert that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution since the abiogenesis proposition is so counterevidence/exceedingly weak. Also, I have decided to work on making the footnotes for the [[Evolution]] article more user friendly. There are about 180 of them. Would you like to help me?
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:23, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Aloha ==

You said: ''If you have a bone to pick about the American English usage of discovered, you should have created a debate topic. Discussion pages are for improving the article. They are not platforms for advocacy.
Think it over for a day, and then if you still think the issue is important you can voice your opinions at Debate:Can Europeans say they "discovered" an inhabited area?. --Ed Poor Talk 09:53, 13 July 2007 (EDT)''

Think it over for a day? While I'm blocked? What are you, my father or something? "Think about what you've done wrong and after your time out in the corner, we can discuss this further. On my terms."

I *have* been thinking about this question - and others like it - for years. And if you want to persist in your belief that valorising the knowledge of one type of people - the people with power - as "discovery" and by extension having the knowledge of another people - knowledge that was millenia old (notwithstanding what the YECs might believe) count for less somehow, there's little I can do about it.It frustrates me that after forty-plus years of academic debate on these questions, intelligent and reasonable people persist in seeing the world in those out-dated terms - and therefore in perpaetuating the power structures that these terms produce - and reproduce. And it frustrates me that intelligent and reasonable people are unable to acknowledge the class- and race- based discrimination inherent in the reproduction of that kind of knowledge. It has been many years since serious writers, thinkers and academics stopped referring to "discovery" and have instead referred to the accurate - and less power-driven - terms like "encounter." Maybe you're just not familiar with that historiography - or maybe you're uncomfortable with the implications it has for your politics. I don't know you, so I don't know the answer to that.

But I do know that ignorance and bullying are not a conservative values.

And speaking of power, I've been on this wiki long enough to know how the power structures here work - Tick off a sysop, risk a ban. That's a chance I'm willing to take by writing this. But look at my contributions, and see how many of them are quality, solid edits that are on the top of their topics' history pages before doing so. There's no need for a semantic argument to result in the banning of a quality editor.

Bien a vous,

[[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 12:54, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for explaining that. Now, if you'll sort it out into (a) advocacy about the power structure, respect for non-European knowledge, etc. and (b) editorial policy regarding ''discover'' vs. ''encounter'' then maybe we can get somewhere with this.

:Perhaps you'd like some acknowledgment that the "European discovery of Hawaii" is not ''editorially meant'' as "the first time any human beings saw the island", or something like that? Please be clear about what you want: it increases your chances of getting it.

:And, yes, if you feel I'm talking down to you, sorry, but I do have more authority here than you. I suggest you get comfortable with that, if you plan to stick around. I in turn am humble to my superiors, and I find it to be an immensely satisfying arrangement. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:14, 14 July 2007 (EDT) 
 
*Oh, I get it...a [[Parthian shot]]! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:36, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh, yeah, it's one of those alright - that's pretty obvious in that part where I asked him not to ban me and in the edits I did after posting this.
[[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 13:41, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

:*So, show him by your good quality edits, and abiding by our CP Guidelines he is wrong! I can attest to the [[fact]] that Ed likes to be made wrong, and often, and is without [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:52, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

:PFoster, I suppose it can be said Ben Franklin didn't "discover" electricity, he "encountered" electricity, since it had always been here. And we can presume others had "encountered" electricity before Franklin, others who got hit by lightening bolts. So we cannot even say that Ben Franklin was ''the first'' to encounter electricity.

:We owe a debt of gratitude to these enlightened scholars who have set the ignorant and unintelligent peons straight. Of coarse they didn't really "discover" the oppressive nature of the white male power structure, they just "encountered" it. So what's the point anyway? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:00, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

The point, Rob, and this may hit one like a "lightening" bolt - or a "lightning" bolt, for that matter - is that language not only describes, it creates power. How we define goes a long way in setting up how we exercise power. And likening the "discovery" of a civilization (like Cook "discovering" the people who lived in Hawaii) with that of an inanimate object (like Franklin's discovery of electricity) points to exactly the kind relationship between knowledge, words and power that need to be explored. As I understand it, and I'm no historian of science, Franklin was the first person to understand the relationship between lightning, electricity and conductivity - or something like that. Nobody knew about that before he discovered that (or at least bothered to write it down or tell anyone about it). Nobody knew about the polio vaccine before Salk discovered how it would work. LOTS of people - thousands and thousands of them - knew about Hawaii before Cook did. And they knew about it for thousands and thousands of years. Why does *their* stumbling onto the place not count as the "discovery" of it? Are these people - and the civilization they built over centuries and millenia - to be placed in the same category of knowledge as lightning, vaccines, and all the other material stuff people have discovered? Because if they are, that says something about what we think about them as human beings - and it says something about where we rank their knowledge and their civilization. And it says that because we have the power to speak for them and their history in a way that they cannot speak about us. We can acknowledge that, or we can ignore it. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 14:22, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

*Well, in the real world, the one we all live in, sorry to say, it doesn't "count" unless written down, published, disseminated to the masses, no matter how you perceive the "facts". Yes, it marginalizes them. Isn't that true of all history? Invent a [[Time Machine]], travel back, fix all of it, then you will have accomplished something. To endlessly debate something like this is a nice pursuit for an Intellectual Retreat, or a shut-in, but hardly conducive to building an encyclopedia, actually ending up with a final article. Add a section that Anthropologist's ''surmise'' this or that, if you will. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:35, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

::PFoster, when I referred to "enlightened scholars,' I was refering to the same people you cited, "after forty-plus years of academic debate on these questions, intelligent and reasonable people persist in seeing the world in those out-dated terms - and therefore in perpaetuating the power structures..."

::You seem to be a student of [[historiography]], and of the progressive view of historiography in particular. The question seems to be over mariginalizing Western Civilization. When Columbus "discovered America," he really wasn't the first Westerner to "discover" it, he was the first Westerner to open (or discover) the Western hemisphere for commercial exploitation.

::So the question is over none-Westernized cultures writing about thier own history. They are free to do so, but I'll make a $10 bet they most often will use the Roman alphabet or the English language in particular. So when we commonly use the term "discovered", we are referring to the Western Civilizations' discovery of non-Western peoples & territories. Barring Western Civilization being "conquered" by native Hawaiians, for example, we will continue writing in Western languages about Western Civilization's encounter, or discovery, of non-Western peoples and territorries. Now, if native Hawaiians, for example, can muster enough manpower (errr...'personpower') to "conquer" and impose thier language and alphabet on Western Civilization, then they can rewrite the history books in their own native tongue and clarify the whole matter.

::Perhaps a word on the "progressive view of history' for non-historians: this is not a reference to "progressivism" of so-called modern liberal thinking, this refers to a view of the human species that as time goes on, human beings are supposedly smarter than earlier generations. It is contrasted with the view of most historians that human nature in unchanging, the species is no better or worse off than prior generations. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:57, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== "I in turn am humble to my superiors, and I find it to be an immensely satisfying arrangement." --Ed Poor ==

It's a good thing there were few people who thought that way in 1776. Or during the Civil Rights debate. Or any other time when the country needed to kick off the shackles that "our superiors" have placed on us. Challenging "our superiors" is only what makes America great; it's what makes America America in the first place. The US is a nation of rebels, and is founded or radical principles - or at least it's supposed to be. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 09:52, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:You seem to have wilfully mistaken my meaning. I was not referring to dictators bent on imposing their will on me for their selfish purposes; such describes the mood of the Imperial monarchy of England in the 18th Century.

:Rather I meant a freely chosen relationship. You will no doubt recall that I was not sent in exile to Conservapedia, but came in response to a request from DB Smith. You know I am a volunteer, yet you chose to omit any consideration of this in your analysis.

:You can't be in this project any more, until and unless you stop doing stuff like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*Great. More email. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:33, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Closed" template ==

{{TemplateDocRqd|Closed|sysop=true}}
Also {{tl|Fair use image}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== categorize an article, please? ==

Hi Ed,

At your convenience, would you please categorize [[How do Wikipedians see Conservapedia?]]? I'm not at all sure where this should go. Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 19:45, 16 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-I think I can...''

*Done. This is my alter-ego speaking for me. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:24, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

==[[European Discovery of America]]==

Took care of it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:41, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:42, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Ed Poor/4

2008-07-18T04:04:02Z

Aspire:

== Happy Easter! ==

Happy Easter to you, Ed!

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

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

==Disillusioned==
Ed, Happy Easter.

I'm sad to say I'm a little disillusioned by Conservapedia already. I am extremely irritated by the liberal bias pervading every corner of Wikipedia, but I'm equally saddened when I look at the [[Evolution]] article here. I might just stop editting for a while until I see how things develop. Maybe I need to start my own "middlopedia"? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Things take time. Try working on one of the 5,000 pages that aren't protected. Or follow me around and help me finish some of the articles which are related to a protected one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Political spectrum]]==

''moved from [[User:Ed Poor]]''

Ed Poor-- Nice job on the political spectrum page. Conciseness is next to godliness. I didnt appreciate being called a weasel... but your editing was good.

I still support separate pages for left/right/ and spectrum. The left/right pages are now very concise. But I think we should leave them open for people to expand on. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL, the weaselly part I cut out was (I think) actually written by me. Lemme go check. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Nope. It was Mathematica: ''It has been commonly pointed out that ...'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=93110&oldid=89518]

::Doesnt really matter who wrote it... the current version strikes me as clearer. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As I expected, someone here has gone onto the Political Spectrum page and changed "Nazism" to nationalism -- but of course, has left the identification of Communism with leftism. It now reads: "In discussions of mid-twentieth century Eurpoean international politics, Communism is usually called "left-wing" and nationalism "right-wing". Folks here are making my points for me. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I support the removal of the bogey man, Nazi. Their style of government was Socialism. That is Left-Wing, in my book. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between their style of governing and the Communists. But maybe I am missing something? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, the Nazis style of government was not "socialism" and was not regarded as socialism by either socialists or Nazis or any other observer. They were no more "Socialists" than Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard were members of the GOP. What you're missing, TK, are the facts of history. What exactly have you read about the Nazis? And I mean read IN BOOKS, not online. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I checked the membership list of the GOP, and I can agree that the Republican Guard were not members, although I did run across some suspect, Arab-sounding names, which I will have looked into. :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So in fact you've read nothing about the Third Reich. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Ed, there it goes, the section on Communism being associated with the left and Nazism associated with the right has been completely erased, courtesy of RobS. Better watch out. He might change the end of the Weimar Republic in the WR's article to 1939 yet...

Still "puzzled?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

One final suggestion Ed, since I don't plan to collaborate with you on anything in the future: Copy the article to your sandbox, tweak it there, and dump your awesome perfect version back into Conservapedia as a single edit, that way incrementalist eventualist editors like me won't be duped into chiselling away at an article only to have the dang thing protected so a sysop can lock in his version. Protection should only be to prevent edits with hostile intent. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I understood that my proposed sections of [[political spectrum]] were posted in the draft version so that people could edit them, and in particular so people could offer definitions. Several hours later nobody has objected in any way to my definition (and PF Fox has added a third reference supporting my def, namely Merriam-Webster). Was I wrong to expect a definition of political spectrum to end up on the political spectrum page? Were you just posting those categories in the talk page to get me off your back? And really, is there anything at all offensive about the criterion I offered?

The political spectrum page, as it stands, mentions some labels... who's called what. But it gives NO reason WHY. That's why I've been asking for (and offering) definitions ever since I started working on that page a couple of days ago. I really hope we could have some more civil and informed discussions on CP if there were some CRITERIA available for saying "that's rightist" or leftist or conservative or liberal etc etc etc. If the only thing the political spectrum page says is who's called what, then the only thing we can do when using political words in CP is... '''name calling'''. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 12:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hi again-- in the vain hope that some day the political spectrum page might define the political spectrum, I added two more definitions I think you might like more (since they are based on your earlier comments on the Talk page). I don't understand why you say definition #2 is 'conservative-centric'... but annnyyyywayyyyyy...

I put in references to "Ed Poor's high school teacher" and "Somebody called Nolan?" I hope you find that amusing. I guess "Citation required" would be more correct. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 12:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sarcasm bans? ==

If you are banning for sarcasm, could you look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit]? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Which rule of rhetoric did Sid violate? --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sarcasm bans? That's a GREAAAAAAAAT idea. /rolls eyes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I hereby ban you for one blink of an eye. ;-)

:::Sweet! Do theoretical bans count to my ban counter? I think I'd be up to lucky #13 if so.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Only theoretically. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Loving it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I am sure many of you already have your socks laundered, as you will soon be needing them. :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

That, TK, was one of the most amusing and clever comments left on this site, EVER.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Oh Doctor! You'll turn my head! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed!!! That was a FAIR mirror, not quite a parody. It points out the hypocricy of the article, and it contained an apologia. Please reinstate it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:You'll save time pointing out flaws in the article, by using the talk pages. Parody is a waste of time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Ed, tho I dont think parody is a waste of time, when done correctly. I did pretty much mean what I said about consensus, but I could be wrong about whats best. Flawed being here.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:If I knew what was best, I'd run for mayor or something. --[[User:Ed Poor|Flawed Being]] 22:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::you have just been overruled by the [[User:Aschlafly|perfect being]].[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

And by the way, since he as a horse in the race, he shouldnt get a vote. IMHO Pete

== Yep ==

It's me at #conservapedia, not an impostor. And I don't condone Richards edits, but he didn't ''really'' break any rules. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*You feel not the slightest guilt discussing this place and policy, away from the glare of public notice, where the rest of us cannot defend ourselves or answer, eh? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Terry, sign on any time, day or night, irc.freenode.net, #conservapedia.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 23:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Been there, done that. I was there this morning. They moved to another channel, or the locked one that was created, to continue their plotting and dirty tricks campaign. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm..ok, whatever you say, Mr. Nixon...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...doesn't alter the fact it has happened several times. More than enough to wear out any benefit of the doubt on my part. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==The non-page formerly known as [[Uniting Church in Australia]]==
Ed, can you please help me find where to see non- or deleted pages? I ''know'' that I created [[Uniting Church in Australia]] about 2-3 weeks ago. Now, I go back to do some more on it, and it's gone, presumably deleted (as in AFDed.) Yes, I borrowed heavily from the Wikipedia entry; but, I was a significant author (but not 'establish'-er) of the content over there so it is 'mine' and I could borrow from it and 'spin' it a little for this context and be true to both. I will go back in and re-create it; but, that could also be removed if people think I am ''only'' 'borrowing' again. It has taught me to set the "Watch this page" for all situations. Advice, please. [[User:Peter Ellis|Peter Ellis]] 23:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*12:16, 22 March 2007 CPAdmin1 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Uniting Church in Australia" (copy from WP)
--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you. I have put a message over at CPAdmin1's [[User_talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]. [[User:Peter Ellis|Peter Ellis]] 00:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, I thank you for returning the page to view within a short time of my first message first appearing here. (You can share the thanks if that is appropriate. --[[User:Peter Ellis|Peter Ellis]] 15:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== New Problem ==
Ed, help. [[User:Britinme]], a good conservative, and [[User:Palmd001|me]], not a good conservative, but a good doctor, are working on a very good breast cancer article, and Andy is getting a little feisty. Any help?--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I know you have a life, but I could really use your help [[Breast cancer|here]].--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, was catching up with old chums at #wikipedia (the IRC channel). You missed a fascinating debate on Evolution vs. Creationism. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I always miss the good stuff.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I always thought of [[User:Britinme]] as fairly conservative, and we collaborated.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:<grin> I was calling YOU the liberal. </grin> You don't mind, do you? I'd hate to have to block my account for name-calling. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*It, it would be a great help, if instead of going to IRC, you paid attention here, and responded to your emails. I don't think you starting even 200 pages, will be of help, if your intent is ramming agendas down our throats, and communicating only with those who agree with you. Did anyone on IRC disclose their changing channels rather than clear the air? Did anyone there disclose their going to a pass-worded channel to avoid people who disagree with them knowing their obstruction plans? This place will turn out to be a repeat of your Wikipedia experience if you insist on steamrolling. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*#The #conservapedia channel has no password. There is, however, a password-protected SYSOP channel at #conservapedia-sysop (email me or hojimachong for the password)
*#Sorry to be out of touch, but I do have life. I might even go out of town for a week at a time. Go easy on me, will ya? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Mine is a good one, Doctor, at Eisenhower Medical Center. Thanks anyway for your helpfulness....
Ed, you have been here, posting away, not out of town, or too busy to initiate dozens of new articles. I am trying to go easy, but I am disliking your agenda recently. And I dislike you emailing me one opinion about Maxwell, and stating another on the page. It is as if you are trying to marginalize me, hanging me out to dry. As for the password, I have emailed you, asked you on the phone, remember? It is never forthcoming. That doesn't alter the fact that those "elites" think they have no obligation to meet people half way. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:My opinion is that Maxwell is a creationist. I don't care if he's '''categorized''' that way or not. I leave that decision to you, sir.

:BTW, I just blocked Peter for 1 day.

:Sorry about the delay on the password. Please check your email now. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Who is Peter? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Darn those conflicts! Maybe we need a software update.... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, we do. But feel free to override anything *I* write. I know how to recover from an [[edit conflict]], so it doesn't bother me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

No. I won't play those games with you. Making people look better than they are, backing down on a block because they are part of your "group" isn't something I do. I leave that to the master. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, it's out of my hands now. See below re: credentials, complaints, and being called on the carpet. By the way, I ran out of those tough pills you gave me. Got any more? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Have Fun--from my talk page ==

== Notice of blocking ==

"PalMD", I've reviewed your edits and am going to block your account. I'm skeptical that you're really an M.D. and we're not going to allow the Wikipedia-style fraud here. Regardless, your edits have been 90% complaints and less than 10% substance. Your edits have been counterproductive. You can explain yourself for the last time here. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, well, well, your true colors show. How may I prove my creds to you. Want to review our little discussion in your archive and on my talk page? Want a copy of my CV?

My personal info has not changed:

Peter A. Lipson, M.D.
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine
Wayne State University
Teaching Physician
William Beaumont Hospital
plipson001@md.northwestern.edu
Contact me any time.

: Ed, FYI: (1) Enter Lipson at the [http://www.ucomm.wayne.edu/~fsd/wsupeoplesearch.html WSU People Search] and it turns up a person. (2) [http://www.beaumonthospitals.com/pls/portal30/site.app1_pkg.find_doctor_bio?xdoctorid=6117 Dr Peter A Lipson] at William Beaumont Hospitals. [[User:Peter Ellis|Peter Ellis]] 16:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why are you removing content when you archive? ==

I thought the point was to keep it available--hence the archive. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:If I've made a mistake, please point it out, so I can correct it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::There were several comments made about PalMD, I think he user is, and none of them appear archived here. I made a comment on that page, but couldn't return to it fr some reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh, those. Just being excessively nice. I'll undo my niceness now. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Civility and credentials==

I judge people by how they present themselves. Scientists are generally polite and accurate. Enough said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:What about lawyers? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*I think we can all agree...too many of them! But Andy would be correct as to policy, even if an MD. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

BTW, Ed, I enjoyed talking to you. Hopefully something productive will come of it. It was my first time firing up the grill for the season, and it was delicious.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Ed, I offered Andy a figurative olive branch on his user page, he repayed it and my offer to help include abortion material that is well vetted into the article with an insulting tirade on the breast cancer talk page. Have fun here, because im through. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 21:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Definition STILL needed==

(Reposted from Talk:Political spectrum)

Ed Poor-- when you log on I hope you will finally be ready to put some definitions of 'political spectrum' on the political spectrum page. I have now written up three definitions of political spectrum, and provided three references supporting the one I think is most standard. RobS made some irrelevant criticisms of the three definitions, which I have rebutted. Nobody else has proposed any definition other than the ones I gave.

RobS seems to assume I am some sort of leftist, so let me just state for the record that I was born and raised and still consider myself a conservative American Catholic. I'm disappointed that I need to say that. I hoped making intelligent, helpful, respectful contributions, factual and with references, would suffice. Unfortunately this site is not living up to my initial expectations, and the biggest contributions I've made on this site (ie a lot of work on the political spectrum page) got reverted completely by Ed... I understand Teresita was pretty upset about losing her contributions too.

It seems I shouldn't need to explain why an encyclopedia page about the political spectrum should define the political spectrum. But notice that there have been hot debates here again and again about whether the Nazis etc etc are leftist or rightist. The page as it currently stands ONLY says who is CALLED leftist or rightist. It makes no attempt to explain why. Therefore any debate about where some group falls on the spectrum is just NAME CALLING, and nothing more. What we need is A DEFINITION (or some definitions) so that PF Fox and RobS can say "well Osama is a ---- because definition 1 says ----" or "no, Osama is a ---- because definition 2 ---- implies -----". They would probably still detest each other, but at least they would be having a real debate instead of just engaging in name calling.

One point RobS seems upset about is that he seems to think the political spectrum is supposed to classify every single political position. I don't think any political scientist uses it that way. SOME political positions can be classified on the left-right axis, not all. I added a preamble to the list of definitions to try to clarify that.

I have inserted the word 'theory', in the hope that it might help convince RobS. Personally I think it's silly to call the left-right spectrum a 'theory': it's just a definition used to classify something, like 'crunchy' versus 'mushy'. If I say a bowl of cereal is mushy, it seems silly to call that a 'theory'... I'm just classifying according to a definition. But if 'theory' makes Rob happier, I guess there is no harm in that.

Another thing that bothers RobS is that he seems to think calling somebody 'right' is slander. I don't understand that. According to the main definition I proposed, 'right' means standing up for traditional institutions and values, which sounds extremely respectable to me.

In particular, in Europe the words left and right are used without any sense of insult at all. I know, because several years ago my company sent me to live and work in Spain, and I speak Spanish, and read the local papers, and know many people here. Obviously, if you start calling somebody 'extreme right' or 'extreme left', you are looking for a fight. But if you just call them left or right, that's just like calling them liberal or conservative in the US. In fact, lots of people respectfully say left/right in the US too, it's just a little less common.

Also, I almost never use the word 'liberal' any more, because it is much too confusing. If I say it to an American, they think 'left'; but if I say it to a European, they think 'right' (and if I say it in a mixed group, well, nobody understands).

That's one of the things that disappoints me about Conservapedia. There are lots of contributors running around calling each other names, but many pages completely lack definitions. We need to DEFINE the words we use, so that we can have more civil and intelligent debates.---[[User:Redblue|Redblue ]]

:I set up the subpages and templates with you specifically in mind, RB. (May I call you RB?) You are the best organized writer on the topic. I couldn't have an edit war, or take part in one, and I suddenly thought of a possible way out. I need to write this up at [[Conservapedia:Partial page protection]].

:Nobody should have to give their political credentials, but that's how it is in this country: everyone wants to label you and pigeonhole you ... which leads us right back to the topic! :-)

:Sorry about my big reversion. I didn't actually delete anything, it's all in the [[page history]], but I definitely got the message about how upsetting it was. I spent a lot of time setting it up so that we can get back on track and not have any more edit wars on the topic. I hope it works out.

:I daresay a lot of politics is (as you suggest) simply [[name calling]]. Dukakis is "a [[Liberal]]". Bush is "an [[idiot]]". The Israeli prime minister is "a [[Nazi]]." The [[contras]] were "[[terrorist]]s". Etc. Do these terms actually mean anything? Linguists make a distinction between the [[denotation]] and [[connotation]] of a word. Would you rather have a segment of muscle tissue from an immature castrated bull, or a "nice thick juicy steak"?

:RobS is right: the political spectrum is supposed to classify every single political position. However, where everybody goes wrong is in thinking that this is actually possible. It's not the right tool for job, and you'll go crazy trying to make this square peg fit into the round hole. "I have to, but I can't," as [[Brian Tracy]] puts it.

:I disagree with using the term ''theory'' in connection with the spectrum. There's no theory without an explanation (see [[theory and fact]], an article which I recently started).

:And now I come to the main point, which is that some people resist being called "right-wing" because it associates them with [[Adolf Hitler]], the world's most universally despised man. I'd be better off calling you a 'mofo' or Obama a n****, because, "Son, them's fightin' words!"

:Sure, we need a definition, but these political labels don't have any actual definitions, and we would be false to our readers to pretend (1) that they have definite meaning or (2) that any of us here are capable of saying what those meanings are.

:The word [[Conservative]] implies standing up for traditional institutions and values; whether that is a noble of foolish thing to do is anyone's guess. To an opponent of slavery and racism, tearing down such institutions and values would be more respectable than preserving them. To an antebellum Southern gentleman, the opposite would hold.

:Civility comes from within, but intelligence can be developed on the foundation of reliable and trustworthy knowledge.

:I have replied to you at length, because you are a valuable contributor and this is but the '''easiest''' of a whole slew of '''really tough''' issues we are going to face. We need to stick together and help each other. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Block ==

Ed, I think you are a dirty ****** and a ***** and a ***** and *********!!!!!! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 11:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I reblocked you before I saw this. Please spend the next three days thinking about whether you really have anything to offer this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Thought Police ==

So is the discussion dead or what? I didn't originate the question, but if it's not valid, then it should be removed from the list. Hehe, Johnathan Swift...remember to open your egg from the CORRECT end. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:05, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, I'm definitely a Little-endian. ;-) Just figure out a better place for the discussion (hint: see [[Debate topics]]).

== Thank you, Ed ==

Thanks for unblocking the IP. It's much appreciated. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== NousEpirrhytos ==

I know I'm possibly the worst person to ask this (since I'm a ban-magnet myself), but... what exactly should NousEpirrhytos apologize for? I do not see anything posted prior to the block that requires an apology, but I'll open my last can of GoodFaith and simply ask for a diff or two so here. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Email me or come to IRC. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, in the interest of openness, I want this here. Things are complicated enough already, no need to move things outside the realm of recorded wiki-history.
::Unless this is about something that already happened behind the scenes, but then I'd like at least that admission here for the same reason. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Olly's Block ==

I am gonna sound like a total hypocrite here, but his block ought to be infinite, IMHO. His act of vandalism was purposeful and malicious. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

whoops, got a little overzealous there. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Hamlet]] and [[Macbeth]] are good for students.==
:"I feel that I am voicing the opinion of all of us... in saying that if Miss Millborough knew that this play—''Macduff,'' or whatever it's called—contained such words as—well, such words as we're speaking about, she never ought to have given it to the children to read at all. To my mind it's a disgrace that schoolbooks can be printed with such words in them. I'm sure that if any of us had known that Shakespeare was that kind of stuff, we'd have put our foot down at the start. It surprises me, I must say. Only the other morning I was reading a piece in my ''News Chronicle'' about Shakespeare being the father of English Literature; well, if that's Literature, let's have a bit ''less'' Literature, say I! ... We're all of us decent God-fearing folk—some of us are Baptists and some of us are Methodists and there's even one or two Church of England amont us; but we can sink our differences when it coems to a case like this."
::—A character in [[George Orwell]]'s ''A Clergyman's Daughter''

In high school, we did read ''Hamlet,'' of course. Our teacher was mildly subversive. She insisted on using her own copy of Hamlet, and referring to the actual line numbers in her edition. Needless to say, as we proceeded her line numbers got further and further off from ours. She never said anything about it, except to say she was using the "real" edition or something like that; left it to us to figure out what had been done to our copies. The odd thing is that we were never able to figure out ''why'' certain lines had been omitted, when fairly obvious double-entendres
were left in... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. If you don't know ''A Clergyman's Daughter,'' which happens to be really good, and don't know what word was being referred to... well, as we always used to say at the end of our junior-high-school book reports, "And if you want to know what happened, you'll have to read the book." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:More than one man of the cloth has attempted to produce an expurgated version of Shakespeare "suitable for young ladies". The Mad Max version is a pretty good movie treatment, but Ethan Hawke and Julia Stiles are unmatched. But check out Hamlet for the Shakespeare-Impaired! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S.

::'''Archy Confesses'''

:Coarse jocosity catches the crowd.
:Shakespeare and I are often low browed.

:The fishwife curse and the laugh of the horse.
:Shakespeare and I are frequently coarse.

:Aesthetic excuses in Bill's behalf
:Are adduced to refine big Bill's coarse laugh.

:But Bill he would chuckle to hear such guff.
:He pulled rough stuff and he ''liked'' rough stuff.

:Hoping you are the same.

:—Archy the cockroach
::—Don Marquis, ''The Lives and Times of Archy and Mehitabel''

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== You accidentally left a message for Philip... ==

...on my Talk page. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Tacos ==

Thanks. I used to live in Mexico and never saw a taco like those in the picture :) [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd rather see, for instance, the Basilica of Guadelupe, the ruins of Teotiucahan, the Mexico City stadium, or the beaches at Puerto Escondido. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:50, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== oops ==
Hi Ed - I initially misunderstood the instructions for creating a new template and created [[Template:User Murray]] mistakenly. Could you delete the page please? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Ed. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Is there a place to view all templates? ==

Just wondering. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=&namespace=10 List of all templates] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== UBX ==

Hey, take a look at the North American UBX. I'm trying to work on them so we don't have a bunch with the same picture/look. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Template:Delete ==

we already have <nowiki>{{Delete Notice}}</nowiki> --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 14:18, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, well one can [[redirect]] the other then. Templates can redirect, while categories cannot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Just a "few" thousand tortured and murdered ==

So I guess you figure we Americans make an awful lot of silly fuss about the three thousand of us killed on September 11? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:This could be one of the [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:26, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::It already is a debate topic.

::So what WAS your point? What conclusion do you expect us to draw when comparing 3,000 deaths to several million? Is the immorality of mass murder similar to the value of real estate in that it's measured by the square footage of the grave sites? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That doesn't explain your comments about "keeping in perspective" a regime that had a policy of torturing and murdering the opposition. How is mentioning Victor Jara's death a violation of that "perspective?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:And your point is ... ? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:50, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::To get an answer to my question. Why did my bringing up Victor Jara prompt you to make that comment about "perspective?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:54, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 09:33, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Excellent. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::I would apreciate a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy/Vote|Vote]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 14:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== T-Rex Page ==

Hello Ed, could you help Jrssr5 and I out with the T-Rex page? CPAdmin and CPWebmaster are reverting the edits that we had place about the recent science publication about the molecular link between T-Rex and chickens. The links that we provided were
:http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/12/dinosaur.reut/index.html Bird Family Ties
:http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ap_trex_tissues.html T Rex Tissue
:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/277
:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/316/5822/277/DC1/1

This information just came out yesterday and was published in today's science. I do not believe that either sysops have read the research to revert our edits. It is kinda hard to support articles with valid information if the cites are reverted all of the time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Given the position of the powers that be with respect to evolution, there's no way you'll get your statement in as it's currently phrased. You might have more luck with something along the lines of Philip's version. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:14, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would have been fine with Philip's version except he said birds, it is a chicken not just a bird:). The other point is that the conclusion is not just evolution motivated. These scientists were just hoping to compare the proteins to modern animals, not establish the link that they did, that was secondary. It is not every day that soft tissue from a dino is found and can have the proteins extracted from it:). I guess it is the removal of the sources that bothers me, I could care less how it is phrased as long as it represents what was discovered.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will answer either on [[User talk:Tims]] or on the talk page of the cute little critter in question. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Isn't science... good? The articles do not attack creation, and ignoring them is tantamount to willful blindness.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Who ya calling blind? Wait till I find my glasses and get my hands on you . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==When you get a chance==
Look at contribs from a user called Sb [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks Ed!--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really?==
You saw no improvements in the [[Science]] article? I thought it was doing very well. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Macroevolution==

Ed could you look at the page and see if my edits were out of line? Shortly after adding the edits Conservative went through and reverted the page and locked it. His talk page is locked as well preventing me to address the issue there. Thanks!--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Have you made the recommended changes to t-rex yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:02, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, they are the revisions from today before Conservative reverted them and locked the page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 18:25, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sorry if I am slow to respond, I am making dinner for my wife and baby.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 18:25, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, anything about the macro page?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 21:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK ==

I am trying to work with TK and involve him in the development of my proposed block policy, but he doesn't seem to understand. Could you post on his talk page to try to get him to understand? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:I spent some time on the phone with him. Could you email him or use an [[instant messaging]] application? He doesn't like "public" stuff like wiki-messages as much as other ways of communicating. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Ed, for trying, but CPAdmin1 is the reason I am leaving. He insults, diminishes/marginalizes and demeans other users. ''He has never once asked my opinion or explanation, except for the late-added notice of his proposed rules and template''. I note he asked others for their "vote" but not me. Since that was before i had even seen his proposals, I don't think I am wrong as to his intent. Quite simply he believes he knows better than others. Tonight he blocked a user for ''formatting'' another users page, contrary to what Commandment? We didn't even have a policy here (proclaimed by Andy less than a week ago) that user pages are a "Castle". Why is it that no one else has taken him to task for constantly undoing my blocks without explanation, or asking me to explain? The first time he asked me about a block, yesterday in an insulting demand on my talk page, it was after, without his help, which i asked for, and he refused to give, clearing up the matter with Palm, and agreeing, mutually with him, for me to undo his block. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pledge.... ==

I have proudly posted a version of the "Pledge" on my user page, that I can acccept. It includes the Admin guidelines Andy approved, and does not ignore them. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

<div style="width: 550px; text-align: center; border: 1px solid #999; background: #ccc; margin: .5em auto .5em auto; padding: 5px;"><big>'''Sysop Pledge'''</big> As a Conservapedia Sysop, '''''I will never arbitrarily block anyone who is not in violation of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]], and related CP Guidelines.''''' </div>

:That looks good. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I was going to add it to templates, got so confused, I gave up rather than have the peanut gallery chirp in. BTW, in a totally bogus vote on IRC (I am sure it was rigged!) Conservative beat me out for most hated. Mainly due to Ames, who refused me his vote. Or so I am reliably informed. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Votes don't matter, except in democracies. "Opinion polls" can help a company president decide how to direct his employees (see [[market research]]). I don't know how volunteer groups (like Conservapedia) are organized; we seem to be making it up as we go along.

:/join #conservapedia-sysop if you want to chat a few minutes before I go to church. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Impossible. Less of a sinner here, I attend the 7AM Mass. :p After I will sign in, await activity. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:After I leave for church, I will be offline until 1:00 P.M. West Coast time. See you later, alligator. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[Salvador Allende]] Again ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Why not? I'll move it. If anyone else wishes to erase this conversation from Ed's user page, they are welcome to. I don't want to get blocked -- again -- for doing precisely what someone here has told me to do. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia's treatment of the subject. It's more balanced than the version you propose. I'd hate to have a one-sided, "Allende good, Pinochet bad" article.

Please take a glance at [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'll certainly keep in in mind -- also keeping in mind, of course, that I saw few objections from any of the sysops about it being an "Allende bad, Allende bad article."

::I consider mass murder and political repression bad. How about you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:The former is much worse. I can live with the second (no pun intended). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Allende was guilty of neither. Pinochet was guilty of both. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Request to revert post-panel-approval edit on ToE ==

I'd like edit http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=96126&oldid=96125 to be reverted. The exact text is:
*[[Charles Darwin]]. ''The Origin of Species''. [http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/ (Free online version)]
in the Recommended Reading list. The edit was made after the Panel approved the article as it was. This link was the only recommended reading which pointed to a resource which wasn't explicitely devoted to rebutting the theory. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 19:51, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== PALMD ==

I direct you to my latest edits which appear to be completely ideologically neutral. I thought that about breast cancer as well but I was wrong, so we will see what happens.
*[[TB]]
*[[Cancer]]
*[[Prostate cancer]]
--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 17:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm flattered that you would come to me with these. I have made teensy weensy edits to both. Thanks for your contributions, and please give us many more like these! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==AppliedFaith==

Could it be the same person as TrueFaith, whom I blocked earlier today? Has anybody checked the IPs? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't like to exclude anyone who '''might''' turn out to be a helpful contributor, but if someone is more trouble than they are worth then after a while you just have to cut them loose.

:Mentoring kids who want to learn is fine. I was a Mentor at ABC and helped a kid get into college. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Did you have to delete the whole Neturei Karta article?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:Too hasty, must apologize. I need to spend more time with [[Treebeard]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Breast]]==
I wonder whether I've drawn myself into spending half an hour working on an article that's going to end up being deleted. And getting my username associated with it. Oh, well. I have no idea where on the political spectrum people think breastfeeding falls. It does have feminist overtones, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's controversial, so try writing about [[breastfeeding]] or hide it under [[lactation]] or [[methods of infant nutrition]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well that's sorta-kinda what I did. I want to put back the sentence about men having breasts. It's important for several reasons. First, it's accurate. The idea that only women have breasts is just another aspect of over-sexualizing the breast. Second, men can get breast cancer, and, although it's rare, and when they do it is likely to be very dangerous, moreso than in women. I know someone who was recently diagnosed with it and says he is now on a personal campaign to convince ''men'' that they need to do regular breast self-examination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Reginod==
Ed, If I may inquire about Reginod, I feel somewhat involved as it occurred on my talk page, and he was asking about an issue that is very important regarding our rationale for blocking. Was this a misunderstanding, or is there some previous history we're all not aware of? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

#You may.
#A bit of both.
#We're discussing the matter by email with Mr. Schlafly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Iraq Body count ==

Here's a selection from a page from the IBC databse. Tell us again how they "They deliberately do not collect or even care about terrorist murders."

"The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion." (see: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/)

Next time, take the time to read before making a false claim [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 20:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:The method they use is incidental to this debate; the first step is to properly qualify the source as to why we should spend any time whatsoever even examining their methodology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

ummmmm...because they make substantive claims with important political ramifications? Does that not count? [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 20:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:The question is, ''who'' is this group? Guidestar, the website of Philanthropic Research, Inc., [http://www.guidestar.org/about/index.jsp?source=dnabout] never heard of them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Looks like they blame the "terrorist" deaths on the US as a "response" to the "invaders". Do you think this means they regard the terrorist murders as bad, or was my recollection correct? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Good, bad, dead is still dead. And it's even worse since they're mostly dead Muslims, which means they're now burning in hell, having missed their slim chance to accept Jesus. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 20:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*I think you have it right Ed, IMO. Which is why it is suspect in my mind. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand - do you believe that there is no relation between the invasion and the terrorist attacks which began immediately in its aftermath? [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 20:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:No fair, I asked first! :-)

::The point is that the IBC blames the deaths caused by [[suicide bomber]]s and the like on the US. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 21:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, it all [[America (USA)|America]]'s fault - to hear them tell it. Reminds me of [[Noam Chomsky]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::We still don't have the vaguest idea who this organization is, and the lack of any qualifying particulars makes it suspect. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's fairly obvious that the group's main purpose is to protest the US-led invasion of Iraq and to lobby for an early withdrawal - preferably before Iraq becomes a pro-US democracy. I maintain (purely as personal opinion at this point) that they don't actually care about anybody, least of all the casualties or their families - but are only exploting the issue the way John Kerry exploited the "atrocities" of US forces in Viet Nam.

:I know quite a bit about the US conduct of the Viet Nam War; the [[My Lai incident]] was a special study of mine, particularly when I found it described in an army training manual on military ethics. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== annoyed you to leaving IRC? ==

I hope what I said right before you left didn't annoy you into leaving. If so, I'd like to understand why; the off-taste bit sadly wasn't a joke, but also wasn't aimed at CP or anybody in the room. The bit that was a joke, I don't see why would be offensive. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:You used a phrase which had an emotional trigger for me. Don't worry about it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Media Bias ==

Congrats on your new look media bias page. It used to be just one long anti-liberal tirade, and although the links are still a bit like that, it's a major step forward. Well done! Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

:See also [[talk:media bias]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Can we please resolve this, via email? Today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Books ==

It's not the Dawkins book I care about; I'll remove that one. The books I care about are Darwin's and Futuyma's. They are the most relevant books which exist. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Try writing an article about (1) What the thinker believes and (2) Why he believes it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::I don't think I should be writing the "big picture" articles about science here. But I won't lose this battle; they are the single two most relevant books that exist, period. That cannot be disputed, can it? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You could write a summary of the Futuyama book. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Blocked" template ==

Why does the [[template:Blocked|template you created]] say "blocked '''by'''"? That suggests that it should be followed by the name of the blocking sysop, but you haven't used it that way. And wouldn't it be a good idea to include the name of the blocking sysop? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:It could say "blocked" instead. It refers to the block log. A user can '''do''' a block or '''be''' blocked. Maybe it should say "was blocked".

:When they click on "blocked" or "was blocked", the link will serve as a shortcut to the Block Log and show them each instance of a sysop blocking them or unblocking them. The intent is to reduce the number of talk page inquiries: "Why was he blocked? Who blocked him?" It will all be there, one click away. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. I've changed it some more, so that it says "<username> has been blocked". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:I tweaked it so [[contribs]] come second. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::I noticed, and I think that's good. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Can you take a look at this comment==
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Would_the_repeal_of_gun_control_laws_make_incidents_like_the_shooting_at_Virginia_Tech_less_likely_to_occur%3F doesn't seem very "family friendly" to me. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, Jeremiah's comment at the bottom of the page, please. Thanks [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== A few questions ==

Ed, could I have a few words regarding your recent message on the talk page? Firstly, the Sysop involved is TerryH, not TK, but I think that's a minor point. My bone of contention is that literally nowhere in the two Bible passages cited does it claim the "the only Kingdom not of this Earth is Heaven". Now, this may very well be true, but the fact remains that the passages don't claim this, and we should either reword the passage or find a passage that does state this. This matter relates directly to the state of the article, should not we be using the talk page to discuss the matter? I would appreciate your insight on the matter. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is a matter of theology, so it's not "cut and dried". Can we talk via instant messaging? I have AIM, Yahoo and [[IRC]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Minor? When finally there is something someone admits I haven't done? LOL! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm afraid I don't message, but I think a small number of talk page edits would settle the matter. To me it appears to be a matter of citations, not theology. Am I missing a key part of TerryH's logic on the matter? If I am, then it appears the other denizens of the talk page are missing it as well. Casual readers of Conservapedia may well be left confused as well. I think it would be best to reword the sentence in question, because at present we are putting words into the Bible's mouth (so to speack). [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, TK, I had trouble keeping track of the Two Terrys :P

:N, all references to biblical exegesis should give (1) the quotation (like "Be ye therefore perfect" Matt. 5:48) and (2) an explanation (if available) of why the person using the quotation feels that it supports whatever point they are making. We should be respectful and considerate of all religious views. See [[Origins debate]] for a example of quoting [[Genesis]] to support [[Creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::The quoting of Genesis to support Creationism is quite obvious from a plain reading of the Bible. I do not wish to be insulting as I say this, but there does not appear to be any rational reasoning to suppose that the two passages given can in any way be interprated to mean what TerryH is saying (I invite you to read over his essay on the matter).

::If you feel that Terry's reasoning is valid, could you please explain it clearly so I can accept it. Alternatively, if you feel that in theory a Bible verse can be used to justify any claim provided a rationale is given, even if it appears to not make sense, I accept that as a Conservapedia rule (although I strongly warn that that leaves us wide open to difficult to detect parody, and ridicule). [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'A few words' - right ;-) This is going to be a long discussion and will probably set a precedent, so ...

If someone quotes Hezekiah 3:16 to support their point, I would ''probably'' raise an objection. If I can't find the scripture in my Bible, it's going to be hard for me to read it for myself.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to refute the notions that we should never pray or that Jesus never cried, it would be interesting to our readers to present their [[exegesis]] of verses like "Pray constantly" (1 Thess 5:17) or "Jesus wept" (John 11:35). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:"''If someone quotes Hezekiah 3:16 to support their point...''". Who would do such a silly thing? :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Someone whose dad is a minister, maybe? ;-)

==No thanks==
But thanks for looking out for me :-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:My pleasure. And please check your user talk page for a heartfelt message on [[article quality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Need A Favor==

Please block my account for two days. I need to get a project done and am too caught up in this to stop. Totally serious. I appreciate it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Done. "Be happy in your work." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Don Imus

2008-07-18T04:03:29Z

Aspire: removing from wanted pages

Howard Stern being a conservative or not a conservative isn't relevant here. Also, I don't think it's necessary to print what Imus said in here. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ah, censored crap. I'm done with this ****** place. [[User:Hamtandrus|Hamtandrus]] 00:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The article says that an organization made the racial slur, not Imus? I thought it was Imus? Were we misinformed by the MSM? I genuinely thought Imus had called them "nappy headed hos" on air? [[User:50something|50something]] 12:48, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== Whitewash ==
I reverted the edit "racist and sexist comments he made" because it is a matter of opinion, and because Imus only made some of the comments. Imus was comparing blacks to blacks, and women to women, so it is not obvious what is racist or sexist about the comments. I'll put in a link to the original complaint so people can read it for themselves. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:56, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the point is that he violated a taboo, not that he said anything actually racist or sexist. Some people are "gunning for" various -ists, to discredit them (see [[Politically correct speech]].

:He was popular for his rough jabs, like [[Don Rickles]] was, but he stepped on the wrong toes this time. Advertisers starting pulling out, and that's what networks respond to. Good thing he didn't call the advertisers "niggardly", i.e., tightwads, or someone might have accused him of "using the n-word". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:00, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

There you go again, Poor Ed, setting up straw dogs of imaginary events that never happened to criticize liberals in your akward way. Niggardly? Pathetic. Where I come from calling a woman a whore is not acceptable. Obviously in your universe it is just an amusing joke, and criticism of it is termed a "witch hunt". And if you don't know why calling an African-American woman "nappy headed" is racist, you are not qualified to edit your own diary, not to mention an "encyclopedia".
:It's perfectly acceptable in the billion dollar industry of Rap music, which CBS profits from distributing to young folks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:54, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I see. Because Rap music commits an abomination, it is okay for you to do the same in Conservapedia. Hmmm. NitramNos
:huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:20, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that putting in "nappy-headed hos" without the context is a little misleading. Imus wasn't really calling them whores, but commenting on their looks. I put in a link to the original complaint with a partial transcript. Let the reader read it and decide for himself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:''Imus wasn't really calling them whores, but commenting on their looks.'' You mean he was just saying they ''looked'' like whores? And somehow that's OK? ''It's perfectly acceptable in the billion dollar industry of Rap music'' And that's the standard we should hold people to? Gentlemen, especially as Christian men, I'm hoping you have higher personal standards than this. I think there's a lot of good in Imus, and I'm not sure he should have been fired, but his comment was unacceptable, period. I do think we should include the text of the comment in the article, along with more of the transcript if [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels that's necessary for context, so that readers understand the controversy. I think it would be also useful to include information about the Imus ranch, his work for kids with cancer, his vegan/natural living outlook, and so on to show his more positive side.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:29, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Feichineejits ==

Blocked user. Irish name for F____ idiots. Vandal and troll. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:52, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

Why are Don Imus' comments called "offensive" but Jesse Jackson's New York City comments are called "allegedly offensive"? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:29, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Political Spectrum

2008-07-18T04:02:01Z

Aspire: this is on most wanted pages dont want that

=Draft=
{{Talk:Political spectrum/usage}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/definitions}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/origin}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/history}}

RedBlue wrote: ''Other periods would be helpful too... but this is a start...''

{{Talk:Political spectrum/movements}}

==References==
<references/>

=Discussion=

==Proposed section headings==

*Definition
*Origin
*Contemporary US usage
*Criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint
*History
*See also: political movements

==Alternative section headings==

*Contemporary US usage
*Origin
*Definition in political science
*Criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint
*History
*See also: political movements

In spite of all the argument, it seems we mostly agree what to put in those sections.
What's been so controversial is which aspects to emphasize. So a good arrangement of sections
would be very useful. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

----
*The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook. [http://www.politicalcompass.org/]

Any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:These are some vivid and timely illustrations of the problem. While the idea has worked as a sort of shorthand for condensing substantive analysis, the problem stems from treating it as a doctrinal truth. This wouldn't be a problem if it was used comparatively after surveying different issues, ideas, groups, or individuals, but that is not what happens. It's used as the starting point for any discussion and analysis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Some sort of y and z dimensions to the political spectrum could be explained - personal freedom vs. economic freedom?

PS: Does this mean that PF Fox can call the Nazis right wing now :-p ? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*The '''political spectrum''' of contemporary U.S. politics places [[liberal]]s such as [[Democrats]] on the left and [[conservative]]s such as [[Republicans]] on the right.
Neither party enjoys being compared to the Communist left or the Nazi right, but both seem to get mileage out of using such a comparison for their political opponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Of course, that's why we need a definition of the political spectrum (what, if anything, do Dems/Reps have in common with Commies/Nazis), which is why I wrote the comment mentioned below. So I am going to include my suggested distinctions now on the political spectrum page... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's a long comment at [[Talk:Rightist]] which indicates the need for a merge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*'''I disagree.''' Respectfully. Even though actions are being taken without consult with the other Sysops or users, in a most disrespectful way. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**Nothing has developed at [[Leftist]] or [[Rightist]] other than the typical namecalling without any real efforts to give a valid definition. Then we have the argument that this abuse has occured for decades in other print publications, so why shouldn't we just continue it. The ''New York Times'', for example reported as late as 1912 that a highly sophisticated civilization existed on Mars; and the ''New York Times'' certainly is as credible as source as Merriam Websters. Again we are faced with the same dilemma: this is only a theory and should be properly identified as a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
***It's not a [[theory]], it's a [[definition]]. There's nothing to test about it, it's just a (very imperfect) way of classifying (some, not all) political viewpoints. 'Red' state is not a perfect description of politics in Texas, just like 'red' couch is not a perfect description of the color of the furniture in your livingroom. Would you say that describing some couches as red, and other couches as blue, is 'just a theory, and should be properly identified as a theory'? --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 04:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Nolan chart==
[[Image:Nolan-chart.svg|right|thumb|A 2-d view of politics]]
*The one-dimensional "left versus right" model of political thought is pervasive in American society today. It's what was originally taught to me in high school, though there were two distinct variations of this model. The first, a "liberal-centric" model, divided [[politics]] between those on the "[[left]]" ([[liberals]] and [[radicals]]) and those on the "[[right]]" (conservatives and [[reactionaries]]) and posited that those on the "left" favored change and [[progress]] while those of the right favored [[tradition]]al and the s[[tatus quo]]. The second, a more "conservative-centric" model, divided politics between those on the "left" (liberals, [[socialist]]s, [[communist]]s) and those on the "right" ([[conservative]]s and [[libertarian]]s) and posited that those on the left favored (to varying degrees) [[bigger government]], [[egalitarianism]], and [[collectivism]] while those on the "right" favored [[smaller government]], [[free market]]s, and [[individualism]]. [http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB?tag=libertarian]

The Nolan chart (who was Nolan?) could be a great topic for another page... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is just more theory; piling on more theory ontop of theory doesn't really help to clarify anything, unless of course you properly disclaim it as such. We all were taught this junk by the [[Democrat#Economic_policy|NEA]]; 260 million Russian were taught the glories of [[Marxism]] in public schools for 70 years, as contiues in China, North Korea and Cuba. Let's do an empirical survey and compare American schools and test scores with former Soviet, Chinese, North Korean and Cuban to see how they rank. Then we'll investigate if there's any validity whatsoever to the statement that because you learned it school, therefore it must be true.

:There is actually a key to understanding this theory, which helps make sense of it. But none of the advocates of perpetuating these myths have discussed it yet--which implies advocates of the theory themselves know little of its origin, use, meaning, or purpose. So I'll just remain silent on that aspect until somebody actually raises it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, his chart is "on the right". :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== A Matter of Common Usage ==

I'm sorry, but this is simply nonsense. No, "left" and "right" are not always exact terms when they're used in the context of politics, but neither is "liberal" or "conservative" and you guys seem perfectly willing to use those terms, even going so far as to set up separate entries for "liberal" and "conservative." As I've already observed to Ed Poor, the entry on Communism plainly states that "Communism is an economic system, social organization, and LEFTIST political movement." Why, if you're willing to allow a statement about Communism being "leftist" to stand, are you squeamish about applying "right wing" to the Nazis?

They were considered "right wing" in the Nazi era in Germany. They have been referred to as "right wing" since by historians. Diarists of that time referred to them as "right wing," journalists, travel books, critics of the Nazis, supporters of the Nazis, all referred to them as "right wing." Attempting to remove that label is nothing more or less than historical revisionism, and since the term "leftist" has remained in the reference to "Communism" even after I've pointed it out, it is decidedly suspect and one-sided revisionism.

The arguments I've encountered for not applying the term "right wing" to the Nazis are an illustration of just how ridiculous is this attempt to change common usage. The Nazis rose as a response to many of the liberal policies of the Weimar Republic, the emacipation of the Jews, the increasing freedoms enjoyed by women, the rise of avant garde artists. Cramming this reality into the argument that "the Nazis weren't right wing" requires misrepresenting history, figuring out some way that the Nazis DIDN'T oppose the Weimar Republic. Thus, I've been told that the Weimar Era didn't end until 1939 and been offered a fudged quote from Albert Speer to support a claim that's not just dubious but positively surrealistic. Doesn't it give you pause that this silliness is the only way this rejection of the term "right wing" can be defended?

These objections to the "political spectrum model" come across here as simply an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles. Words have meanings, folks. What those meanings are generally depends on common usage. That's how language works. Attempts to alter common usage are almost always less about precision than they are about fulfilling a political or religious agenda.

Give up using the words "conservative" and "liberal" and maybe, just MAYBE your arguments about the words "left" and "right" will begin to have some merit. But of course you all know as well as I do that's not going to happen. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:You made a good point, which I have added to the article. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=95340&oldid=95045] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Calling Nazi's right-wing, was a contrivance of the left. A pejorative idea, to diminish Conservatives, the right wing. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 13:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Then every journalist, every historian, every writer of travel books, every contemporary observer of Nazi Germany, every respected writer who's written about them since were and are all part of "the left." You sure you want to stick with this claim? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yeah, like suspecting all of the above is a bad thing? Not in my world! "Respected" writers are like nattering nabobs of dissent. "Conventional Wisdom" is neither. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Riiiiiigggghhhht TK... It's ALL a commie plot involving William Shirer, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Milton Meyer, Victor Klemperer, Walter Cronkite, the publishers of Fodors, anybody for or against the Nazis who kept a diary at the time, and every journalist who covered them (including the guys who wrote for TIME.) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em. Try to think for yourself, not pay so much attention to people you think are icons. ;-) Time isn't considered much of a source, outside of Liberal circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::hitler and stalin were buddies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact . [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::*A Socialist, by any other name, is still a Socialist. A dictator by any other name, is still a dictator. A thug is still a thug, as time goes by......... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So were Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/]. That is also of no relevance but interesting all the same.
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I beleive using the word "buddies" is inappropriate. Now, I would have to check with Don, but I don't think they were actual buddies....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::TK says: "Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em." LOL! Then why didn't he? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Jaques says "Hitler and Stalin were buddies." Briefly. Hitler and Hirohito were "buddies" for the duration of the war, so I guess the next step in this revisionism is for you guys to claim that Hitler wasn't a racist. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hitler was indeed an out-and-out racist. And a Socialist. Hence the "National Socialist Party", and their style of governing, and the welfare state they used to control the masses. Same as the New Deal eventually led to a welfare class in the United States, one used to manipulate the vote, quite successfully. Not exactly "new" ideas. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe part of the problem is that the European right wing is different than the American right wing...European conservativism and American conservativism are just really different animals. European conservativism is statist, elitist, and monarchical, and developed out of a rejection of the classical liberal tradition. American conservativism is individualist, democratic, and republican, because "classical liberalism" is that way. The Nazis were definately a "rightist" party, and when they first took control of the government, they had to do it in coalition with the DNVP, a party on the right that was nationalistic and monarchical. That doesn't mean that they're anything like the American rightwing. But they definately weren't socialist. Any socialist elements in the Nazi party were destroyed with the Strasser purge. And there was already a welfare state in Germany before the Nazis..Bismarck introduced all sorts of social welfare programs--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK have you ready ANY books or contemporary accounts of the Third Reich -- or are you just depending on what your favorite websites tell you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Stalin was pretty racsist himself.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*You are impertinent, P.F. Fox. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I am well informed, TK, and well read. Anyone who imagines that Henry Luce would have fired a reporter for referring to the Nazis as "right wing" is not very well informed.

:::From Time Magazine (August 8, 1932):

:::"There will be 607 Deputies in the new Reichstag, largest, in German history. Simplifying the returns, it means that the Nazis and other Right Wing Parties will have a total of 277 seats." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That means nothing. How parties were characterized in the 1930's especially European political parties, had and has little to do with reality. It would be the same thing to call the Libertarian Party more like the Republican Party, or even the Democratic. While simplistically one could make some comparisons, but overall, highly inaccurate. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... Ralph Waldo Emerson --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::How parties were characterized in the 1930s had much more to do with the reality of that time than how someone plainly unfamiliar with that era and with a political axe to grind characterizes them over 70 years later. What you and others here are trying to do is change the common usage of the term "right wing" that has been in effect from the 30s TO THE PRESENT. And it's interesting to note that where you were earlier stoutly declaring that "Henry Luce would have fired" reporters who referred to the Nazis as right wing, you are now denouncing his agreement with that assessment as meaningless. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I see. So Socialism is a right-wing deal? Back then? No? Both? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, Socialistm is not "a right-wing deal." And the Nazis were not Socialists. Have you read ANY books on this subject? If not, don't you think that you should? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==A cultural difference==
In the United States, the term ''Right'' particularly became disabused because of its European origin. Originally it was associated with a titled nobility. No such thing ever existed in the United States, and in fact was prohibited by the United States Constititution. Hence, Europeans today have an extrememly discolored view of the "American right". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:How does one "disabuse" an abstract term, which is incapable of thinking and therefore incapable of having misconceptions of which it needs to be "disabused?"

:The origins of the meaning of the word "right" and whether or not it was associated with "titled nobility" have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. And those differences between the manner in which Europe defines "right wing" and the manner in which the United States define "right wing" are not so great that anyone either on this side of the Atlantic or the other, now or in the 1930s, had any disagreement about the Nazis being "right wing."
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Article Protection ==

Why was this article protected? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*It should be obvious, Colin. If not, talk to Andy. Revert-wars, in a pique of temper, are not encouraged here. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Whether it's obvious or not, no reason for protecting it was listed. Was the article vandalized? Not from what I see. If it's just the case of a revert war, then why not try this: I will revert the article back to the version prior to the revert war (for now.) and unlock the article with the understanding that neither side of the revert war will make any edits to the debated part. The two sides can then debate/hopefully reach a compromise at [[Talk:Political_spectrum/common_usage]] and when this matter is resolved, the corrected text can be entered. Sound good? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yep, it's pretty obvious. Many people here seem to be intent on proving the point I was making to Ed Poor that this whole "Political Spectrum" argument is nothing more than a clumsy attempt at self-serving historical revisionism. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry, Colin. I put in a reason. You are not the "decider" here. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not claiming to be the decider. I'm trying to resolve this issue in a way that benefits Conservapedia, rather than leave this site with another locked page. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, there is the fallacy in your argument. This isn't Wikipedia, and that idea about locking pages is their good idea, and obviously yours. I don't see a problem locking a page for a few hours, or a day.

::You've got to understand, Colin, that they aren't going to revert it back to what it was before the "edit war" because they don't LIKE what it was before the edit war. This is not about preventing an "edit war." It's about altering common usage so that the leftists are dumped in with the Communists, but the Right Wingers aren't associated with Nazis. It's about trying to pass off Hitler as a leftist. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::We have 50 locked articles. Wanna help me figure out which ones aren't vandalism targets or edit war battlezones? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sure, Ed. I don't consider that figure unacceptable, or bad. Shame on me! :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Ahhh, I see.....nothing pressing on that subject, eh? Just as I thought. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Much better! ==

'''Thank you, Rob!''' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

My! Getting even better! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Wow, that was a brilliant deletion of all content from this page==

Congratulations to Rob for deleting the only '''definition''' of the political spectrum from the political spectrum page, and replacing it with this '''complaint''':

:The political spectrum is a method used to assign views to persons and groups which they do not hold. It is a method of pigeon-holing stereotypes.

Notice that says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum actually is. "A method used to assign views ... people do not hold" could be a description of comedy, or a description of blackmail, or whatever. But it says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum is. Don't you think the political spectrum page should try to explain what the political spectrum is?

::Couldn't agree more; I count [[User:Redblue]] having made 20 edits to [[Political spectrum]] mainspace, 9 edits to [[Leftist]], and 9 edits to [[Rightist]], and where are we any closer to any definitions than before any of these three pages were started? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried to define what seems to be the main difference between viewpoints called "left" and viewpoints called "right". I said:

:'Right' means defending traditional institutions and values; 'left' means challenging them.

Is that a perfect definition? Probably not. Can somebody come up with a better definition? Great if you can. But just deleting it and boo-hooing about unjust stereotyping is a sign of insecurity worthy of the P.C.-est college hippy around. Personally I don't even understand what a 'rightist' or a 'leftist' would find insulting about my definition.

::OK. So I am challanging the veracity of the spectrum theory; does that me make leftist? Others claim they should be accepted-- even without defining them--because it's traditional and they were taught it in high school; does that make them rightists? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Obviously not all views can be neatly classified. I'm glad the criticisms of a one-dimensional viewpoint didn't disappear from the page: it's important to remember that not everything is left or right or conservative or liberal or whatever. I sure wish people on other pages in Conservapedia would remember that once in a while.

::I agree with all of this. What I disagree with is using the Left/Right Spectrum Theory as the starting point of classification. It may have some comparative value, but what usually happens is a new group comes on stage--take [[Wahhabism]] for example--nobody knows what it is, so somebody defines it is "rightist", i.e. bad guys, and then whatever minor embarassing details need to be trimmed can be conveniently ignored later. The case of Wahhabism is one in particular I think we should examine in addition to the National Socialist, because both are very revealing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Having words to classify political viewpoints is helpful, but obviously that doesn't mean every viewpoint can be nailed down perfectly. I'm not trying to assign views to people who don't hold them. The left-right 'political spectrum' is just a way of classifying '''some''' views.

::One word can clarify all this--'''theory'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It's like when you go into a furniture store and ask for a red couch. Are all red couches exactly the same color? No. Are there some couches you would call red, which upon close inspection contain some fibers of other colors? Yes. Does that mean the word 'red' is a method for pigeon-holing stereotypes? Good luck furniture shopping if you ban all words for colors.

So don't delete my definition. If you can figure out and defend a better one, that would be great. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 03:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Now I added references from a couple of introduction-to-political-science textbooks supporting my definition. I have no idea whether the authors are "leftists" or "rightists" or whatever. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Rob's complaint should be turned into a '''description''' of a well-sourced scholar view, like this:
:*According to the Confoundatarian Party, all political spectrums are illegitimate because they wind up being used pigeonhole persons and groups with false stereotypes.
:Any flaws in a left-center-right [[model]] should be noted, but not as an opinion of one CP editor - rather, attributed to a verifiable source. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, read my comments, please!! All I'm asking for is a '''definition''' of what's the difference between left and right. There's nothing wrong with what your old version says, only what it '''doesnt''' say: it doesnt define why some things are called left and some are called right. I provided a very simple definition, and backed it up with two sources. How can you
revert to an unsourced version without the most basic information? Meanwhile you deleted a lot of other people's contributions too... I will revert back (just once, you're the editor).

:I read that comment <grin>. It's like saying all I want for Christmas is "peace on earth, good will to men". You forget to mention a chicken in every pot and a [[perpetual motion]] machine. </grin>

:::Nonsense, Ed, it's nothing of the kind. The definition of left and right I cited can be found in Merriam Webster's Ninth. There's nothing so abstract and subjective about it that it's comparable to the platitudes you've cited. The only reason some here are upset about it is because they want a definition that would put Hitler on the left with Stalin. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::PF- what does MW say? I tried looking up 'political spectrum' in MW online and found nothing. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the political usage of the term "right" (Under "R," defintion 2.8) as "individuals sometimes expressing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and sometimes advocating the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order." That same source defines the political usage of the term "left" (Under "L", definition 2.3) "those professing views usu characterized by desires to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics and usu advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::''"those professing views usu characterized by desires to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics "''
::::::This definition describes both Adolf Hitler & Osama bin Laden as lefists pretty good. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Only if you carefully ignore the part about the left "overthrowing the established order" and the right "favoring traditional attitudes and practices." Both Osama bin Laden and Hitler wanted to turn the clock back to "traditional" practices. That puts them soldily in "the right." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Not so my friend; Hitler wanted to "overthrow the established order", i.e. the Versailles Treaty. "Hitler wanted to turn the clock back to "traditional" practices"; when was [[genocide]] as "traditional practice"? And the case of bin Laden I think we can get into more specifically as well, but not quite yet... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Hitler advocated "the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order," which is covered in the definition of "right." And the only thing really new about the Third Reich's genocide was the modern technology and record keeping [[Heinrich Himmler]] brought to it. See the article on [[Third Reich]] for a detailed discussion of Hitler's desire to return Germany to what it was before women and Jews had gained more rights and art had moved beyond the romanticism Hitler preferred.

:::::::::I look forward with interest to seeing what definitions you're going to mangle and what historical facts you'll get thuddingly wrong in trying to pass Bin Laden off as a "leftist." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::''Hitler advocated "the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order," which is covered in the definition of "right." ''
::::::::::Well my friend, you can't make this statement because we haven't properly defined the term, "right". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Robs, Sure I can. The terms "right" and "left' have been defined for years, their definitions are readily available in most dictionaries, and those definitions have ben used in regard to the Third Reich for over seven decades by both liberals and conservatives. Your attemps to pretend otherwise is as silly as your attempt to redraw the timeline for the Weimar Republic. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, enough joking around. Seriously, the problem is that no one can agree on the definitions. This article makes our creationism and evolution articles look simple (and I've reserved several even '''more contentious''' subjects for a later date - don't ask).

:Could we please '''list''' the various definitions someplace? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, listing would be great. ESPECIALLY if people provide some references for their defs. Let me know if you lose my refs in all the editing/reediting. By the way, good job. I assume the fact that there is more silence now means people agree with most of the material in the draft sections... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==By the way==

By the way, this comment has nothing to do with the content of the page. So why is it included?

:The Left-Right theory does not explain how international coalitions come about. For example, the Atlantic Charter which gave birth to NATO was a statement of common objectives and inaugurated by the progressive Franklin Roosevelt and monarchist Tory Winston Churchill. Nor the common objectives pursued by George H. W. Bush and Shimon Peres of the Isreali Labor Party. Nor the alliance of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, to name only a few from a multitude of examples.

The Left-Right definition was never intended to be a theory of how coalitions come about. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 03:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ohh...yah...I see; the poltical spectrum theory is a theory that describes politcal views but when we have real life illustrations, it doesn't apply. Yes, now we understand. And it makes absolute perfect sense, too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry Redblue...I responded on my talk page. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sections==

We need to divide the article into sections, to avoid wasting time on edit conflicts. There are two ways to do this. The easy way requires an update to MediaWiki, so I'm going to do this the hard way. Please bear with me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm all for creating sections, as long as this allows actually putting some information in this page about how political scientists and tradition define the political spectrum. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Some useful sections could include "definition", "origin", "contemporary US usage", "history", and "political movements".
And "criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint" --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, here they are:
:*[[/definition]]
:*[[/origin]]
:*[[/usage]]
:*[[/history]]
:*[[/movements]]
:I'll set these up as unprotected templates that appear at the head of this talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
'''We need to find a way to agree. I suggest planning. --Ed Poor 07:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)'''
</blockquote>

*I am glad this was fully discussed, and all parties who wanted to, have given their comments, ''in the few minutes'' since you suggested it, Ed. Thanks for allowing absolutely no input, or responding to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Fairness ==

Would anyone feel it would be unfair for a sysop to use article protection to gain an editorial advantage? [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed Poor]]

Tally: 5 yes, 0 no, 0 other

Yes:
# Gonna assume this gap is for people to fill! It's not just unfair, its an abuse of privilege! Sysop's who use their powers in such a way should have their powers removed! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
# Yes (to maintain count, rest of comments are being backed out by commentatrix) [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
#Well, I'll make it unanimous then.
#*We need to find a way to agree. I suggest [[Conservapedia:planning|planning]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
#Protection is for preventing vandalism, not enforcing content. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
# Of course it is unfair. There's some question about this? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

No:

Other: ''Well, I'll make it unanimous then.
We need to find a way to agree. I suggest planning.'' --Ed Poor 07:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Unanimous? Sorry to break it to you Little Kings...you ain't the majority around here Anything produced will give full faith and credit to the Conservative side and the Christian side. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Nothing wrong with that, TK -- so long as you do no violence to the truth while presenting the conservative side. Unfortunately trying to pass Hitler off as a leftist and implying that Henry Luce would have fired reporters for referring to the Nazis as "right wing" does violence to the truth, whether the writer is deliberately misrepresenting things or is just saying what he or she would LIKE to be true without going through the sordid process of actually READING A BOOK OR TWO on the subject at hand. On a website that is supposed to be "educational" those kind of "errors" should be intoleratable to anyone no matter what their political persuasion. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Sorry, PF, that is where you are wrong. This site is not supposed to conform to SCIENCE, secular science. I know the Students hate seeing everything here secularized beyond any reason. I have two undergrad degrees, one post, working towards my second. I read lots of books, btw, so sorry if the thinking is "out there", beyond your ability to understand. Giving full faith and credit to Christian ideas, does, however, sometimes take a leap of faith, something secularists can't do. With prayer, I am sure you will find the strength/ability to understand. Your continued put-downs are not appreciated by most here, I have heard from over a dozen since last night, thanking me, saying they are glad someone is standing up to tyrants, aside from Conservative, intent on ramming secular/liberal content down their throats. I suggest you try harder to live up to the ideals of this site. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Whether or not Hitler was a right winger and whether or not Henry Luce would have fired someone for saying so is not a matter of "science" or "religion." It's a matter of fact and a matter of having a decent regard for the truth. Telling young people that the Nazis were leftists and that conservatives of that era like Henry Luce would have agreed with such nonsense is untrue. If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject before "teaching" students about it. If the person uttering this untruth knows better, they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*I am sorry and sad if postulating heresy makes you uneasy, or that you latch on to your misinterpretations to try and denigrate, marginalize and insult those you disagree with. You might want to ask yourself why you are so hostile to anyone suggesting alternatives to what you have preconceived notions about.....and I am not talking about stating that the Nazi's were leftists, though in matters of governance they indeed were, in model and form. Do you lack any form of intellectual openness to examine the differences between what intellectuals said in the 1930's and and the reality of their actual administration of government as opposed to their political thoughts? All I see above, posted by others in the past six hours or so, is a couple of people wanting to "bang out" a page, based on their preconceived notions, and excluding all others who might dare to suggest others topics. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::So far you have not shown enough knowledge about history to lead anyone to believe that you're really aware of the Nazi's policies in "matters of governance." And calling the Nazis' "intellectuals" is as ridiculous as calling them "leftists". They were, like most despots, profoundly ANTI-intellectual, as their book bonfires, their library purges, and their attacks on "degenerate" art shows indicate.

::I don't "bang out" pages based on preconceived notions. I base them on \reading of history, contemporary accounts and in some cases, first hand conversations with people who actually exprienced the Nazi era and/or the Red Scare. If you have sources to offer that contradict what I've posted about the Nazis opposition to feminism, avant garde art, and the rights of minorities, by all means cite them. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::PF's a guy who's views we need to study and reflect upon. A true Wikipedian in that regard, his views are unchanging and undetered by facts. For example, on the KKK page I laid out two plausible courses for development of that article [[Talk:Ku Klux Klan#Moving forward]]. PF opted to pursue the first of these two. What followed was comical [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=prev&oldid=93534][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=93534][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=93627][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=93644][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=93711] in the vein of the a classic POV nuclear arms race. This can't be anything other than frustrating to those who insist upon this kind of an approach. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:19, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Food for thought. I wonder why PF and Ed Poor want this "disposed of", rammed down everyone's throats so quickly? Did someone start a clock I am unaware of? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It is my policy to stamp out this kind of revisionism the minute I've seen it. I react in a similar manner to Holocaust revisionism. Doesn't it embarrass either of you in the slightest that the only way you can defend your absurd premise that the Nazis were leftists is by claiming that the WR didn't end until 1939, that Henry Luce would have fired reporters for calling the Nazis "right wing," and that Luce was part of some vast left-wing conspiracy (one that apparently included that wild-eyed commie, Henry Ford) to label the Nazis as leftists instead? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed's raised some good points, and we need some time to digest them. My own view is this page should be moved to [[Political spectrum theory]] and stood side by side with [[Theory of Evolution]]. Both date roughly from the same era, both have been misapplied in American public schools for more than century, and the resolution of both ultimately is same--they are only theories that each and every one of us individually have the freedom to embrace or reject. But to pass off either as an unchallengeable doctrinal truth just makes no sense anymore in the modern world. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, it seems as if my friend, Ed, has taken a turn, and become a pupeteer, and only insterested in moving production. Being from TV, I guess that is understandable, LOL! It does make me sad, because I thought we got along well, here and on the phone. RobS, would you look at the list "Conservative" put on my talk page, and perhaps consider taking one of the topics? I can agree with you RobS about moving it now....you've changed my mind. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:Do we take a poll on the move or does WP:BOLD apply? On the list, I'm gonna try & weasel out; I can't pretend any knowledge on the scientific and technical stuff, the [[National Right to Life Committee]] is interesting but I'm afraid it might give the impression I'm a partisan or biased editor (go ahead, laugh). Truth betold, I prefer historical subjects cause there's usually little of the guessing game left and most if not all the cards are finally laid on the table. I only get involved in contemporary stuff when I'm bored, tired, or throwing a change-up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*I just am tired of people ramming junk through, at flank speed, without allowing or wanting additional input. I just don't see the rush, haven't been informed of a need for it, and whenever two people, mostly, are engaged in a talk page, and a question is proffered, and the solution/answer follows by three minutes, it makes me uneasy. It is akin to being outflanked with Parliamentary rules at a meeting. One wonders what the underlying motive is to cut things off, and do things a certain way.......and why some have such a venomous reaction to ideas.......--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Puppetry is not necessarily a television thing, but I did take unilateral action here. If you want something different, go ahead. I just thought have individually editable sections might break the deadlock. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:While the organized approach is admirable, the problem is Step 1, "Definition"; they simply are not going to be able to complete this section in any reasonable or meaningful manner, which render the rest moot. "Common understandings" is more fitting, and then you can cite whatever theoretician you please.

:To grossly oversimplify the root problem, the original meaning or definition is inextricably linked up with Church/State issues, or "the God question" as I refer to it from the late 18th century Enlightenment period. At its root is faith vs rationalism, or atheism vs the Church, etc. The so-called "right", defined as "traditional interests" meant the Church & monarchy who ruled by [[Divine Right]]. With 20th century fascism a need arose to define certain Socialists, atheists, and other anti-God elements as "right wing", which PF Fox never stops refering to. So it's a redefinition of the term that we're talking about. No longer does one have to be faith-based or God fearing to be defined as right-wing, you can mold your hatred of God & the Church to anyone you despise. In fact, it really doesn't matter what your political views are, since the definition is left wing = good guy, freedom loving, and for the betterment of humanity, whereas right wing = pro oppression. So if they don't like you, voila, you are a right wing bigot (leftists, by definition, cannot be bigots).

:We've seen something very similiar regarding Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial had been around since 1945 when Herman Goering argued in his defense at Nuremberg it was "technically impossible". In the late 70s David Irving did not deny the Holocaust occured as Goering had done, he denied Hitler order it. So the term was redefined to apply to persons who did not deny the Holocaust occured. Now the term "Holocaust denier" can be applied to anyone, since denying the Holocaust occured is nolonger a prerequisite to earn the label. This in fact is the what the Wikipedia/Daniel Brandt dispute is all about (see [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]], #43).

:Ed, can we go ahead and move [[Political spectrum]] to [[Political spectrum theory]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ed, "by your example (unilateral action) so shall you lead. This is why there is so little cooperation, and so much uni action. Can a Wiki or business endure by uni action? What is the rush on all of this? We have little hitlers running around manipulating the software to hide their treachery, moving Christian and Conservative articles to disambiguation at will, removing all articles but one from certain classifications, to circumvent debate. When all that fails, their morally bankrupt minds turn to insults and attempts to marginalize others by insulting their education, or ability to read. I am almost sure that I could go to a Satanist site and find people who were kinder, more accepting and tolerant of newbies. The underlying tone of this place has to change! I know this is not all your fault, I do feel you are trying mightily But sometimes trying to cooperate with others only emboldens them to continue their "elitist" ways. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If I knew how, or wouldn't be attacked for doing so, I would move it Rob. If you know, you don't have to wait for Ed to okay it, you know. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*Now if I acted like most here, I would say that because no further discussion, all is decided, make the changes, and be "done".--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

===More Church/State stuff===
The so-called "leftist" elements were born out of the enlightened, atheistic, rationalistic trends that overran entrenced interests and entrenched thinking. What does it mean to be "enlightened"? It means essentially to wake up and realize there is no God, that the monarchy & church were set up to keep poor people & peasants (perhaps wage earners too) down on the farm. This enlightened view of "Leftism" is little changed in 200 years.

Deist movement can also be regarded as, what we would call today, a "code word", for something that was utterly unholy & unspeakable in the 1790s. Few upstanding members of any community openly professed atheism, but their challenge to the existing order (political, scientific, literary, academic) in thier "rationalizations" and writings, even today we can read it as an intellectualized atheism. All true what you said about fascism & nazism, but in its final distilled form it certainly does not adhere to traditional orthodox (Protestant or Catholic) Christian doctrine. As to contemporary African-Americans, I have wracked my brain trying to recall anyone openly profess atheism, and have failed. Nonetheless, if the object is to try and develope as clear a line as possible from the French Revolution to today of a "Left" & "Right", I think it may be found (with some deviations) by examining the school of thought known as rationalism (which stereotypically extends to atheism & "enlightened thinking"), or by examining Church/State issues.

There are broad socio-political movements, some stridently ideological, some born of the practical necessity of the moment, with only an ideological veneer. Individuals can be hard to assign a category. Robespierre may be an excellent example. He opposed leftist anarchy & rightist restoration, yet understood society needed a political foundation. All the moderate-centrists of today would be offended to have Robespierre in their midst, but that's what he may well be, a centrist-terrorist, if there is such a thing, born of the practical necessity of his time (without forgiving him), of recognizing the need for some kind of order, and not being burdened with ideological inconsistencies.

:This is good stuff, Rob, but I think you can see know that our task is almost hopeless at this point. We should first define and explain the building blocks before trying to describe the architecture of the building (let alone try to account for the twisted mess of debris resulting from the building's collapse. ;-) Do you know anything about [[Hellenism]] or [[Hebraism]]? How about the [[Renaissance]] and the [[Reformation]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem is I don't subscribe to any of this garbage; I do not beleive all politcal views, actions and groups are ideologically driven. And it can be proven, as Redblue says, the theory is not all encompassing, and frequently falls down. I don't see any more value to ascribe a person or group as left or right than beleiving the human species walked on all fours at one time. To me they are both bizarre theories that each and everyone of us has the personal freedom to either accept or reject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you subscribe to calling Red "red," blue "blue," Yellow "yellow," etc? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Definition STILL needed==

Ed Poor-- when you log on I hope you will finally be ready to put some definitions of 'political spectrum' on the political spectrum page. I have now written up three definitions of political spectrum, and provided three references supporting the one I think is most standard. RobS made some irrelevant criticisms of the three definitions, which I have rebutted. Nobody else has proposed any definition other than the ones I gave.

RobS seems to assume I am some sort of leftist, so let me just state for the record that I was born and raised and still consider myself a conservative American Catholic. I'm disappointed that I need to say that. I hoped making intelligent, helpful, respectful contributions, factual and with references, would suffice. Unfortunately this site is not living up to my initial expectations, and the biggest contributions I've made on this site (ie a lot of work on the political spectrum page) got reverted completely by Ed... I understand Teresita was pretty upset about losing her contributions too.

:Congratulations. We are glad you feel good about yourself, too.

It seems I shouldn't need to explain why an encyclopedia page about the political spectrum should define the political spectrum. But notice that there have been hot debates here again and again about whether the Nazis etc etc are leftist or rightist. The page as it currently stands ONLY says who is CALLED leftist or rightist.

:''who is CALLED leftist or rightist''
::who is CALLED a leftist or rightist '''by whom'''?

It makes no attempt to explain why. Therefore any debate about where some group falls on the spectrum is just NAME CALLING,

::NAME CALLING of who, by who?

and nothing more. What we need is A DEFINITION (or some definitions) so that PF Fox and RobS can say "well Osama is a ---- because definition 1 says ----" or "no, Osama is a ---- because definition 2 ---- implies -----". They would probably still detest each other, but at least they would be having a real debate instead of just engaging in name calling.

One point RobS seems upset about is that he seems to think the political spectrum is supposed to classify every single political position. I don't think any political scientist uses it that way. SOME political positions can be classified on the left-right axis, not all.

:This is exactly my point; nevertheless, abuses occur.

I added a preamble to the list of definitions to try to clarify that.

I have inserted the word 'theory', in the hope that it might help convince RobS. Personally I think it's silly to call the left-right spectrum a 'theory':

:So, if it is not theory, then what is it?

it's just a definition

:definition by whom?

used to classify something, like 'crunchy' versus 'mushy'. If I say a bowl of cereal is mushy, it seems silly to call that a 'theory'... I'm just classifying according to a definition. But if 'theory' makes Rob happier, I guess there is no harm in that.

Another thing that bothers RobS is that he seems to think calling somebody 'right' is slander. I don't understand that. According to the main definition I proposed, 'right' means standing up for traditional institutions and values, which sounds extremely respectable to me.

:Oh, so you like PF Fox, maintain [[genocide]] is "standing up for traditional institutions and values"?

In particular, in Europe the words left and right are used without any sense of insult at all. I know, because several years ago my company sent me to live and work in Spain, and I speak Spanish, and read the local papers, and know many people here. Obviously, if you start calling somebody 'extreme right' or 'extreme left', you are looking for a fight. But if you just call them left or right, that's just like calling them liberal or conservative in the US. In fact, lots of people respectfully say left/right in the US too, it's just a little less common.

Also, I almost never use the word 'liberal' any more, because it is much too confusing. If I say it to an American, they think 'left'; but if I say it to a European, they think 'right' (and if I say it in a mixed group, well, nobody understands).

That's one of the things that disappoints me about Conservapedia. There are lots of contributors running around calling each other names, but many pages completely lack definitions. We need to DEFINE the words we use, so that we can have more civil and intelligent debates.---[[User:Redblue|Redblue ]]

:*Please don't think me rude in saying this, but poor Ed Poor is but one Sysop, although a highly valuable one! His "powers" are exactly the same as all of us who are Sysop's. Now, his abilities of persuasion, and communication, are in many cases, greater than the rest of us! ;-) --- Please don't be too impatient, as many things have been happening lately. The need for decision here is not on the "back burner", and is on our minds. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:NolanChart70-0.png|right|thumb|Libertarians try a 2-d approach]]
:I set up the subpages and templates with you specifically in mind, RB. (May I call you RB?) You are the best organized writer on the topic. I couldn't have an edit war, or take part in one, and I suddenly thought of a possible way out. I need to write this up at [[Conservapedia:Partial page protection]].

:Nobody should have to give their political credentials, but that's how it is in this country: everyone wants to label you and pigeonhole you ... which leads us right back to the topic! :-)

:Sorry about my big reversion. I didn't actually delete anything, it's all in the [[page history]], but I definitely got the message about how upsetting it was. I spent a lot of time setting it up so that we can get back on track and not have any more edit wars on the topic. I hope it works out.

:I daresay a lot of politics is (as you suggest) simply [[name calling]]. Dukakis is "a [[Liberal]]". Bush is "an [[idiot]]". The Israeli prime minister is "a [[Nazi]]." The [[contras]] were "[[terrorist]]s". Etc. Do these terms actually mean anything? Linguists make a distinction between the [[denotation]] and [[connotation]] of a word. Would you rather have a segment of muscle tissue from an immature castrated bull, or a "nice thick juicy steak"?

:RobS is right: the political spectrum is supposed to classify every single political position. However, where everybody goes wrong is in thinking that this is actually possible. It's not the right tool for job, and you'll go crazy trying to make this square peg fit into the round hole. "I have to, but I can't," as [[Brian Tracy]] puts it.

:I disagree with using the term ''theory'' in connection with the spectrum. There's no theory without an explanation (see [[theory and fact]], an article which I recently started).

:And now I come to the main point, which is that some people resist being called "right-wing" because it associates them with [[Adolf Hitler]], the world's most universally despised man. I'd be better off calling you a 'mofo' or Obama a n****, because, "Son, them's fightin' words!"

:Sure, we need a definition, but these political labels don't have any actual definitions, and we would be false to our readers to pretend (1) that they have definite meaning or (2) that any of us here are capable of saying what those meanings are.

:The word [[Conservative]] implies standing up for traditional institutions and values; whether that is a noble of foolish thing to do is anyone's guess. To an opponent of slavery and racism, tearing down such institutions and values would be more respectable than preserving them. To an antebellum Southern gentleman, the opposite would hold.

:Civility comes from within, but intelligence can be developed on the foundation of reliable and trustworthy knowledge.

:I have replied to you at length, because you are a valuable contributor and this is but the '''easiest''' of a whole slew of '''really tough''' issues we are going to face. We need to stick together and help each other. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
*''And now I come to the main point, which is that some people resist being called "right-wing" because it associates them with [[Adolf Hitler]],''
**the sad truth about this is, I can provide the contemporary evidence where this is exactly the case, from organizations funded by the Democratic National Committee to do exactly that--link and tie the Republican Party through pseudo-scholarship and guilt by association slanders to National Socialism. And Redblue stated as much, his high school NEA teachers brainwashed his impression young mind with this slanderous garbage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*It is difficult to undo several decades of babble speak, wherein the leftists sought to remove any connection between the National ''Socialist'' Party and the themselves. While people have not a care in the world saying Socialist's are leftist, the true fact is, the Nazi's were indeed Socialists. Aside from Hitler's wacky race ideas, their governing completely fits socialist norms. Perhaps given enough time, they would have even become more communistic in their model. I know it makes people traditionally molded into lock-step thinking, all one has to do is examine their governmental model, without NSP or Nazi labels on it, and the only conclusion one would make is that it was some typical European Socialist government. That being said, it shouldn't, IMO, hold up our progress here. Perhaps a short statement questioning conventional thought as to why Political Scientist's made this error, would be enough....my personal experience mirrors exactly what Rob wrote above. I was in college, and a wise professor presented several governing models, factual models of actual governments, all with labeling them. Without exception the class said model "C" was a typical socialist governance model. We were shocked to learn, absent the racial "facts" that sprung from those anti-Semites sick minds, the (Nazi) National ''Socialist'' Party was indeed just that.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::My view is that [[Fascism]] and [[Communism]] are both [[Totalitarian]]. The battle between the two about 'right' and 'left' is but a [[smokescreen]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::This is turning into a fruitful discussion. I think Church/State issues originally defined the spectrum, but it was redefined several times over the decades. American founding fathers were "leftist" in this regard, in not cowtowing to the Church of England and Constitutionally rejecting a titled nobility. Conservative [[Tories]] who were loyal to Crown, like [[Benedict Arnold]], founded that Tory colony of Canada. Then that commie symp [[FDR]] made an alliance with that Tory Churchill which true American "leftists", i.e. true to the principals of the founding fathers, opposed. Finally that Tory Thatcher laid a rose on that classical liberal economic thinker, Ronald Reagan's coffin, signifying true American liberals loyal to the principals of the founders have finally made peace with anti-American Tories and traitors who once sought to destroy the Union. My, how far we've come. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:25, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*ROFL!! A good turn of phrase there, Rob! And on point, Ed! Everything since the mid-thirties has been "spun" completely out of Whackyville, so as to render definitions useless. And that was my obtuse point. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**OK, so Ed dissents, but still agrees it is only theory. Once we make the page move, then we can include whatever whacked-out theory you want, provided we have a source to say, for instance, the Prophet Mohammad was a Right-wing fundementalist, whereas his daughter Fatima, founder of Shi'a Islam, was a Left-wing reformer who challenged the existing order. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*-Faints- :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::From TK "*It is difficult to undo several decades of babble speak, wherein the leftists sought to remove any connection between the National ''Socialist'' Party and the themselves."

::::So it's your premise that Henry Ford and Henry Luce were "leftists?"

::::From TK "While people have not a care in the world saying Socialist's are leftist, the true fact is, the Nazi's were indeed Socialists. Aside from Hitler's wacky race ideas, their governing completely fits socialist norms."

::::Examples of this, please. And it wasn't just their racism that put them on the "right" -- it was their attitude towards art, culture, women, the military, etc.

::::Have you gotten around to actually READING something on the subject? William Shirer would be a good place to start.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::PF, here's a good link [http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center], [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]], ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948. I suspect we're gonna use a lot of this material on Conservapedia. Excerpted,

"Left and Right, indeed, have become the characteristic political terms of our time. Without specific color or content, they define the polar ends of the political spectrum - a spectrum in which the word Center, fashionable a generation or two ago, is harder and harder to find. Yet the terms themselves have bred a new confusion. '''They were adequate to the political simplicities of the nineteenth century''', when the Right meant those who wished to preserve the existing order and the Left meant those who wished to change it. '''But the twentieth century''', here as elsewhere, '''introduced new ambiguities'''.

"The Fascists, for example, were not conservative in any very meaningful sense. They did not wish to preserve the existing order, or even to turn back the clock to some more stable century. They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism. The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries. Yet their totalitarian ideal hardly fitted into the pattern of the Left, which had been the traditional home of greater freedoms and more generous aspirations. So, '''after boggling and uncertainty, ''they were assigned'' positions on the far Right'''.

:Note the keyword Schlesinger uses, '''''assigned''''', the same word I used in my defintion, '''''a method used to assign views to persons and groups which they do not hold.''''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=95904&oldid=95895] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:20, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Page title ==

I see no reason for the move to "theory". A theory is an explanation. The present article provides no explanation, and hardly even any examples. So I moved it back. Maybe unprotecting it will help. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:The problem is, in absense of the disclaimer "theory", we are embracing a doctrine here, which is impossible to articulate. As a theory, the student is free to accept or reject the underlying premises of the theory without swallowing what really is an unstated or ever-changing doctrine. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::My point, and possibly Schlesinger's as well, is that the terms are not well-defined. I agree that the "model" is inarticulate. Reminds me of the climate models used to justify [[anthropogenic global warming theory]]. You can't test a model which is not based on a theory, so there's no way to [[falsify]] it, and it is therefore [[pseudoscience]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It is a useful comparative device ''after the models have been developed''; it is not a point of origin for building a doctine. In otherwords, it is useful to say British Tories & American Republicans share these things (fill in the blank) in common, therefore comparatively they may be called "right". To say the ''point of origin'' of "Leftist" means "challenging the traditional order", therefore al-Qeade and gay rights movement are leftist. This is patently absurd. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:21, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

You completely lost me, there, Rob. What model is there other than "right preserves" & "left seeks change"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's no evidence for "left seeks change" to begin with. You yourself asked who is "who is right-wing in Russia today, free-market Thatcherites or unreformed Stalinists". Both are seeking change now after 70 years of stagnated Leftism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Structure ==

What is the point of having two sections, "Origins", and "History"; seems redundant, unless we plan to document each twist and turn in the road where a redfinition took place. " Criticisms of a one-dimensional view " is flawed and meaningless, cause nobody agrees on anything else to begin with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*I agree, Rob. I think we are all thinking too detailed, and some articles, like this one, would be better presented in a more vague, less detailed way. Thoughts? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:44, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
**That's the hard part; I thought calling it a theory gave us the opportunity to speak in vaguaries and generalities, but we haven't got a concensus on that. So that means we gotta present detailed facts and keep misinformation out.
**Repeatedly, how the problem works is this: a student becomes indoctrinated into the vague concept of "Leftism"; then whatever hackneyed idea can dressed up as "leftist" becomes kosher, and whatever needs to be demonized is simply called right-wing reactionary, and no real analysis of substance or content takes place. That why I say it should not be used as a "point of origin", but rather has only value comparatively, i.e. after detailed analysis of substance and content is completed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==typo==

"Islam of Czarist Russia" (end of first paragraph under "definitions")should obviously be an "or" not "of", fix at your leisure... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bakunin critiques Marx==
Here's an interesting critique of [[Karl Marx]] by [[Mikhail Bakunin]] written in 1873.
*Michael Bakunin, ''Statism and Anarchy'', (1873), in Sam Dolgoff, ''Bakunin On Anarchy'', (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972), p. 330.

:"..if the [[proletariat]] is to be the ruling class, over whom is it to rule? ...the peasant "rabble" who, as it is known, does not enjoy the sympathy of the Marxists who consider it to represent a lower level of culture, will probably be ruled by the factory proletariat of the cities. Or, if this problem is to be approached nationalistically, the Slavs will be placed in the same subordinate relationship to the victorious German proletariat in which the latter now stands to the German bourgeoisie."

This quote from Bakunin is not only prophetic about what [[National Socialism]], (i.e. Nazism), (a) is, but what National Socialism (b) did. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political ideas==

We are wasting a lot of time trying to pin down a rainbow. Give it up, gents!

Better to describe the views of various thinkers or parties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Labeling it a theory is the easiest route; elsewise we need good, solid, factual cites for any claim or generalization. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Why not go with the first two paragraphs, and leave it? That is enough to explain the term. Concise is good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::*The rest of the stuff is real good, and we're gonna need it sooner or later. And I have much, much more. But I still think the best alternative is to label it a theory, and that will eliminate a lot of contentious disputes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*Okey-dokey by me. It will need to be protected, I am assuming, for a while, to avoid constant wholesale change? Do we have a template notice to warn against lots of changes, pending posting about it here? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Social norms

2008-07-18T03:50:36Z

Aspire: Redirecting to Norm

#redirect [[norm]]

Nursery rhyme

2008-07-18T03:49:51Z

Aspire: New page: '''Nursery rhymes''' are any song or poem that are taught to children when they are young. The name comes from the tendency to teach these rhymes in nurseries. It often teaches...

'''Nursery rhymes''' are any [[song]] or [[poem]] that are taught to children when they are young. The name comes from the tendency to teach these rhymes in [[nurseries]]. It often teaches children [[moral]] lessons as well as helping to build [[vocabulary]] and teach [[social norms]].

Venom

2008-07-18T03:46:22Z

Aspire: New page: '''Venom''' is any biotoxin used by an animal for defense or hunting. Usually it is injected into the blood stream through a hallow fang like in snakes or a protrus...

'''Venom''' is any [[biotoxin]] used by an [[animal]] for [[defense]] or [[hunting]]. Usually it is injected into the blood stream through a hallow [[fang]] like in [[snakes]] or a protrusion on the [[abdomen]] called a [[stinger]] common to many [[insects]]. There are many types of venom including: [[hemotoxins]], [[neurotoxin]], [[mycotoxin]], and [[phototoxin]]. Many of these can be deadly to [[humans]] without the administration of [[anti-venom]].

Coral snake

2008-07-18T03:41:57Z

Aspire: New page: '''Coral snakes''' are a highly venomous snake common in North America. Coral snakes are really famous for their red, yellow, and black colored bands. A lot of nonvenom...

'''Coral snakes''' are a highly [[venom | venomous]] [[snake]] common in [[North America]]. Coral snakes are really famous for their red, yellow, and black colored bands. A lot of nonvenomous snakes like the [[Milke snake]] have similar colors due to [[mimicry]]. However, it is really easy to tell them apart using the [[nursery rhyme]]: "black then yellow, kill a fellow; yellow then black, venom lack."

Naked mole rat

2008-07-18T03:36:10Z

Aspire: New page: The '''naked mole rat''' is a burrowing rodent most known for its peculiar adaptations to living underground. These include limited vision, the loss of most hair, and [[incest | in...

Competitive eating

2008-06-30T18:36:39Z

Aspire: New page: '''Competitive eating''' is a sport that is rapidly growing in popularity (primarily in the United States and Japan) that focuses on the ability to e...

'''Competitive eating''' is a [[sport]] that is rapidly growing in popularity (primarily in the [[United States of America | United States]] and [[Japan]]) that focuses on the ability to eat large quantities of [[food]] in a short timed event. The food eaten is usually a variety of [[fast food]] or [[desert]] such as [[pie]]s and [[hot dog]]s. There are several world championships with competitors starting at a local level and eventually achieving world wide renowned. [[Sonya Thomas]] from [[Korea]] is currently one of the sports greatest champions.

Competitors are called "gurgitators" and preparation for events is often extremely intensive training in stamina, eating and gut expansion.

[[Category:Contests]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Sports]]