Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Ian Paisley

2007-05-24T08:44:32Z

Auld Nick: typo

{{expand}}

[[Image:IanPaisley.gif|frame|Doctor the Reverend Ian Paisley MP]]

Dr. the Reverend '''Ian Richard Kyle Paisley''' MP, MLA (born April 6, 1926) is a [[Northern Ireland|Northern Irish]] politician and religious leader. Paisley uses the title "Doctor" on the basis of an honorary [[Doctor of Divinity]] degree awarded by [[Bob Jones University]].

He is the founder and head of the [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Free Presbyterian Church]] and the head of the [[Democratic Unionist Party]]. He is a lifelong teetotaler (he refers to alcohol as "the devil's buttermilk") known to frown upon dancing, a [[creationism|creationist]], strongly anti-[[abortion]] and supports the criminalisation of [[homosexuality]]. He also believes that the [[Pope|Bishop of Rome]] is the [[Antichrist]]<ref>[http://www.ianpaisley.org/antichrist.asp The Pope is the Antichrist]</ref>.

He and his party have been instrumental in delaying the [[Northern Ireland Peace Process]], and remain committed to its final destruction. However in spite of his opposition, [[terrorism|terrorist]] activities other than Loyalist outrages have now almost entirely ceased in the province and the [[IRA]] has largely disarmed. It has been speculated that the main reason that he was not [[assassination|assassinated]] during the long conflict, was that his extremist views and behaviour actually generated such substantial support for his opponents that his death would have been counter-productive to their cause.

In 2007 Dr Paisley became First Minister of the devolved Northern Ireland Government, with Martin McGuiness, a senior [[Sinn Fein]] leader and former [[IRA]] commander in [[Londonderry]], as his Deputy First Minister.

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Paisley, Ian}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Northern Ireland]]
[[Category:Creationist]]

Ian Paisley

2007-05-24T08:44:11Z

Auld Nick: moved the devil's buttermilk alongside his other hobbies

{{expand}}

[[Image:IanPaisley.gif|frame|Doctor the Reverend Ian Paisley MP]]

Dr. the Reverend '''Ian Richard Kyle Paisley''' MP, MLA (born April 6, 1926) is a [[Northern Ireland|Northern Irish]] politician and religious leader. Paisley uses the title "Doctor" on the basis of an honorary [[Doctor of Divinity]] degree awarded by [[Bob Jones University]].

He is the founder and head of the [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Free Presbyterian Church]] and the head of the [[Democratic Unionist Party]]. He is a lifelong teetotaler (he refers to alcohol as "the devil's buttermilk") known to known to frown upon dancing, a [[creationism|creationist]], strongly anti-[[abortion]] and supports the criminalisation of [[homosexuality]]. He also believes that the [[Pope|Bishop of Rome]] is the [[Antichrist]]<ref>[http://www.ianpaisley.org/antichrist.asp The Pope is the Antichrist]</ref>.

He and his party have been instrumental in delaying the [[Northern Ireland Peace Process]], and remain committed to its final destruction. However in spite of his opposition, [[terrorism|terrorist]] activities other than Loyalist outrages have now almost entirely ceased in the province and the [[IRA]] has largely disarmed. It has been speculated that the main reason that he was not [[assassination|assassinated]] during the long conflict, was that his extremist views and behaviour actually generated such substantial support for his opponents that his death would have been counter-productive to their cause.

In 2007 Dr Paisley became First Minister of the devolved Northern Ireland Government, with Martin McGuiness, a senior [[Sinn Fein]] leader and former [[IRA]] commander in [[Londonderry]], as his Deputy First Minister.

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Paisley, Ian}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Northern Ireland]]
[[Category:Creationist]]

Ian Paisley

2007-05-24T08:32:51Z

Auld Nick: This fine gentleman is not a terrorist!

{{expand}}

[[Image:IanPaisley.gif|frame|Doctor the Reverend Ian Paisley MP]]

Dr. the Reverend '''Ian Richard Kyle Paisley''' MP, MLA (born April 6, 1926) is a [[Northern Ireland|Northern Irish]] politician and religious leader. Paisley uses the title "Doctor" on the basis of an honorary [[Doctor of Divinity]] degree awarded by [[Bob Jones University]].

He is the founder and head of the [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Free Presbyterian Church]] and the head of the [[Democratic Unionist Party]]. He is a [[creationism|creationist]], strongly anti-[[abortion]] and supports the criminalisation of [[homosexuality]]. He also believes that the [[Pope|Bishop of Rome]] is the [[Antichrist]]<ref>[http://www.ianpaisley.org/antichrist.asp The Pope is the Antichrist]</ref>.

He and his party have been instrumental in delaying the [[Northern Ireland Peace Process]], and remain committed to its final destruction. However in spite of his opposition, [[terrorism|terrorist]] activities other than Loyalist outrages have now almost entirely ceased in the province and the [[IRA]] has largely disarmed. It has been speculated that the main reason that he was not [[assassination|assassinated]] during the long conflict, was that his extremist views and behaviour actually generated such substantial support for his opponents that his death would have been counter-productive to their cause.

He is a lifelong teetotaler and is known to frown upon dancing.

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Paisley, Ian}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Northern Ireland]]
[[Category:Creationist]]

Scots

2007-05-23T14:04:30Z

Auld Nick: add content

'''Scots''' refers to the [[indigenous]] [[language]] of lowland [[Scotland]] and parts of the north of [[Ireland]] where it is also known as Ulster Scots.
Since there are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from [[dialect]]s, scholars and other interested parties often disagree about the linguistic, historical and social status of Scots. Although a number of paradigms for distinguishing between languages and dialects do exist these often render contradictory results Consequently Scots has, on the one hand, been traditionally regarded as one of the [[ancient]] dialects of [[English]] but with its own ancient and distinct dialects. Scots has often been treated as part of English as spoken in Scotland but differs significantly from the Standard Scottish English taught in schools. On the other hand, it has been regarded as a distinct [[German]]ic language the way [[Swedish]] is distinct from [[Danish]]. Its subordination to [[Anglo]]-English has also been compared to the subordination of [[Frisian]] to [[Dutch]] in the [[Netherlands]].Thus Scots can be interpreted as a collective term for the dialects of English spoken or originating in Scotland, or it can be interpreted as the autochthonous language of Lowland Scotland.<ref>A.J. Aitken in ''The Oxford Companion to the English Language'' p.894</ref>
The British Government has accepted the second interpretation:
:"The UK Government announced on 4 June 1998 its decision to sign the [[Council of Europe]] [[Charter for Regional or Minority Languages]]. This came into effect as of the 1 July 2001. The Scots language will be covered by Part II of the Charter. By applying Part II of the Charter to Scots the Government will be recognising the distinctive nature and cultural value of the language." <ref>http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm</ref>

==Spelling and Pronuciation==

An apostrophe has been used in the past where it supposedly represented a "missing" English letter. Such letters were never actually missing in Scots. Contemporary writers now generally avoid such apostrophes.

'''Consonants'''

Most consonants are usually pronounced much as in English but:
*'''c''': /k/ or /s/, much as in English.
*'''ch''': /x/, also '''gh'''. Medial 'cht' may be /ð/ in Northern dialects. ''loch'' (fjord or lake), ''nicht'' (night), ''dochter'' (daughter), ''dreich'' (dreary), etc. Similar to the German "Na'''ch'''t".
*'''ch''': word initial or where it follows 'r' /tʃ/. ''airch'' (arch), ''mairch'' (march), etc.
*'''gn''': /n/. In Northern dialects /gn/ may occur.
*'''kn''': /n/. In Northern dialects /kn/ or /tn/ may occur. ''knap'' (talk), ''knee'', ''knowe'' (knoll), etc.
*'''ng''': is always /ŋ/.
*'''nch''': usually /nʃ/. ''brainch'' (branch), ''dunch'' (push), etc.
*'''r''': /r/ is pronounced in all positions, i.e. rhotically.
*'''s''' or '''se''': /s/ or /z/.
*'''t''': may be a glottal stop between vowels or word final. In Ulster dentalised pronunciations may also occur, also for 'd'.
*'''th''': /ð/ or /θ/ much as is English. Initial 'th' in ''thing'', ''think'' and ''thank'', etc. may be /h/.
*'''wh''': usually /ʍ/, older /xʍ/. Northern dialects also have /f/.
*'''wr''': /wr/ more often /r/ but may be /vr/ in Northern dialects. ''wrack'' (wreck), ''wrang'' (wrong), ''write'', ''wrocht'' (worked), etc.
*'''z''': /jɪ/ or /ŋ/, may occur in some words as a substitute for the older <3> (yogh). For example: ''brulzie'' (broil), ''gaberlunzie'' (a beggar) and the names ''Menzies'', ''Finzean'', ''Culzean'', ''MacKenzie'' etc.

'''Silent letters'''

*The word final 'd' in '''nd''' and '''ld''': but often pronounced in derived forms. Sometimes simply 'n' and 'l' or 'n'' and 'l''. ''auld'' (old), ''haund'' (hand), etc.
*'t' in medial '''cht''': ('ch' = /x/) and '''st''' and before final '''en'''. ''fochten'' (fought), ''thristle'' (thistle) also 't' in ''aften'' (often), etc.
*'t' in word final '''ct''' and '''pt''' but often pronounced in derived forms. ''respect'', ''accept'', etc.

'''Vowels'''

In Scots, [[vowel]] length is usually conditioned by the ''Scottish vowel length rule''. Words which differ only slightly in pronunciation from ''Scottish English'' are generally spelled as in English. Other words may be spelt the same but differ in pronunciation, for example: ''aunt'', ''swap'', ''want'' and ''wash'' with /a/, ''bull'', ''full'' v. and ''pull'' with /ʌ/, ''bind'', ''find'' and ''wind'' v., etc. with /ɪ/.

*The unstressed vowel /ə/ may be represented by any vowel letter.
*'''a''': usually /a/ but in south west and Ulster dialects often /ɑ/. Note final ''a'' in ''awa'' (away), ''twa'' (two) and ''wha'' (who) may also be /ɑ/ or /ɔ/ or /e/ depending on dialect.
*'''au''', '''aw''' and sometimes '''a''', '''a'''' or '''aa''': /ɑ:/ or /ɔ:/ in Southern, Central and Ulster dialects but /a:/ in Northern dialects. The cluster 'auld' may also be /ʌul/ in Ulster. ''aw'' (all), ''cauld'' (cold), ''braw'' (handsome), ''faw'' (fall), ''snaw'' (snow), etc.
*'''ae''', '''ai''', '''a'''(consonant)'''e''': /e/. Often /ɛ/ before /r/. In Northern dialects the vowel in the cluster -'ane' is often /i/. ''brae'' (slope), ''saip'' (soap), ''hale'' (whole), ''ane'' (one), ''ance'' (once), ''bane'' (bone), etc.
*'''ea''', '''ei''', '''ie''': /i:/ or /e:/ depending on dialect. /ɛ/ may occur before /r/. Root final this may be /əi/ in Southern dialects. In the far north /əi/ may occur. ''deid'' (dead), ''heid'' (head), ''meat'' (food), ''clear'', ''speir'' (enquire), ''sea'', etc.
*'''ee''', '''e'''(Consonant)'''e''': /i:/. Root final this may be /əi/ in Southern dialects. ''ee'' (eye), ''een'' (eyes), ''steek'' (shut), ''here'', etc.
*'''e''': /ɛ/. ''bed'', ''het'' (heated), ''yett'' (gate), etc.
*'''eu''': /(j)u/ or /(j)ʌ/ depending on dialect. Sometimes erroneously 'oo', 'u(consonant)e', 'u' or 'ui'. ''beuk'' (book), ''ceuk'' (cook), ''eneuch'' (enough), ''leuk'' (look), ''teuk'' (took), etc.
*'''ew''': /ju/. In Northern dialects a root final 'ew' may be /jʌu/. ''few'', ''new'', etc.
*'''i''': /ɪ/, but often varies between /ɪ/ and /ʌ/ especially after 'w' and 'wh'. /æ/ also occurs in Ulster before voiceless consonants. ''big'', ''fit'' (foot), ''wid'' (wood), etc.
*'''i'''(consonant)'''e''', '''y'''(consonant)'''e''', '''ey''': /əi/ or /aɪ/. 'ay' is usually /e/ but /əi/ in ''ay'' (yes) and ''aye'' (always). In Dundee it is noticeably /ɛ/.
*'''o''': /ɔ/ but often /o/.
*'''oa''': /o/.
*'''ow''', '''owe''' (root final), seldom '''ou''': /ʌu/. Before 'k' vocalisation to /o/ may occur especially in western and Ulster dialects. ''bowk'' (retch), ''bowe'' (bow), ''howe'' (hollow), ''knowe'' (knoll), ''cowp'' (overturn), ''yowe'' (ewe), etc.
*'''ou''', '''oo''', '''u'''(consonant)'''e''': /u/. Root final /ʌu/ may occur in Southern dialects. ''cou'' (cow), ''broun'' (brown), ''hoose'' (house), ''moose'' (mouse) etc.
*'''u''': /ʌ/. ''but'', ''cut'', etc.
*'''ui''', also '''u'''(consonant)'''e''', '''oo''': /ø/ in conservative dialects. In parts of Fife, Dundee and north Antrim /e/. In Northern dialects usually /i/ but /wi/ after /g/ and /k/ and also /u/ before /r/ in some areas eg. ''fuird'' (ford). Mid Down and Donegal dialects have /i/. In central and north Down dialects /ɪ/ when short and /e/ when long. ''buird'' (board), ''buit'' (boot), ''cuit'' (ankle), ''fluir'' (floor), ''guid'' (good), ''schuil'' (school), etc. In central dialects ''uise'' v. and ''uiss'' n. (use) are [je:z] and [jɪs].

'''Suffixes'''

*Negative '''na''': /na/, /nɪ/ or /ne/ depending on dialect. Also 'nae' or 'y' eg. ''canna'' (can't), ''dinna'' (don't) and ''maunna'' (mustn't).
*'''fu''' (ful): /fu/, /fɪ/, /fɑ/ or /fe/ depending on dialect. Also 'fu'', 'fie', 'fy', 'fae' and 'fa'.
*The word ending '''ae''': /ɑ/, /ɪ/ or /e/ depending on dialect. Also 'a', 'ow' or 'y', for example: ''arrae'' (arrow), ''barrae'' (barrow) and ''windae'' (window), etc.

==Grammar==

===The definite article===
''The'' is used before the names of seasons, days of the week, many nouns, diseases, trades, occupations, sciences and academic subjects. It is also often used in place of the indefinite article and instead of a possessive pronoun: ''the hairst'' (autumn), ''the Wadensday'' (Wednesday), ''awa til the kirk'' (off to church), ''the nou'' (at the moment), ''the day'' (today), ''the haingles'' (influenza), ''the Laitin'' (Latin), ''The deuk ett the bit breid'' (The duck ate a piece of bread), ''the wife'' (my wife) etc.

===Nouns===
Nouns usually form their plural in -(''e'')''s'' but some irregular plurals occur: ''ee''/''een'' (eye/eyes), ''cauf''/''caur'' (calf/calves), ''horse''/''horse'' (horse/horses), ''cou''/''kye'' (cow/cows), ''shae''/''shuin'' (shoe/shoes).
Nouns of measure and quantity unchanged in the plural: ''fower fit'' (four feet), ''twa mile'' (two miles), ''five pund'' (five pounds), ''three hunderwecht'' (three hundredweight).
Regular plurals include ''laifs'' (loaves), ''leafs'' (leaves), ''shelfs'' (shelves) and ''wifes'' (wives), etc.

===Diminutives===
Diminutives in -''ie'', ''burnie'' small ''burn'' (brook), ''feardie''/''feartie'' (frightened person, coward), ''gamie'' (gamekeeper), ''kiltie'' (kilted soldier), ''postie'' (postman), ''wifie'' (woman), ''rhodie'' (rhododendron), and also in -''ock'', ''bittock'' (little bit), ''playock'' (toy, plaything), ''sourock'' (sorrel) and Northern –''ag'', ''bairnag'' (little) ''bairn'' (child), ''Cheordag'' (Geordie), -''ockie'', ''hooseockie'' (small house), ''wifeockie'' (little woman), both influenced by the Scottish Gaelic diminutive -''ag'' (-''óg'' in Irish Gaelic).

===Modal verbs===
The modal verbs ''mey'' (may), ''ocht tae'' (ought to), and ''sall'' (Shall) are no longer used much in Scots but occurred historically and are still found in anglicised literary Scots. ''Can'', ''shoud'' (should), and ''will'' are the preferred Scots forms.
Scots employs double modal constructions ''He'll no can come the day'' (He won't be able to come today), ''A micht coud come the morn'' (I may be able to come tomorrow), ''A uised tae coud dae it, but no nou'' (I could do it once, but not now).

===Present tense of verbs===
The present tense of verbs adhere to the Northern subject rule whereby verbs end in -''s'' in all persons and numbers except when a single personal pronoun is next to the verb, ''Thay say he's ower wee'', ''Thaim that says he's ower wee'', ''Thir lassies says he's ower wee'' (They say he's too small), etc. ''Thay're comin an aw'' but ''Five o thaim's comin'', ''The lassies? Thay've went'' but ''Ma brakes haes went''. ''Thaim that comes first is serred first'' (Those who come first are served first). ''The trees growes green in the simmer'' (The trees grow green in summer).

''Wis'' 'was' may replace ''war'' 'were', but not conversely: ''You war''/''wis thare''.

===Past tense of verbs===
The regular past form of the verb is -(''i'')''t'' or -(''e'')''d'', according to the preceding consonant or vowel ''hurtit'', ''skelpit'' (smacked), ''Mendit'', ''kent''/''kenned'' (knew/known), ''cleant''/''cleaned'', ''scrieved'' (scribbled), ''telt''/''tauld'' (told), ''dee'd'' (died). Some verbs have distinctive forms: ''greet''/''grat''/''grutten'' (weep/wept), ''fesh''/''fuish''/''fuishen'' (fetch/fetched), ''lauch''/''leuch''/''lauchen~leuchen'' (laugh/laughed), ''thrash''/''thruish''/''thrashen~thruishen'' (thresh/threshed), ''wash''/''wuish''/''washen~wuishen'' (wash/washed), ''gae''/''gaed''/''gane'' (go/went/gone), ''gie''/''gied''/''gien'' (give/gave/given), ''pit''/''pat''/''pitten'' (put/put/put/), ''git''/''gat''/''gotten'' (get/got/got(ten)), ''ride''/''rade''/''ridden'' (ride/rode/ridden), ''drive''/''drave''/''driven~dreen'' (drive/drove/driven), ''write''/''wrat(e)''/''written'' (write/wrote/written), ''bind''/''band''/''bund'' (bind/bound/bound), ''find''/''fand''/''fund'' (find/found/found), ''fecht''/''focht''/''fochten'' (fight/fought), ''bake''/''bakit~beuk''/''baken'' (bake/baked), ''tak(e)''/''teuk''/''taen'' (take/took/taken), ''chuise''/''chuist''/''chuisen'' (choose/chose/chosen).

===Word order===
Scots prefers the word order ''He turnt oot the licht'' to 'He turned the light out' and ''Gie me it'' to 'Give it to me'.

Certain verbs are often used progressively ''He wis thinkin he wad tell her'', ''He wis wantin tae tell her''.

Verbs of motion may be dropped before an adverb or adverbial phrase of motion ''A'm awa tae ma bed'', ''That's me awa hame'', ''A'll intae the hoose an see him''.

===Ordinal numbers===
Ordinal numbers ending in -''t'' ''seicont'', ''fowert'', ''fift'', ''saxt''— (second, fourth, fifth, sixth) etc. ''first'', ''Thrid''/''third''— (first, third).

===Adverbs===
Adverbs are usually of the same form as the verb root or adjective especially after verbs. ''Haein a real guid day'' (Having a really good day). ''She's awfu fauchelt'' (She's awfully tired).

Adverbs are also formed with -''s'', -''lies'', ''lins'', ''gate''(''s'')and ''wey''(''s'') -''wey'', ''whiles'' (at times), ''mebbes'' (perhaps), ''brawlies'' (splendidly), ''geylies'' (pretty well), ''aiblins'' (perhaps), ''airselins'' (backwards), ''hauflins'' (partly), ''hidlins'' (secretly), ''maistlins'' (almost), ''awgates'' (always, everywhere), ''ilkagate'' (everywhere), ''onygate'' (anyhow), ''ilkawey'' (everywhere), ''onywey''(''s'') (anyhow, anywhere), ''endweys'' (straight ahead), ''whit wey'' (how, why).

===Subordinate clauses===
Verbless subordinate clauses introduced by ''an'' and expressing surprise or indignation ''She haed tae walk the hale lenth o the road an her sieven month pregnant'', ''He telt me tae rin an me wi ma sair leg'' (and me with my sore leg).

===Negation===
Negation occurs by using the adverb ''no'', in the North East ''nae'', as in ''A'm no comin'' (I'm not coming), ''A'll no learn ye'' (I will not teach you), or by using the suffix -''na'' (pronunciation depending on dialect), as in ''A dinna ken'' (I don't know), ''Thay canna come'' (They can't come), ''We coudna hae telt him'' (We couldn't have told him), and ''A hivna seen her'' (I haven't seen her).
The usage with ''no'' is preferred to that with -''na'' with contractable auxiliary verbs like -''ll'' for ''will'', or in yes no questions with any auxiliary ''He'll no come'' and ''Did he no come?''

===Relative pronoun===
The relative pronoun is ''that'' ('''at'' is an alternative form borrowed from Norse but can also be arrived at by contraction) for all persons and numbers, but may be left out ''Thare's no mony fowk'' (''that'') ''leeves in that glen'' (There aren't many people who live in that glen). The anglicised forms ''wha'', ''wham'', ''whase'' 'who, whom, whose', and the older ''whilk'' 'which' are literary affectations; ''whilk'' is only used after a statement ''He said he'd tint it, whilk wis no whit we wantit tae hear''. The possessive is formed by adding '''s'' or by using an appropriate pronoun ''The wifie that's hoose gat burnt'', ''the wumman that her dochter gat mairit''; ''the men that thair boat wis tint''.

A third adjective/adverb ''yon''/''yonder'', ''thon''/''thonder'' indicating something at some distance ''D'ye see yon''/''thon hoose ower yonder''/''thonder?'' Also ''thae'' (those) and ''thir'' (these), the plurals of ''this'' and ''that''.

In Northern Scots ''this'' and ''that'' are also used where "these" and "those" would be in Standard English.

==Web Links==

* [http://www.scots-online.org/ Scots-online]
* [http://www.scotslanguage.com/ Scots Language Centre]
* [http://www.scotstext.org/ ScotsteXt] - books, poems and texts in Scots
* [http://www.scots-online.org/dictionary The Online Scots Dictionary]
* [http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/ The Dictionary of the Scots Language]
* [http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Scots Wikipedia]<ref>As liberally biased as the English version [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia]</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scottish Languages]]
[[category: languages]]

User talk:Schifra

2007-05-23T09:21:22Z

Auld Nick: Friendly warning

Wir versuchen eine alternativen Realität aufzubauen. Ihrer Bezug zur der bereits existierende Realität könnte dieses Projekt stören. Bitte merken Sie folgende 'Regel'([[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]):
:''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
Merke: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', d.h. wenn einen sysop sich für seiner Version der Realität entschienden hat dann ist es auch so. Das Bestreiten dieser Realität könnte in der Verbannung enden. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Abortion controversy

2007-05-23T08:50:02Z

Auld Nick: /* Terminology */ cat.

One of the sharpest divisions in [[United States]] politics is over whether "[[human life]] begins at [[conception]]" and if so, what this means.

Legally, in most jurisdictions, it is considered permissible to terminate the life of the [[fetus]] at any point in the pregnancy (see [[elective abortion]]) provided the unborn child's head has not emerged from the mother's body (see [[partial-birth abortion]]).

==Terminology==

Evangelical Christians prefer the term ''unborn child'' to the term ''fetus'' when discussing [[elective abortion]], since the former supports the viewpoint that (1) "Human life begins at [[conception]]" and (2) "[[Abortion]] is [[murder]]". They feel that calling the unborn child simply a "fetus" devalues [[human life]].
[[category:politics]][[category:Abortion]]

User talk:Trajork

2007-05-23T08:27:09Z

Auld Nick: /* Friendly warning */ I hope you enjoy your stay

==Friendly warning==

I noticed you tried to make the article [[Communism]] more encyclopedic.

If you want to survive here its best to avoid the three '''S'''s: [[Sex|Sexuality]], [[Science]] and [[Religion|Spirituality]]. If you edit a subject related to sex, science or religion in a manner that a sysop doesn't approve of you could be in bother no matter how well sourced your "facts" may be. This also includes the one '''P''': [[politics]].

I suggest you note the following policy at [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]] in order to avoid future dissapointment
:''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you argue you may get blocked. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 13:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::What went wrong? You Ask. Nothing went wrong. You simply interfered with someone's personal blog page (these are also known as articles here). Other well known blog pages Are [[Theory of evolution]], [[Abortion]] and [[Gay wrongs]]. [[Template:tfa]] can be very bloggy too. That's how things work around here. The only rule that really counts is the one above. All the same, I hope you enjoy your stay. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 04:27, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Trajork

2007-05-22T17:57:50Z

Auld Nick: Friendly warning

Ignorance

2007-05-22T09:43:31Z

Auld Nick: References

'''Ignorance''' (from Latin ''ignorantia'') is the state of being ignorant; the want of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; or the state of being uneducated or uninformed<ref>'''Ignorance''', Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam, 1934)</ref>.

For many people ignorance is bliss. They prefer not knowing something because it is often more comfortable than knowing it. In Conservapedia this is often achieved by using this template:

<div style="background-color: #eee; border: 1px solid #aa8; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;" class="plainlinks">'''This page has been ''deleted'' and ''protected'' to prevent re-creation'''
'''Return to [[Main Page]]'''</div>

==References==
<references/>

Ignorance

2007-05-22T09:42:25Z

Auld Nick: copyedit

Honor killing

2007-05-21T14:10:44Z

Auld Nick: what about daughters?

'''Honor killing''' is the barbaric practice of murdering a woman in order to restore a family's "honour" after the woman had "dishonored" it through contact with a man other than her immediate family. Especially distasteful to Western [[Christians]], [[Jews]] and also some [[Atheists]] and [[Agnostics]], is the idea that even a victim of [[rape]] is considered to have brought dishonor and will be punished in this way. <ref>Anthropologist [[James Emery]] wrote, "[[Palestinian]] culture continues to equate the value of a woman's life to her inviolable [[purity]]. Whatever her progress, ancient [[tradition]]s still engulf her. Should she become the unfortunate victim of rumor or [[rape]], she'll be sacrificed, just as her ancestors who swept across the [[Arabian Desert]] [[sacrifice]]d sheep and other animals in the name of [[honor]] and [[Islam]]." (World&I magazine, May 2003, Page 190) </ref>

The practice is especially prevalent in countries which have little contact (or poor relations) with the Christianized West.

*"Mahmud Ahmad Ghazi, director of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, was interviewed in a BBC film on the honor killing of women, in which [[Pakistan]] has established a sad record. Ghazi coldly defended those feudal practices as [[Islam]]ic, an opinion Islamic scholars all over the world mostly dispute." (Pakistan Versus the Last Superpower: A Former U.S. Ally Moves Toward Jihadism and Isolation - World&I magazine, March 2001, Page 296)

*"We know of some women who are pushed to become [[suicide bomber]]s," says Yariv Ovadia, consul for communications and public affairs with the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles, California. "If you dishonor your family, you will be killed anyway, so you can save something of your honor by becoming a suicide bomber. (ibid)

*It is important to remember, however, that honor killings find no sanction whatsoever in the [[Koran]] ... in Islamic prophetic tradition and law in general, there is a very strong presumption of women’s chastity along with numerous safeguards to prevent any imputation of unchastity. Within such a context, honor killings are utterly criminal. <ref>http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/honorkillings.html</ref>

==See also==
*[[Violence against women]]

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Barbaric practices]]

Talk:Andrew Schlafly

2007-05-21T13:59:29Z

Auld Nick: That picture is way to small

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
That picture is way to small it should be like this but sharper.
[[Image:Andy.jpg|jpg|right|200px|Andrew Schlafly]]

Talk:Sandinistas

2007-05-21T13:35:06Z

Auld Nick: are blogs suitable sources?

Are people's blogs suitable sources ([[Conservapedia:Commandments]] No. 2 Footnote 2.)? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 09:35, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Gay

2007-05-21T11:04:22Z

Auld Nick: why is this page redirected to an article about depraved perversity?

This page should probably redirect to [[homosexual]] rather than being locked as a blank page.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't it redirect to [[Happiness]]? [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 05:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Gay people are full of or show high-spirited merriment, or are given to social pleasures often including dissipation: "led a gay Bohemian life"; "a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies"
:*"when hearts were young and gay""- Wordsworth
:* "a poet could not but be gay, in such a jocund company"- Wordsworth

:Things that are brightly colored and showy may be described as gay: "a dress a bit too gay for her years"; "birds with gay plumage".

:I can't for the love of God figure why this page is redirected to an article about depraved perversity.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?

2007-05-21T09:28:19Z

Auld Nick: /* YES */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

They sensibly replaced it with the human sacrifice to the concept of justice (capital punishment). The improvement here is that efforts are often made to avoid sacrificing innocent individuals. Thus the blood-lust of the population could be nurtured without arbitary victimisation of innocents. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

PHP

2007-05-21T09:04:10Z

Auld Nick:

'''PHP''' is a [[server]]-side scripting language for creating interactive [[web page]]s. The acronym ''PHP'' derives from Personal Home Page, but now it is defined as "PHP: Hypertext Processor" (see [[recursive acronym]]).

PHP is widely used because it is efficient and free (see [[free software]]). It can be embedded directly into a web page's server-side [[HTML]] code.

PHP is often used together with [[Apache]] on [[Linux]] and on other platforms such as Microsoft [[IIS]] on [[Windows]].

*The PHP syntax is very similar to Perl and C. [http://www.w3schools.com/php/default.asp]

==External links==
*[http://www.w3schools.com/php/default.asp PHP Tutorial] - W3 Schools

Talk:Reiki

2007-05-21T08:59:36Z

Auld Nick: non-Conservative therapies

{{stub}}

My wife, who is as gullible as anyone, went on a Reiki course and came back completely underwhelmed. I'm not sure that pagan is the correct term but surely it ranks alongside non-Conservative therapies like rock crystals, feng shui, sympathetic medicine and voodoo. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

*NeoCon therapies? Good Lord! What are the teaching you guys at WP now? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::No idea. Since WP is ''non-Conservative'' I avoid it;-) [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 04:59, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Reiki

2007-05-21T07:41:39Z

Auld Nick: iw.

Reiki is a [[pagan]] healing art focusing on balancing the [[energy field]]s.

Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages

2007-05-20T16:25:49Z

Auld Nick: /* Persons */ liberal bias?

==Only for Americans?==

I am a conservative christian, but being a conservative, bible-believing christian does NOT automatically make you an American, and vice versa. One of my only qualms regarding this website is the fact that is biased towards America/ns. I don't think it's fair that any articles that I write can be edited so that they use only American spelling, but I'm not allowed to change spelling anywhere in any entry. Maybe I'm nit-picking a bit here.
Anyway, I just think that this project should be garnered towards christians all over the globe - not just in the US!--[[User:Catherine Morland|Catherine Morland]] 17:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Conservapedia was started by a group of patriotic Americans, so please forgive any pro american bias. We want spelling to be consistent throughout the site, so we ask that Aamerican spelling be used. you can fix spelling errors anywhere you want, as long as you are not britishizing or otherwise changing american spellings that you might disagree with. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Spell-checker==

I don't think ''everyone'' has an in-browser spell-checker. Internet Explorer does not offer it. To my knowledge, it is only equipped to Mozilla Firefox browsers. The same is the case with the Google tool bar. I think we should reword it. I have no suggestion on how to state it, but I'm sure we will come up with something. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:it's the ABC/check on the Google toolbar.--[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Too bad there is not a fact checker too, or maybe a translation from 3rd grade level writing to high school level writing. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::That would certainly be helpful. Look into that :). --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:There are spell checkers for [http://www.iespell.com/ Explorer], [http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spellcheck/ Opera], and [http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ Firefox/Mozilla]. I'm not sure how up-to-date they are (saved those links a good while ago), but it's a start. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Firefox 2.0 comes with a built-in spelling checker and it should be changed to read that you should just update Firefox to the latest version to get a spelling checker. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 02:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

There is a free spelling checker which is MediaWiki compatible. A friend of mine installed it on another wiki. (Till then, I use TextPad's spellcheck; the only problem with that, is markup like double brackets get flagged as errors.)

Another solution, used successfully in Wikipedia's early days, is to post a list of commonly misspelled words. Then users ([[wiki-gnome]]s) can [[search]] for articles containing the misspelled words. I was part of this spell-check project "back in the day". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Use correct spelling as often as possible." How about "always use correct spelling"? Here's a hint I use whenever I get my i's and e's mixed up - paste your text into whatever program you have handy (like Word) that ''has'' a spellchecker. See how it flies. Fix it. Copy and paste it back into the edit box. Voila! Oh, there's another way to go, too. Ask someone who is a better speller than you if you are in doubt. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Or use Firefox w/ its built in spellchecker! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Wikis as sources ==

Does this rule also apply to "External Links" (and "Further Reading"), or only to inline references? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I would hope it doesn't. As long as a primary source for inline references aren't wikis, that should increase credibility. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 07:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==''Always'' use AD and BC?==
That reads as if all years are to an era designation. Are we supposed to use AD 2007 when referring to current events? Whenever I sign something...
:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
am I expected to go back in and edit it to read
:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:06, 30 March AD 2007 (EDT)?
I doubt it.

I think this needs some wordsmithing, and propose this substitute language:

:In dates, if it is necessary for clarity to show the era of the year, use the designations BC and AD (not the substitutes BCE and CE).

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:12, 30 March AD 2007 (EDT)

How is it now? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 15:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fine. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Date format ==

Why do we have the preference for the date style "July 4, 1776", when the wiki software can automatically convert dates to the users' preferences? All it takes is for dates to be written in the form <nowiki>[[4 July]] [[1776]] ''OR'' [[July 4]] [[1776]]</nowiki> and the software ''should'' display them in the user's preferred format. The user preference page[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Preferences] Date and Time tab allows one to set the preferred format, but it seems as though the conversion ability has not been switched on in Conservapedia. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:...no. The preferences don't do that, I think. They change how we see the date and time in pages like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&action=history this article's history]. Go check it out, it works. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:40, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Reading further into it, I see what you mean. Hm... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Ah, after some checking, I assume you mean [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_dates this] config setting (linking it here so the webmaster doesn't have to look)? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, that's it. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that the user's date preferences are ''only'' for this, however. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use correct spelling as often as possible. ==

Sweet thought. This protected article seems to be warm and fuzzy about illiteracy.--[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 02:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== On plurals in titles ==

There seem to be a large number of articles where the text of the article is in the plural form of the word. [[Arteries]], [[Bills of credit]], [[Biofuels]], [[Catholics]], etc... The wiki software makes it easy to work with singular form [[biofuel]]s is written as <nowiki>[[biofuel]]s</nowiki> (do realize that at the time of this writing, there is no biofuel article). Shouldn't this be rectified and part of the manual of style to write the article about the singular form rather than the plural form? It would simplify many redirects. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:You mean the ''title'' of the article, but yes, I agree entirely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Capitalisation of titles ==

In line with the comments above about plurals in titles, I believe that we should have titles in lowercase (except for proper nouns, of course). At the moment, if we want to link to an article about biblical parables, we have to include the link as <nowiki>[[Biblical Parables|biblical parables]], where we should be able to just link to [[biblical parables]].</nowiki> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== What about punctuation? ==

Should we be using "American" punctuation? For example, usually a comma or period goes within quotes in American usage, and outside of quotes in British usage. Albeit, people's grammar in on-line contexts is often deplorable, and Conservapedia is no exception. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*One would suppose either is correct, depending on where the contributor is from. Since we have dropped the restriction about using only American-English, how would enforcing American punctuation work? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article subjects==

I noticed that throughout the website on shorter articles, the subject of the article is not written in bold text upon first mention. I suggest adding this to the Manual of Style as this makes the article slightly easier to understand. [[User:Scriabin|Scriabin]] 01:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Thats probably laziness on the author's(my) part. I'll stand behind it though.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:24, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Citation Style==

Is there a preferred style for writing citations that are more substantial than URLs? I could write up a quick guide on Turabian or APA, if anyone wants. Or it could be incorporated into the MoS. Using an established style for reference lists and bibliographies will help researchers and make the site look better, improving the appearance of reliability. (I make no promises about reliability in fact!)--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Here you go, AllFishWelcome, have a look around, and the the style project page and the one about footnotes.

Citing Sources and Using Footnotes
Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please do not cite wikis as sources, except when specifically talking about that wiki.

'''Please also see: Conservapedia: footnotes - technical help''' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:The technical help page only addresses the wiki markup used to make footnotes. It says nothing about the style to be used. I've seen everything from unadorned URLs to ornate (and incorrect) academic-style citations.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well then, perhaps you could be specific, and suggest how it be done. I am not adverse to learning, Fish. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I wrote a little bit about citation styles [[User:All Fish Welcome/Writing Guide|here]]. I'm about 70% content with my recommendations. I'd still like a better way to separate content notes from reference notes. I've been thinking about it and haven't come up with a satisfactory solution yet.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 03:11, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Can I edit this article? ==

I have some great suggestions, for instance, on how to create an article, that make the "web" of CP better, rather than a series of isolated stubs. I guess I could hash them out here, but it's easier to just put them in the article itself. Anyone seriously object? [[User:Human|Human]] 01:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Firefox link ==

What about altering the links to the direct download pages? I think "[http://www.getfirefox.com]" would be the more appropriate page for that download. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 05:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks. I've added the Firefox link. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Comprehension level? ==

What is the target comprehension level for this site? Is there a template to use for when articles are completely filled with jargon that is otherwise unreadable? Who is responsible for rewriting the material (in particular technical articles - personally, I don't have the background to be able to understand the jargon of economics and I know others lack the deep computer jargon that I am familiar with) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:According to [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:From that one can only conclude that since [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] is a [[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysop]] his demands are now policy. Please don't delete Comprehension. See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Tims&diff=141480&oldid=140676 here].
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Persons ==

Shouldn't <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT: Sirname, Given Middle}}</nowiki> be <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:</nowiki> '''Surname''', '''Christian''' Middle<nowiki>}}</nowiki> in a pro-Christian encyclopedia? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 10:26, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:Perhaps, but the manual is describing how to sort more than just individuals who have been baptized into the Christian faith. Even so, you're welcome to bring this to the attention of sysops in good faith. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 12:19, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Isn't that just another example of the [[liberal bias]] we'd expect from [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]? Being a Christian project we should use Christian terminology. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism

2007-05-20T16:16:07Z

Auld Nick: ''without laws and regulations'' then how can corporations commit crimes?

If anarchocapitalism is ''without laws and regulations'' then how can corporations commit crimes that supply, demand and competition would prevent? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:16, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Gay wrongs

2007-05-20T16:13:05Z

Auld Nick: Gay rights

Gay WRONGS?!?!?!? What the hell is the matter with you people? Sheeeesh. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 12:07, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[Gay wrongs]] are what [[Gay rights]] seek to justify. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:13, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Hugo Chavez

2007-05-20T15:59:05Z

Auld Nick: He has been referred to as a dictator

This page appears fine to me. Citations are needed throughout the article, but as far as everything else goes, I approve. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

I'll get to work on some citations, but thankyou for accepting it, It's good to see some objectivity on this site. =)
==This article is surprisingly neutral==
I'm impressed that this article is surprisingly neutral towards Chavez, I figured it would call him a totalitarian communist.--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

It must be liberal subversion hahahaha--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry to burst the bubble. He has been referred to as a dictator [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&oldid=139640 here]. Have patience this article will eventually follow suit. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Parsley

2007-05-20T15:47:22Z

Auld Nick: create article

'''Parsley''' (Petroselinum crispum), a biennial herb, has bright green leaves often used used as spice or [[abortion]] aid.

Another type of parsley is grown as a root vegetable. The roots are often used Central and Eastern European soups or stews.

To grow parsley one needs a deep pot in order to accommodate the long taproot. If grown indoors at least five hours of sunlight a day is required.

Pregnant women should not use parsley oil, roots, leaves, or seeds because those could lead to uterine stimulation and preterm labor.

Gay wrongs

2007-05-20T15:26:08Z

Auld Nick: create

#REDIRECT [[Homosexuality]]

Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages

2007-05-20T14:26:26Z

Auld Nick: Persons

Abortion procedures

2007-05-19T18:15:03Z

Auld Nick: /* References */ cat.

An [[abortion]] is the medical process of ending a pregnancy so that it does not result in the birth of a baby<ref>[http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=1&sectionId=31760 NHS Direct Health Encylopaedia]</ref>. It can also be referred to as a termination of pregnancy or simply as a termination.

Either medical or surgical methods can be used.

==Medical Abortion==

Early medical abortion can be performed up until the 9th week of pregnancy. It involves the use of two drugs. The first is mifepristone (also known as RU 486) which is taken orally. This is a progesterone antagonist. Progesterone is produced by the corpus luteum in early pregnancy and is responsible for maintaining the supporting uterine lining.

Between 36-46 hours after ingestion of mifepristone, prostaglandin vaginal pessaries are given which cause dilation of the neck of the womb. The lining of the womb, along with the pregnancy, are lost through the cervix.

Some medical procedures involve the use of methotrexate, a folate anatagonist.

Later medical abortions, performed after the 9th week, take longer and require more doses of prostaglandin. Very late medical abortions, performed with fetacidal procedures as described below, involve the use of prostaglandins injected directly into the womb to initiate premature labour.

==Surgical Procedures==

The type of surgical procedure varies with the gestation of the pregnancy.

Suction aspiration is a surgical procedure which can be performed under local or general anaesthetic. It most often used in the first trimester of pregnancy (the first three months). Suction aspiration involves dilating the cervix and passing a suction curette (similar to a vacuum hose with an extremely sharp end) into the womb. In order to dilate the cervix, prostaglandin may be used as in early medical abortion described above. The suction curette is used to remove the pregnancy. The suction and cutting edge dismembers the fetus and the products are extracted by suction.

After the 15th week of pregnancy, dilatation, curettage and evacuation are performed in addition to suction. This procedure is carried out under a general anaesthetic. A wire loop is used to break the fetus apart and parts which cannot be removed by suction are removed piecemeal by forceps.

==Partial Birth Abortion==

This method is also known as intrauterine cranial decompression or intact dilation and extraction. It requires decompression of the fetal head before evacuation is performed. It is used for very late, third trimester abortions.

This involves the dilation of the cervix to allow the passage of forceps. Under ultrasound guidance, the fetus is turned to a breech position. The fetus is then partially extracted, with the head remaining in the uterus. The fetal skull is then punctured and the brain removed by suction. This allows the head to pass through the cervix.

==Saline Instillation==

This technique is used in the second and third trimester. Under ultrasound guidance, saline is instilled into the amnion in order to induce premature labour, which occurs 24-28 hours later. Fetacide occurs because the fetus swallows the instilled saline and dies of salt poisoning. The saline solution is also caustic and burns the fetal skin during the process.

==Fetacide==

Fetacidal procedures are required in late abortions, when there is a risk that a live fetus which could survive outside the uterus may be born. Fetacide involves stopping the fetal heart with an ultrasound guided injection of potassium chloride directly into the fetal heart.

==Risks of Abortion Procedures==

The risks of an abortion procedure include procedure failure, hemorrhage, perforation, damage to the cervix, infections and psychiatric morbidity.

==Parsley==

Parsley (Petroselium sativum) can be used to induce abortion.<ref>[http://www.orgonelab.org/contracep.htm Herbal Fertility Control: Contraception and Abortion]</ref><ref>[http://www.sisterzeus.com/Parsley.htm Parsley]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Abortion]]

Religion

2007-05-19T16:26:46Z

Auld Nick: /* See Also */ add Agnostic

A system of belief and practices shared by a community that attempts to answer the ultimate questions of life and death, and, in doing so, goes beyond the verifiable. Religions frequently involve supernatural elements such as gods and goddesses, angels and demons, ancestors, transmigratory souls, and heaven, purgatory and hell. Developed religions generally consist of a central creed or body of beliefs, an ethical component (i.e. a code of morals), a body of literature or holy texts or stories, a set of individual and communal practices. Religion played a major role in all human societies prior to the twentieth century. It is a core belief of Conservatives that the recent decline in religious observation are a key source of the undermining of social and moral order.

Evangelicals disparage the term "religion" as a system of works by which human beings attempt to approach God without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. For the person who is born again, religion can only interfere and distract from that prayerful union.

== Religions ==

* [[Animism]]
* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Buddhism]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Juche]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|Mormonism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs
* [[Paganism]]
* [[Rastafari movement]]
* [[Satanism]]
* [[Scientology]]
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shintoism]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]]
* [[Wicca]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Atheism]], a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods
* [[Agnostic]], can't make one's mind up about the existence of a god or gods
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Secular Humanism]], an approach to moral philosophy
*[[World Religions by Number of Followers]]

[[Category:Religion| ]]

Religion

2007-05-19T16:25:33Z

Auld Nick: /* Religions */ nor is being Agnostic a religion

A system of belief and practices shared by a community that attempts to answer the ultimate questions of life and death, and, in doing so, goes beyond the verifiable. Religions frequently involve supernatural elements such as gods and goddesses, angels and demons, ancestors, transmigratory souls, and heaven, purgatory and hell. Developed religions generally consist of a central creed or body of beliefs, an ethical component (i.e. a code of morals), a body of literature or holy texts or stories, a set of individual and communal practices. Religion played a major role in all human societies prior to the twentieth century. It is a core belief of Conservatives that the recent decline in religious observation are a key source of the undermining of social and moral order.

Evangelicals disparage the term "religion" as a system of works by which human beings attempt to approach God without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. For the person who is born again, religion can only interfere and distract from that prayerful union.

== Religions ==

* [[Animism]]
* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Buddhism]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Juche]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|Mormonism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs
* [[Paganism]]
* [[Rastafari movement]]
* [[Satanism]]
* [[Scientology]]
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shintoism]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]]
* [[Wicca]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Atheism]], a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Secular Humanism]], an approach to moral philosophy
*[[World Religions by Number of Followers]]

[[Category:Religion| ]]

Religion

2007-05-19T16:24:51Z

Auld Nick: /* Religions */ Atheism isn't a religion.

A system of belief and practices shared by a community that attempts to answer the ultimate questions of life and death, and, in doing so, goes beyond the verifiable. Religions frequently involve supernatural elements such as gods and goddesses, angels and demons, ancestors, transmigratory souls, and heaven, purgatory and hell. Developed religions generally consist of a central creed or body of beliefs, an ethical component (i.e. a code of morals), a body of literature or holy texts or stories, a set of individual and communal practices. Religion played a major role in all human societies prior to the twentieth century. It is a core belief of Conservatives that the recent decline in religious observation are a key source of the undermining of social and moral order.

Evangelicals disparage the term "religion" as a system of works by which human beings attempt to approach God without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. For the person who is born again, religion can only interfere and distract from that prayerful union.

== Religions ==

* [[Animism]]
* [[Agnostic]]
* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Buddhism]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Juche]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|Mormonism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs
* [[Paganism]]
* [[Rastafari movement]]
* [[Satanism]]
* [[Scientology]]
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shintoism]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]]
* [[Wicca]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Atheism]], a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Secular Humanism]], an approach to moral philosophy
*[[World Religions by Number of Followers]]

[[Category:Religion| ]]

Talk:Essay:Sin is addictive

2007-05-19T15:39:49Z

Auld Nick: essay namespace?

If this is an essay perhaps it should be in the [[Essays|essay namespace]]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:39, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Flemish

2007-05-19T15:25:12Z

Auld Nick: Those are the 'the essential facts'.

I can see why you suggest this. However, the article is no shorter than many in the 'Category:Languages' list, to which it might usefully be linked; unless all of these are merged with the 'mother nation', it would seem inconsistent to do so with Flemish. I'll try and add a bit more information, though.

:This article seems to be a shining example the kind of concise article Conservapedia wants. At [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia]] (4.) it is clearly mentioned that ''We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts.''
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 08:25, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Not so shiny. It merely likens Flemish to Dutch and says it's spoken in Belgium. I vote for a merge and redirect:
*[[Belgium]] because it's spoken there; or,
*[[List of European languages]] or [[Languages of Europe]] - a proposed article on the languages of Europe. This would be especially useful for countries which don't have a national language. I assume they speak Polish in Poland, and French in France, but where is German spoken? In Austria as well as in Germany?

There's "concise", and there's also "too short to be of any real use". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:36, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:: ''too short to be of any real use'' - <winces>. I'd say certainly better to have an article on European languages than to merge Flemish in Belgium. But this raises the points:
1. Europe has dozens of languages, many current, many extinct. Such an article would be very large.
2. It's easy to say, for example, that the national languages of Belgium are Flemish and French, and link to each.
3. If Flemish were only part of a Eur,. languages section, we'd have to say, in the Belgium article, something cumbersome like 'the antional languages... are french and Flemish (see [[European Languages]])..
4. If Flemish were to be subsumed within Belgium, people who wanted to read about Belgium would learn about Flemish, but someone searching for European languages might miss it;

and finally

5. If Flemish were to be just a sub-section of Belgium,but multi-nation languages like English, French and German had separate language categories, it would lead to what is in effect preferential treat,ment for those multi nation languages, even though many single-nation languages are in many ways as important.

My recommendation, for what it's worth, is to go with a separate entry for Flemish (and indeed for other languages) within a 'languages' category. I know this might mean a lot of small articles, and I can appreciate that many users don't look on that with favour, but it seems less an issue tonline than in, say, a paper encyclopaedia. [[User:Alba|Alba]] 08:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:"''Not so shiny. It merely likens Flemish to Dutch and says it's spoken in Belgium.''" Those are the ''essential facts''. The Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_%28linguistics%29] is longer, but essentially states the same but also includes links to three ''long-winded, verbose entries'' on various Flemishes. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:25, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Flemish

2007-05-19T12:25:33Z

Auld Nick: We encourage conciseness here.

User talk:Tomt

2007-05-19T12:09:02Z

Auld Nick: /* Sysop warning */ The Golden rule

==Use in research==
You say: "I would not currently use many of the articles in a piece of research due to this bias."

Goodness, I hope you would not use ''any'' encyclopedia in a piece of research. Not Conservapedia, not Wikipedia, not the Encyclopædia Britannica. None of them are acceptable references. They are at best useful for acquiring background in an unknown area, but they are secondary sources at best. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:You must remember that when I am researching I am finding mostly out information on topics on my A level course, and therefore use many encyclopedias, textbooks and websites in amalgamating a piece of research. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 14:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal? ==

Tomt you have been [[User_talk:Richard#Liberal_alert | identified as a liberal]] by [[User:AustinM]], would you mind [[User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List | self identifying]]? Thanks. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 12:00, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Userboxes ==

Put 

<nowiki>{{userboxtop|Your name}}</nowiki> 
<nowiki>{{User whatever}}</nowiki> 
<nowiki>{{User whatever}}</nowiki> 
<nowiki>{{userboxbottom}}</nowiki> 

For Example: 
<nowiki>{{userboxtop|Tomt}}</nowiki> 
<nowiki>{{User enAmer}}</nowiki> 
<nowiki>{{User Tastycow}}</nowiki> 
<nowiki>{{userboxbottom}}</nowiki> 

will give you the set at the right
{{userboxtop|Tomt}}
{{User enAmer}}
{{User Tastycow}}
{{userboxbottom}}

A list of userboxes can be found at [[Conservapedia:userboxes]].

If you need any more help just post on my talk page --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 19:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Singular forms ==

Many of the chemistry pages that are being created have plural forms. This makes linking difficult. Could you please avoid making plural forms of pages and edit them to singular when you come across them? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:45, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:Will do Mtur. Can I suggest that when you change links to the singular you use this convention <nowiki>[[amino acid|amino acids]]</nowiki>. This way the 's' has a hyper link so doesn't look strange. The word before the '|' symbol is the link and the word after is the text to be displayed, for example [[amino acid|amino acids]]. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 12:34, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop warning==

Don't call other users rude. Read [[Conservapedia:Civility]] and [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]].

If you don't understand an explanation, you can ask again politely or simply contribute in another area. At Conservapedia we emphasize responsibilities more than rights. Please think of a way you can help this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:I do not feel I deserve this warning - From what I have read, I have done nothing to contravene the guidelines you have just shown me. I was given a rude answer, I complained at this and was ignored and I feel that this is rude. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 07:33, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::Please take a day or two to decide whether you want to be in this project, then. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:45, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Note the Golden rule here [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you argue you get blocked. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 08:09, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2007-05-19T11:23:00Z

Auld Nick: /* Agendas */ Their instructions as to Conservapedia policy are to be followed.

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Eliminate this Hate ==

The aforementioned article makes me shake with fear as I think that people will actually be exposed to this. Present both sides of the issue fairly. I agree with Gasmonkey that this entire article should be deleted. Moreover, this entire web site should be deleted. It claims to be an informative, "Christian" site that in fact promotes hate and spews false information across our nation.

:Teaching God's word that homosexuals are sinful and militant is not hate speech, but free speech. God's teachings of homosexuality indicate that throughout history, homosexuals have continuously been savage aggressors -- with an agenda. The story of Sodom is particularly informative. It described the homosexual agenda of the ancient city of sodom in 1898 B.C. as forcible homosexual assault and enslavement by the homosexual inhabitants of the city to any men who visited the city. If you believe the bible is hate, then you can head over to Wikipedia and read the alternate viewpoint there. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 02:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::"The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 326 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals--He just thinks they need more supervision"--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 02:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong. There are over 30 admonishments against homosexuality in the Bible. God specifically states he hates homosexuals and has given them up as servants of the devil. There are 132 passages in the bible where specifcally states he HATES either a person or group of people. God does not love everyone, and he says as much in his word. I know you have heard this soul destroying lie from many people claiming to teach God's word. It simply is not true. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 12:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Exactly ''where'' does God say that he hates homosexuals? He refers to it as 'abomination' in Leviticus...but then again, the Bible also uses the same term to refer to the eating of shellfish.--[[User:M|M]] 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2: Leveticus 19:17-18. Whether God hates people or not, He has commanded us to not. You mentioned "over 30 admonishments against homosexuality". Passages, please. [[User:Ilikepie|Ilikepie]] 18:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, can I just point out, (as a happily married, middle aged heterosexual), there is nothing in the Bible which proscribes female homosexuality. Aren't lesbians homosexuals too? KT

:Some would reply with Romans 1, but not me. (BTW, you can sign with the sig button next to the SLASHED W above or simply four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You are a piece of work. I am sorry you are so angry about the world you live in. But you certainly make one thing easy: if there is an afterlife and you are the type of person who is going to be occupying heaven, I'd much rather burn in eternal hell with my incredibly wonderful gay friends.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 13:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What would you know Jack? With one up the transom and another one in the gob, it's hard to hear you. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:14, 21 March 2007 (PST).

::::You know, that's funny...I'm bi, and I've never been involved in intercourse with more than one person. Fancy that. --[[User:M|M]] 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism.

:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]

:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Improvements ==

Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

'''
== Very Informative ==
'''

Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia

== Is this real? ==

This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

== Agendas ==
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion).
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion.

I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Race

2007-05-16T14:01:08Z

Auld Nick: /* Human evolution */ The passage tells us...

== Since the Great Flood ==

In my opinion, this part should at least be introduced as "According to Creationists" or "For those who believe in...".[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 16:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Its a [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|conservative fact]], see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Commandments&diff=41919&oldid=40811%20talk:Commandments here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

You mean conservatives ''wish''it were a fact. Which is not the same thing as it being a ''fact''--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 12:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: I just got blocked by CPAdmin, I guess for removing it (nobody gave me a reason), but then when Speaker made the same edit, it's remained. I don't really understand this place. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 15:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neanderthal==
They seem to have forgotten the Neanderthal. As it is currently listed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis on this website it should be listed as one of the races.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Only if it says so in the Bible. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Was this lifted from a nineteenth century textbook?==
Good Freaking God. Newsflash: Asians are not "yellow." Native Americans are not "Red." Stupidpedia strikes again!--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 12:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:If this article is going to mention what science once thought about races, then at least get it right. The original physical anthropologists that developed the biological race model had only three races: Caucasians, Mongloids, and Negroids.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Whaaa...you mean the scientists, to whom we all genuflect before as barers and guardians of truth and knowledge, have been ''wrong''? Wow. And those scientific facts were once used to promote and justify racism and genocide? My word. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh my God!!Scientists actually make mistakes like every other person on this planet, and if they are proven wrong they actually change their theories?? Wait...Wait...Oh that's right...science is an open system as opposed to a closed system. Duh...[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:At least we are out of the dark ages, where persecution and genocide was done in the name of Christianity and the Church. Thank heaven. Now we at least have atheists, rationalists, and science to blame for our progressive thinking which results in mass murder. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yah...good thing those white Christian upper-class gentlemen in the 19th century needing some way of justifying racist policies could turn to science to do their dirty work.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, isn't science a Bitc*? I mean, instead of living in your cave, following the sheep around, now you have central heat, air, the internet, the internal combustion engine. Dang, science make these Christians so miserable.--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yep. It was science that gave <s>mankind</s> personkind Zyklon B, and the instructions how to use it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::What? So science was wrong in the past. Isn't there something in the Bible about the sins of the fathers? How is that relevant to science today? Part of science's ''strength'' is that it changes with new discoveries...-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
And it was non-scientific politicans that decided to use it. Same as the atom bomb, dynamite, and napalm. So would you also blame the company that makes the gun used to kill someone, or the person that pulled the trigger?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Good point.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My point is that you really sound ignorant villifying science like that. Last time I checked there weren't a whole helluva lot of people with polio or smallpox around anymore. If one day your appendix blows science has made it possible for you to still survive without being bled by leeches. How many peopl are saved by organ transplants every year? Science did that for you. Science in and of itself doesn't kill.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Right. Science create napalm, VX gas, Sarin gas, etc., and it's "progress"; then when poltical leaders try to stop the spread of '''this brilliant knowledge''', where are they to be found? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... Union of Concerned Scienists that are against nuclear weapons, International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and alot of other scientists that are against such things. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Oh really? Where did these groups stand vis a vis allowing Mr. Saddam Hussein to retain classrooms with students obtaining this knowledge, (i.e. Saddams WMD programs). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) There wasn't much they could do about Saddam.

B) The poison gas? You don't exactly have to be a Nobel-Prize winner to make that stuff.

C) Clear example of the powers that be, abusing science and scientists for their own evil purposes.
Every new invention will sooner or later be turned into a weapon by <s>ignorant laymen</s> politicians, scientists regret this, but feel it is no reason to stop progress.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:You know the list that RobS gave us all have political ties and backing. So is it the scientists or the politicians?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) Oh, so they really don't give a rip. So much for the morality of scientists.

B) Precisely the point.

C) See response to A. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

People will find a way to kill each other anyway, they don't need scientists for that.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:If you're so angry at science, RobS, then don't use it anymore, turn off your computer, and stop posting at CP :-/. Otherwise you might just have to accept that the issue's a little more complicated than you'd like to think.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

While you're at it: don't wear synthetic clothing, never go to a doctor, don't drive a car, don't use electricity, don't use a cellphone, don't fly on airplanes, don't take the bus, don't eat food that's not from the nature shop, don't read books or newspapers (you're allowed to have a papyrus Bible), don't wear a watch, don't wear glasses, don't take the train, don't use deodorant, shampoo or soap, don't go to the movies, don't take pictures, don't paint your house, don't use paper, don't use anything made out of plastic, don't use a bank account...

Well there's not much you can do without science, it seems...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::You all might want to consider taking it down a notch. Any tool for manipulating or understanding the world, be it science or a ball peen hammer, can be misused. We obviously cannot live in this world in any reasonable way without science...the next world, well, a different story. But now, we are here, so we must strive to use all of our tools morally. You shouldn't slam a hammer into someone's head just because it is the right tool for the job. You shouldn't alter science to fit an ideology, just because it is a good tool for the job.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 16:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*''People will find a way to kill each other anyway, they don't need scientists for that.''
:That does not mean scientists should not be held accountable, nor that they do not have a moral responsibility. Nor that they do not need oversight and direction from poltical policymakers. Nor does it mean when a dangerous regime is using scientists without accountability to the rest of the international community, with the likelihood that scientific knowledge of how to produce [[WMD]] is being passed on to unknown persons, that policymakers, (and for that matter, the general public outside the scientific community) does not have the power and responsibility to act in those circumstances.

:To put it bluntly, just as the Church has more less been brought in subordination to the State under the so-called "separation of church and state doctrine", from a pure publicy policy standpoint, science is not our master, it is our slave. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:32, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Right...? Straw man alert. No one's calling on you to worship science. Just recognize which, between science or faith, is better at empirical testing.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[Mormon]] church policy==

Cut from article:

:The [[Mormon]] church supported racist policies into the 1960s.

We need to specify what these policies were. The word "racist" is vague. Did they, for example, say blacks are the devil? Or not allow blacks to join? Or allow blacks to join but not to be leaders? Or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Mormom theology held that blacks were inferior based on the unique characteristics of Mormon cosmology, that suggested blacks as the betrayers of Jesus in his stay in the New World. Right?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::The question, one would suppose, does Mormon revelation come from God, or for man?

::Are you ready to take that whole question on ''before'' stating here Mormonism is a fraud? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't matter. Racism from God is just as evil as racism from man.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Are you ready to take that whole question of God being a racist before making insertions here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This is not a religious debate. It is fact that the Mormon books, as interpreted & effectuated by the Church through the 1960, led to racist policies. Cite? "Under the Banner of Heaven."-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:You made it a religious debate when you trashed Mormans & impugned God. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:I admire Mormans, and Mormans that I know acknowledge their history and have learned from it. Hmm..learn from history...what a good idea...[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 21:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=prev&oldid=162595 This] edit doesn't seem to improve the article, and I concur with its removal. Perhaps it belongs in an article on racism instead. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes it does. And unless Speaker wishes to take on the whole LDS Church in the LDS entry, I'm not certain we should use it as an example in the [[Racism]] entry. What is clear is, this article in its present structure needs to be reevaluated. The intro says "scientifically", notions of "race" are bunk. The legal subsection says the law recognizes bunk, to wit, Affirmative Action laws, or as anybody who holds a drivers license knows. Then the Religion section is simply a hit on Religion because supposedly Religion is the source of racism, yet this claim is made with no foundation, and doesn't belong in this article anyway. The whole thing needs study and discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:00, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

Cut from article:

:Since the beginning of mankind, human populations have gone through periods of isolation and intermixing which lead to differences between groups. [[Scientists]] now believe that these are largely a matter of different statistical frequencies of variations from an agreed-on standard, rather than racial differences as was once thought. Modern [[Homo sapiens|humans]] share approximately 99.9% of their [[DNA]]. Of the .1% that does vary, 85% of the observed variation is unconnected to membership of any particular group of people.

This implies that human beings have evolved. Is there any scientific evidence for this?

If the point is not [[Human evolution]] but just the idea that skin color might change over periods of thousands of years due to [[natural selection]], then say it that way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:30, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:According to [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:[[User:Karajou|Karajou]], who is a [[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysop]], has instructed us that the [[Bible]] is a reliable historical and scientific document [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Commandments&diff=41919&oldid=40811%20talk:Commandments here], consequently the original version should be reinstated.

::Since the [[Great Flood]] human populations have gone through periods of isolation and intermixing which lead to differences between groups. [[Scientists]] believe that these are largely a matter of different statistical frequencies of variations from an agreed-on standard, rather than racial differences as was once thought. Modern [[Homo sapiens|humans]], the descendants of [[Noah]] and his family, share approximately 99.9% of their [[DNA]]. Of the .1% that does vary, 85% of the observed variation is unconnected to membership of any particular group of people.

:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 08:50, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Nonsense. The passage does not cite the Bible in any substantive way.

::Genesis does indicate that God separated (confused) the language of the people building the Tower of Babel - but this is an anti-evolution argument. It happened due to supernatural intervention.

::There's also some mention of animal breeding in the story of Jacob. Laban tried to trick him, but God blessed Jacob's efforts. Also a "design" argument which opposes evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The passage tells us that Modern [[Homo sapiens|humans]] are the descendants of [[Noah]] and his family. The only humans left after the [[Great Flood]]. Since we are all descendants of the same family it is no surprise that we are very very similar. What [[Scientists]] believe merely confirms that. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 10:01, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Culture and law==

Cut from article:

:In constructing or deconstructing racial barriers, the law makes reference frequently to different kinds of "race." '''Cultural''' race is race based on a unique culture. Affirmative action post-''Grutter'' makes appeal to cultural race as a partial justification for affirmative action. '''Historical''' race makes references to the shared experiences of a people that have enhanced or degraded their status as community members. Creating an Israeli nation, for example, is a reference to the genocide & discrimination that Jews have endured as a historical race.

This isn't gibberish, but I'm having a hard time understanding it. Please write plainly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:33, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Race

2007-05-16T12:50:36Z

Auld Nick: /* Human evolution */ Bible

== Since the Great Flood ==

In my opinion, this part should at least be introduced as "According to Creationists" or "For those who believe in...".[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 16:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Its a [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|conservative fact]], see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Commandments&diff=41919&oldid=40811%20talk:Commandments here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

You mean conservatives ''wish''it were a fact. Which is not the same thing as it being a ''fact''--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 12:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: I just got blocked by CPAdmin, I guess for removing it (nobody gave me a reason), but then when Speaker made the same edit, it's remained. I don't really understand this place. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 15:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neanderthal==
They seem to have forgotten the Neanderthal. As it is currently listed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis on this website it should be listed as one of the races.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Only if it says so in the Bible. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Was this lifted from a nineteenth century textbook?==
Good Freaking God. Newsflash: Asians are not "yellow." Native Americans are not "Red." Stupidpedia strikes again!--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 12:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:If this article is going to mention what science once thought about races, then at least get it right. The original physical anthropologists that developed the biological race model had only three races: Caucasians, Mongloids, and Negroids.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Whaaa...you mean the scientists, to whom we all genuflect before as barers and guardians of truth and knowledge, have been ''wrong''? Wow. And those scientific facts were once used to promote and justify racism and genocide? My word. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh my God!!Scientists actually make mistakes like every other person on this planet, and if they are proven wrong they actually change their theories?? Wait...Wait...Oh that's right...science is an open system as opposed to a closed system. Duh...[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:At least we are out of the dark ages, where persecution and genocide was done in the name of Christianity and the Church. Thank heaven. Now we at least have atheists, rationalists, and science to blame for our progressive thinking which results in mass murder. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yah...good thing those white Christian upper-class gentlemen in the 19th century needing some way of justifying racist policies could turn to science to do their dirty work.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, isn't science a Bitc*? I mean, instead of living in your cave, following the sheep around, now you have central heat, air, the internet, the internal combustion engine. Dang, science make these Christians so miserable.--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yep. It was science that gave <s>mankind</s> personkind Zyklon B, and the instructions how to use it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::What? So science was wrong in the past. Isn't there something in the Bible about the sins of the fathers? How is that relevant to science today? Part of science's ''strength'' is that it changes with new discoveries...-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
And it was non-scientific politicans that decided to use it. Same as the atom bomb, dynamite, and napalm. So would you also blame the company that makes the gun used to kill someone, or the person that pulled the trigger?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Good point.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My point is that you really sound ignorant villifying science like that. Last time I checked there weren't a whole helluva lot of people with polio or smallpox around anymore. If one day your appendix blows science has made it possible for you to still survive without being bled by leeches. How many peopl are saved by organ transplants every year? Science did that for you. Science in and of itself doesn't kill.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Right. Science create napalm, VX gas, Sarin gas, etc., and it's "progress"; then when poltical leaders try to stop the spread of '''this brilliant knowledge''', where are they to be found? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... Union of Concerned Scienists that are against nuclear weapons, International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and alot of other scientists that are against such things. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Oh really? Where did these groups stand vis a vis allowing Mr. Saddam Hussein to retain classrooms with students obtaining this knowledge, (i.e. Saddams WMD programs). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) There wasn't much they could do about Saddam.

B) The poison gas? You don't exactly have to be a Nobel-Prize winner to make that stuff.

C) Clear example of the powers that be, abusing science and scientists for their own evil purposes.
Every new invention will sooner or later be turned into a weapon by <s>ignorant laymen</s> politicians, scientists regret this, but feel it is no reason to stop progress.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:You know the list that RobS gave us all have political ties and backing. So is it the scientists or the politicians?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) Oh, so they really don't give a rip. So much for the morality of scientists.

B) Precisely the point.

C) See response to A. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

People will find a way to kill each other anyway, they don't need scientists for that.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:If you're so angry at science, RobS, then don't use it anymore, turn off your computer, and stop posting at CP :-/. Otherwise you might just have to accept that the issue's a little more complicated than you'd like to think.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

While you're at it: don't wear synthetic clothing, never go to a doctor, don't drive a car, don't use electricity, don't use a cellphone, don't fly on airplanes, don't take the bus, don't eat food that's not from the nature shop, don't read books or newspapers (you're allowed to have a papyrus Bible), don't wear a watch, don't wear glasses, don't take the train, don't use deodorant, shampoo or soap, don't go to the movies, don't take pictures, don't paint your house, don't use paper, don't use anything made out of plastic, don't use a bank account...

Well there's not much you can do without science, it seems...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::You all might want to consider taking it down a notch. Any tool for manipulating or understanding the world, be it science or a ball peen hammer, can be misused. We obviously cannot live in this world in any reasonable way without science...the next world, well, a different story. But now, we are here, so we must strive to use all of our tools morally. You shouldn't slam a hammer into someone's head just because it is the right tool for the job. You shouldn't alter science to fit an ideology, just because it is a good tool for the job.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 16:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*''People will find a way to kill each other anyway, they don't need scientists for that.''
:That does not mean scientists should not be held accountable, nor that they do not have a moral responsibility. Nor that they do not need oversight and direction from poltical policymakers. Nor does it mean when a dangerous regime is using scientists without accountability to the rest of the international community, with the likelihood that scientific knowledge of how to produce [[WMD]] is being passed on to unknown persons, that policymakers, (and for that matter, the general public outside the scientific community) does not have the power and responsibility to act in those circumstances.

:To put it bluntly, just as the Church has more less been brought in subordination to the State under the so-called "separation of church and state doctrine", from a pure publicy policy standpoint, science is not our master, it is our slave. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:32, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Right...? Straw man alert. No one's calling on you to worship science. Just recognize which, between science or faith, is better at empirical testing.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[Mormon]] church policy==

Cut from article:

:The [[Mormon]] church supported racist policies into the 1960s.

We need to specify what these policies were. The word "racist" is vague. Did they, for example, say blacks are the devil? Or not allow blacks to join? Or allow blacks to join but not to be leaders? Or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Mormom theology held that blacks were inferior based on the unique characteristics of Mormon cosmology, that suggested blacks as the betrayers of Jesus in his stay in the New World. Right?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::The question, one would suppose, does Mormon revelation come from God, or for man?

::Are you ready to take that whole question on ''before'' stating here Mormonism is a fraud? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't matter. Racism from God is just as evil as racism from man.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Are you ready to take that whole question of God being a racist before making insertions here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This is not a religious debate. It is fact that the Mormon books, as interpreted & effectuated by the Church through the 1960, led to racist policies. Cite? "Under the Banner of Heaven."-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:You made it a religious debate when you trashed Mormans & impugned God. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:I admire Mormans, and Mormans that I know acknowledge their history and have learned from it. Hmm..learn from history...what a good idea...[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 21:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=prev&oldid=162595 This] edit doesn't seem to improve the article, and I concur with its removal. Perhaps it belongs in an article on racism instead. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes it does. And unless Speaker wishes to take on the whole LDS Church in the LDS entry, I'm not certain we should use it as an example in the [[Racism]] entry. What is clear is, this article in its present structure needs to be reevaluated. The intro says "scientifically", notions of "race" are bunk. The legal subsection says the law recognizes bunk, to wit, Affirmative Action laws, or as anybody who holds a drivers license knows. Then the Religion section is simply a hit on Religion because supposedly Religion is the source of racism, yet this claim is made with no foundation, and doesn't belong in this article anyway. The whole thing needs study and discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:00, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

Cut from article:

:Since the beginning of mankind, human populations have gone through periods of isolation and intermixing which lead to differences between groups. [[Scientists]] now believe that these are largely a matter of different statistical frequencies of variations from an agreed-on standard, rather than racial differences as was once thought. Modern [[Homo sapiens|humans]] share approximately 99.9% of their [[DNA]]. Of the .1% that does vary, 85% of the observed variation is unconnected to membership of any particular group of people.

This implies that human beings have evolved. Is there any scientific evidence for this?

If the point is not [[Human evolution]] but just the idea that skin color might change over periods of thousands of years due to [[natural selection]], then say it that way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:30, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:According to [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:[[User:Karajou|Karajou]], who is a [[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysop]], has instructed us that the [[Bible]] is a reliable historical and scientific document [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Commandments&diff=41919&oldid=40811%20talk:Commandments here], consequently the original version should be reinstated.

::Since the [[Great Flood]] human populations have gone through periods of isolation and intermixing which lead to differences between groups. [[Scientists]] believe that these are largely a matter of different statistical frequencies of variations from an agreed-on standard, rather than racial differences as was once thought. Modern [[Homo sapiens|humans]], the descendants of [[Noah]] and his family, share approximately 99.9% of their [[DNA]]. Of the .1% that does vary, 85% of the observed variation is unconnected to membership of any particular group of people.

:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 08:50, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Culture and law==

Cut from article:

:In constructing or deconstructing racial barriers, the law makes reference frequently to different kinds of "race." '''Cultural''' race is race based on a unique culture. Affirmative action post-''Grutter'' makes appeal to cultural race as a partial justification for affirmative action. '''Historical''' race makes references to the shared experiences of a people that have enhanced or degraded their status as community members. Creating an Israeli nation, for example, is a reference to the genocide & discrimination that Jews have endured as a historical race.

This isn't gibberish, but I'm having a hard time understanding it. Please write plainly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:33, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages

2007-05-16T11:40:15Z

Auld Nick: /* Comprehension level? */ Instructions as to Conservapedia policy

Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages

2007-05-16T11:38:04Z

Auld Nick: Comprehension see talk.

The '''Conservapedia Manual of Style''' contains standardized information regarding how to edit pages on Conservapedia. This helps keep a consistent tone in most articles.

==Creation of a new article ==
At Conservapedia it is easy to create a new article as can be seen by our resource: [[Conservapedia:How to create a new article|How to create a new article]].

When you create a new article, please do one or both of the following so people can find your article:
* Link your article from one or more other articles as appropriate.
* Put one or more [[Category tag|Category tags]] at the bottom of your article, preferably for a category that already exists.

==Comprehension==

It is recommended that [[science]] topics be described in terms a 9-year-old child could understand.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Tims&diff=141480&oldid=140676]

==Date style==
*The style "July 4, 1776" is preferred.
*If the day of the week is involved, e.g., "Sunday, December 7, 1941", the comma after the day of the week is optional ("Sunday December 7, 1941" is allowed).
*US Military style is tolerated in context: "4 July 1776".
*If it is necessary for clarity to show the era of the year, ''Always'' use BC and AD (as opposed to BCE and CE). See [[Anno Domini]] for a full discussion.
==Spell-Checking==

Use correct spelling as often as possible. Some browsers can be equipped with a in-browser spell checker. If you have one of the following browsers, please download the spell checker at the link provided:

*''Internet Explorer'' - download at [http://www.iespell.com/ iespell]
*''Opera'' - download at [http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spellcheck/ GNU Aspell]
*''Mozilla Firefox'' - download at [http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ Spellbound] or update to the latest version of [http://www.getfirefox.com/ Firefox], which has a built-in spelling checker.

==Spelling==
*American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for ''de novo'' or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome, and edit wars over the subject are seriously discouraged. The context of the article should help resolve edit wars; an article about Britain would use Commonwealth spelling, while an article about the United States would use American English.

==Citing Sources and Using Footnotes==
Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the [[public domain]]. Please do not cite [[Wiki|wikis]] as sources, except when specifically talking about that wiki.

Please also see: [[Conservapedia: footnotes - technical help]]

==Discussion page ==
[[Conservapedia: Discussion page - technical help]]

==Other Topics==
[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]]

[[Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

Talk:Islamophobia

2007-05-15T16:54:31Z

Auld Nick: Moslem agenda

We need an article about the [[Moslem agenda]]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Islamophobia

2007-05-15T16:40:09Z

Auld Nick: iw.

'''Islamophobia''' is, literally, "fear of Islam." Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to Islam.

Islamophobia is a pseudoscientific term originally intended to portray principled opposition to the [[Moslem agenda]] as an abnormal mental condition.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known use of the term Islamophobia was in 1976, though it has become more frequently used since the 1997 publication of ''Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All'' by the Runnymede Trust, and even moreso to describe the backlash against Muslims following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/national/main563594.shtml</ref><ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4102389.stm</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_42_37/ai_79339769</ref><ref>http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=127fe2880e48951b564ac2f3e171242e</ref>

The Runnymede Trust defines Islamophobia as having the following characteristics:

:1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
:2) Islam is seen as separate and “other”. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
:3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
:4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a Clash of Civilizations.
:5) Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
:6) Criticisms made of 'the West' by Islam are rejected out of hand.
:7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
:8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.

==Examples of Islamophobia==

In a May 2001 interview, British politician Nick Giffen stated "Muslims are the biggest problem at present, for several reasons, because they have the highest birth rate, which means their communities need living space - that's what the ethnic cleansing is about. They have political corruption in their own countries, and when they have a chance to get council places they are there for graft. Most important of all is that Islam is an aggressive religion." <ref>‘Far right aims to gain foothold in Oldham’, Jeevan Vasagar, May 30, 2001 The Guardian"</ref>

On September 15, 2001 a [[Sikh]] man (known for wearing distinctive beards and turbans) was murdered at a gas station in Mesa, Arizona. His murderer, Frank Silva Roque, was convicted and initially sentenced to death, but this was commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole by the Arizona Supreme Court. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3154170.stm</ref>

In November 2006, Jerry Klein, a Washington DC area radio talk show host suggested, in parody of Islamophobic views, that "identifying markers. ... I'm thinking either it should be an arm band, a crescent moon arm band, or it should be a crescent moon tattoo. ...If it means that we have to round them up and do a tattoo in a place where everybody knows where to find it, then that's what we'll have to do." <ref>http://cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=2415&theType=NR</ref> Although some callers believed that Klein was "off his rocker" for suggesting such a thing, other callers believed Klein had not gone far enough, and suggested that Muslims should be placed in concentration camps, or deported en-masse. Klein exposed the parody at the close of his show, and chastised those who has called in to support what amounted to, in essence, a new [[Holocaust]] against Muslims.

==Criticism of the concept of Islamophobia==

Kenan Malik, a British writer, has criticized the concept of Islamophobia, calling it a myth. He argues that the charge of Islamophobia is leveled against those who criticize [[Islam]] or Muslims in any way (even when those criticisms may be legitimate) to serve as a "chilling effect."

Rowan Atkinson, a British comic-actor has likewise stated that although criticizing another person based on their race is ridiculous and irrational, criticizing another's religion, which is a voluntary belief, is a right. He further stated that laws should not be created which protect certain types of ideas from criticism and not others.

Stephen Schwartz, an American writer and critic of Wahabbism, has stated that although the charge of Islamophobia is sometimes leveled too quickly against an opponent, that it is still a real phenomenon<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17874</ref>, which he defines as:

:1) Attacking the entire religion of Islam as a problem for the world;
:2) Condemning all of Islam and its history as extremist;
:3) Denying the active existence, in the contemporary world, of a moderate Muslim majority;
:4) Insisting that Muslims accede to the demands of non-Muslims (based on ignorance and arrogance) for various theological changes, in their religion;
:5) Treating all conflicts involving Muslims (including, for example, that in Bosnia-Hercegovina a decade ago), as the fault of Muslims themselves;
:6) Inciting war against Islam as a whole.

Islamophobia

2007-05-15T16:38:58Z

Auld Nick: copyedit

'''Islamophobia''' is, literally, "fear of Islam." Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to Islam.

Islamophobia is a pseudoscientific term originally intended to portray principled opposition to the Moslem agenda as an abnormal mental condition.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known use of the term Islamophobia was in 1976, though it has become more frequently used since the 1997 publication of ''Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All'' by the Runnymede Trust, and even moreso to describe the backlash against Muslims following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/national/main563594.shtml</ref><ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4102389.stm</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_42_37/ai_79339769</ref><ref>http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=127fe2880e48951b564ac2f3e171242e</ref>

The Runnymede Trust defines Islamophobia as having the following characteristics:

:1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
:2) Islam is seen as separate and “other”. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
:3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
:4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a Clash of Civilizations.
:5) Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
:6) Criticisms made of 'the West' by Islam are rejected out of hand.
:7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
:8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.

==Examples of Islamophobia==

In a May 2001 interview, British politician Nick Giffen stated "Muslims are the biggest problem at present, for several reasons, because they have the highest birth rate, which means their communities need living space - that's what the ethnic cleansing is about. They have political corruption in their own countries, and when they have a chance to get council places they are there for graft. Most important of all is that Islam is an aggressive religion." <ref>‘Far right aims to gain foothold in Oldham’, Jeevan Vasagar, May 30, 2001 The Guardian"</ref>

On September 15, 2001 a [[Sikh]] man (known for wearing distinctive beards and turbans) was murdered at a gas station in Mesa, Arizona. His murderer, Frank Silva Roque, was convicted and initially sentenced to death, but this was commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole by the Arizona Supreme Court. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3154170.stm</ref>

In November 2006, Jerry Klein, a Washington DC area radio talk show host suggested, in parody of Islamophobic views, that "identifying markers. ... I'm thinking either it should be an arm band, a crescent moon arm band, or it should be a crescent moon tattoo. ...If it means that we have to round them up and do a tattoo in a place where everybody knows where to find it, then that's what we'll have to do." <ref>http://cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=2415&theType=NR</ref> Although some callers believed that Klein was "off his rocker" for suggesting such a thing, other callers believed Klein had not gone far enough, and suggested that Muslims should be placed in concentration camps, or deported en-masse. Klein exposed the parody at the close of his show, and chastised those who has called in to support what amounted to, in essence, a new [[Holocaust]] against Muslims.

==Criticism of the concept of Islamophobia==

Kenan Malik, a British writer, has criticized the concept of Islamophobia, calling it a myth. He argues that the charge of Islamophobia is leveled against those who criticize [[Islam]] or Muslims in any way (even when those criticisms may be legitimate) to serve as a "chilling effect."

Rowan Atkinson, a British comic-actor has likewise stated that although criticizing another person based on their race is ridiculous and irrational, criticizing another's religion, which is a voluntary belief, is a right. He further stated that laws should not be created which protect certain types of ideas from criticism and not others.

Stephen Schwartz, an American writer and critic of Wahabbism, has stated that although the charge of Islamophobia is sometimes leveled too quickly against an opponent, that it is still a real phenomenon<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17874</ref>, which he defines as:

:1) Attacking the entire religion of Islam as a problem for the world;
:2) Condemning all of Islam and its history as extremist;
:3) Denying the active existence, in the contemporary world, of a moderate Muslim majority;
:4) Insisting that Muslims accede to the demands of non-Muslims (based on ignorance and arrogance) for various theological changes, in their religion;
:5) Treating all conflicts involving Muslims (including, for example, that in Bosnia-Hercegovina a decade ago), as the fault of Muslims themselves;
:6) Inciting war against Islam as a whole.

Abortion procedures

2007-05-15T16:25:26Z

Auld Nick: Parsley

Talk:Race

2007-05-15T15:48:51Z

Auld Nick: /* Neanderthal */

Talk:Scotland

2007-05-14T14:58:26Z

Auld Nick: /* homosexuality and the kilt - the link */

{{Protected|TK}}

One thing; it's slightly disputed that Golf is a Scottish invention, just wondered if it should be in there... btw no offence to Scots genuine concern --[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

in scottland, the kilt(that spelled right?) isnt that like your family's colors? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes Will N, the kilt is a tradtional dress still worn at weddings and social functions that is made in the clan (think family) tartan. Each tartan is comprised of colours specific to that family.

And Ed Poor, please can you stop removing the kilt picture. It is incredibly disrespectful to the Scots to remove not only a picture depicting their National dress but also their First Minister. The kilt has nothing to do with homosexuality, which frankly, is a topic that is discussed far too often on this site. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 12:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Kilts ==

Kilts are an item of dress, it is the tartan that has an association with families, or more accurately, Clan. In addition many public bodies have their own particular tartan. In the picture, Jack McConnell is seen wearing a pin-stripe kilt as part of an effort to promote Tartan Day.

Kilts are often made from Family/Clan Tartans, though not exclusively - there are many designs that have no particular family affiliation (such as Regimental designs) - Kilts are aso worn with somewhat plainer designs as well, and have even been made from leather..
I think the map is more appropriate than the pic of Jack McConnell - he is an elected representative, and does not necessarily epitomise Scottishness (indeed - pending the outcome of the general election on Thursday 03-May-2007, he may or may not continue as First Minister.) --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 17:45, 01 May 2007 (BST)

I've replaced the picture with one more <s>dull</s> appropriate.[[User:LordWhimsey|LordWhimsey]] 08:49, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== homosexuality and the kilt - the link ==
[[Image:JackMcConnell.png|right|thumb|A scotsman wearing his skirt (known as a [[kilt]] in Scotland)([http://photos3.flickr.com/3348884_7b5cbe90be.jpg])]]'
em there is none - and I suggest any americans who visit scotland don't make suggest that linkage to members of, for example, her Maj's 51 (Scottish) Brigade. A frank and full exchange of viewpoints might then occur! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 15:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:This being Conservapedia, surely one would expect the description of Scotland by the leading [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Pat Robertson]], to be included in the article. He described Scotland as a "''dark country full of [[homosexual]]s''"<ref>http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/02/scotland.robertson/</ref>. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:57, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not in the lead. And not [[out of context]]. Also, a photo of a man in a skirt rather than in a traditional plaid [[kilt]] makes more of a statement about [[homosexuality]], [[gender identity disorder]] or [[cross-dressing]] than it does about Scotland. Try to keep your mind on the purpose of this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::What? since when is a skirt and a kilt the same thing? Ed, you're way in the wrong on this one. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, you are wrong - check out this website to see how the kilt is evolving - traditional kilts are only part of it [http://www.21stcenturykilts.com/home.htm].

::::Wrong about what? Please restate the assertion you think I have made. (The fashion photo you showed me of contemporary young people doesn't tell me what you mean.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: You asserted that "a photo of a man in a skirt rather than in a traditional plaid kilt makes more of a statement about homosexuality, gender identity disorder or cross-dressing than it does about Scotland." Whereas the link I provided shows that all kinds of non-traditional materials (denim, leather, camouflage patterns, tweed, pinstripe suit cloth, etc.) are being used to make kilts. The photo is of a man in a modern kilt. You assert that it is a skirt. Homosexuality and transvestisism are in no way associated with modern kilts. You assert that they are. To Scots, such words are particularly offensive.[[User:LordWhimsey|LordWhimsey]] 09:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Ed Poor|Ed]], even if the quote was [[out of context]] what is wrong with showing the conservative view of Scotland? Pro-Gaiety and homosexualism is rife in Scotland:
::*The repeal of laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm</ref>
::*The legalisation of so called gay marriage <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4494882.stm </ref>
::*Allowing homosexuals to adopt children <ref>http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1356432006 </ref>
::*Allowing homosexual teachers to teach homosexual sex to children <ref>http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=754672006</ref>
::*Open encouragement of homosexual soldiers and policemen <ref>http://www.gpascotland.com/050827.htm</ref>
::*The banning of pro-Christian opinions at sports events <ref>http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=387732007</ref>
::Those are just a few from the multitude of examples of how the [[homosexual agenda]] is permeating Scotland. Surely Scotland is a "''dark country full of [[homosexual]]s''" and this should be reflected here?
::[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 09:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Kilts are *not* skirts - the difference isn't subtle... it's interesting the connection some draw between 'cross-dressing' and kilt wearing; whenever I wear my kilt (especially in England and elsewhere) it usually attracts lots of attention from women...
'a dark country full of homosexuals' - I'm not even going to be drawn on that one, but featuring it prominently hardly does anything for the credibility of the article as a whole. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:03, 02 May 2007 (BST)

:Spin, your statement that a [[kilt]] is not a skirt disagrees with the caption Nick put on the image to our upper right. The words ''Scotsman wearing his skirt (known as a [[kilt]] in Scotland)'' imply (1) that the man was wearing a skirt and (2) that a skirt is known as a kilt in Scotland.

:Would the two of you please sort this out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I see your point. The article that Jack McConnell is wearing is a kilt. Skirts are not known as kilts - the two words are not synonymous. Although kilts are mostly associated with male attire, this isn't universally true by any means. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:21, 02 May 2007 (BST)

Might be worth clarifying the whole kilt issue, either by adding to this article (Traditional Attire section?) or by creating a separate linked page for the kilt. Perhaps one of our resident Scots would be able to? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 13:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd be happy that the image be replaced with a piper but I'm having difficulty finding a fair use one. Probably worth noting that most images of pipers will be in full ceremonial garb (kilt, sporran, etc). Perhaps someone will have more luck than I finding a suitable image. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 13:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

At the risk of going round in circles, again the Pat Robertson comment - with respect, who is this guy? (I don't mean literally - I know who he is) There is no indication of how his opinion is relevant - whether or not you consider it to be true, it just sounds like abuse, which just undermines the credibility of (at least) the whole article. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 11:04, 04 May 2007 (BST)

:Mr. Robertson's opinion is important as an example of Conservative thinking. Here at Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] is taken very seriously as can be seen at that article and others such as [[homosexual agenda]], [[gay rights]], [[homophobia]] and their accompanying talk pages. It is important that such matters are given a prominent position in Conservapedia, for example the [[Main Page]] news items such as [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&oldid=139637 this], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&oldid=131062 this], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&oldid=130326 this] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&oldid=85632 this]. Such conservative facts ([[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|Differences with Wikipedia No. 9]]) are always displayed prominently and not censored like at the [[Liberal bias|liberally biased]] [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]. In fact I think the information in question should appear right at the top of the article.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 15:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ok. Pat Robertson's opinions are clearly in line with many(most? ..I don't know) conservative thinkers, at least in the US. ('Conservative' has a related but slightly different meaning in the UK)

::(from [[Racism]]) 'Racism is making broad generalizations about a group of people based on percieved notions' - articles in the press are designed to be provocative and inflammatory - that doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the truth of the information they refer to, but they are far from a foolproof source, not very indicative of the nature of a culture.
::I'm not accusing Pat Robertson of racism, but he's a bit close to the wire. (I suspect he would argue about 'perceived notions' - and whether he was making a 'broad generalisation')

::I'm not sure what you mean by 'Conservative Facts' - it's definitely a fact that Pat Robertson said that, but the truth of it is a different thing altogether..

::I understand that it is important that the guiding principles of Conservapedia are enforced, but the article seems to have more to say about the authors' abhorrence of homosexuality than it does about it's subject matter - irrespective of your views, that doesn't do any good at all. [[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 11:03, 07 May 2007 (BST)

:::[[Liberal]]ism seems to have won the day and the truth about the pernicious [[homosexual agenda]] has been ''hidden away'' in the article [[Church of Scotland]] where I assume the hope is that no one will find it.
:::People looking for information about Scotland are being denied some very important [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|conservative facts]]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: "the truth about the pernicious [[homosexual agenda]]" Ah yes. That old chestnut. Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:49, 14 May 2007 (BST)

:::Dèan magadh air na-h pàrras amadain an seo. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 10:58, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Cities ==

Six? [[Inverness]] is very small for a city. Inhabitants of [[Perth]] (which is much larger) and elsewhere will be annoyed by not being mentioned.

You might usefully put a link somewhere here to [[Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]]. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 13:36, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's partly why I added in the word "major" to the section. That way other cities wouldn't feel as slighted since it'd be near impossible to add every single one to the list. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:46, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::I meant to say, ''You might usefully put a link somewhere here to'' <nowiki>[[Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]]</nowiki>. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:55, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Gotcha ... unfortunately you'll have to go to a sysop now as the article is re-locked. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages

2007-05-14T11:47:53Z

Auld Nick: Comprehension

The '''Conservapedia Manual of Style''' contains standardized information regarding how to edit pages on Conservapedia. This helps keep a consistent tone in most articles.

==Creation of a new article ==
At Conservapedia it is easy to create a new article as can be seen by our resource: [[How to create a new article]].

When you create a new article, please do one or both of the following so people can find your article:
* Link your article from one or more other articles as appropriate.
* Put one or more [[Category tag|Category tags]] at the bottom of your article, preferably for a category that already exists.

==Comprehension==

It is recommended that [[science]] be described in terms in terms a 9-year-old child could understand.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Tims&diff=141480&oldid=140676]

==Date style==
*The style "July 4, 1776" is preferred.
*If the day of the week is involved, e.g., "Sunday, December 7, 1941", the comma after the day of the week is optional ("Sunday December 7, 1941" is allowed).
*US Military style is tolerated in context: "4 July 1776".
*If it is necessary for clarity to show the era of the year, ''Always'' use BC and AD (as opposed to BCE and CE). See [[Anno Domini]] for a full discussion.
==Spell-Checking==

Use correct spelling as often as possible. Some browsers can be equipped with a in-browser spell checker. If you have one of the following browsers, please download the spell checker at the link provided:

*''Internet Explorer'' - download at [http://www.iespell.com/ iespell]
*''Opera'' - download at [http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spellcheck/ GNU Aspell]
*''Mozilla Firefox'' - download at [http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ Spellbound] or update to the latest version of [http://www.getfirefox.com/ Firefox], which has a built-in spelling checker.

==Spelling==
*American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for ''de novo'' or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome, and edit wars over the subject are seriously discouraged. The context of the article should help resolve edit wars; an article about Britain would use Commonwealth spelling, while an article about the United States would use American English.

==Citing Sources and Using Footnotes==
Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the [[public domain]]. Please do not cite [[Wiki|wikis]] as sources, except when specifically talking about that wiki.

Please also see: [[Conservapedia: footnotes - technical help]]

==Discussion page ==
[[Conservapedia: Discussion page - technical help]]

==Other Topics==
[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]]

[[Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

Carbon

2007-05-14T10:24:15Z

Auld Nick: decay rate

{{Element | name=Carbon | symbol=C | anumber=6 | amass=12 amu | noe=6 | class=Non-metal | cstructure=Hexagonal | color=black | date=Carbon has been known since ancient times. | discname=Unknown | origname=From the Latin ''carbo''. | uses=Steel, filters. | obtained=[[Incomplete combustion]]. }}

It has been suggested that the C-14 decay rate varies proportionately with the age of the universe, and if that age is, say 5,000 years rather than 10 billion years, then the C-14 decay rate could have been many orders of magnitude larger a thousand years ago. <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Carbon_dating&diff=144701&oldid=144638</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Elements]]

Aberdeen Football Club

2007-05-13T20:09:41Z

Auld Nick: cat.

Aberdeen Football Club (Aberdeen FC) is a [[soccer]] team based in the city of [[Aberdeen]], [[Scotland]]. The team is currently (2007) in the [[Scottish Premier League]]. Home matches are played at Pittodrie Stadium and the present manager is Scotsman Jimmy Calderwood. The team plays in all red strip.
[[Category:Sports teams]]
[[Category:Scottish Football]]

Talk:History of American football

2007-05-13T11:31:01Z

Auld Nick: /* Rugby? */ comparable?

Soccer is un-American and we shouldn't be listing it here. Although perhaps we could instead show the US Women's Soccer Team, who won the World Cup a few years ago? [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 14:53, 21 March 2007 (PST).

This should be more about American football. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:40, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rename to American Football ==

This article should be called American Football or even Football (America). [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 06:18, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:I moved the article to [[History of American football]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Rugby? ==

Just curious, is rugby considered a form of football? I thought 'football' refers only to what in America is called '[[soccer]]' and to 'american football'. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 06:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:The term "football" applies to a number of sports.
:*In American English, it never means [[soccer]].
:*In English as spoken abroad, it nearly always means [[soccer]].

:Rubgy is also a kind of football game, and it is closer to [[American football]] than it is to [[soccer]]. In both games, there is a sort of [[touchdown]] and a [[field goal]].

:It might help US-UK relations (among us contributors anyway ;-) if we compared rugby to American football. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
::Is rugby comparable to American football? American footballers wear body armor and helmets, rugby players don't. The rules are completely different too. The similarities are superficial. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:31, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Uig

2007-05-13T11:02:07Z

Auld Nick: cat.

'''Uig''' is a very small ferry port at the northern end of the Isle of Skye in [[Scotland]], with services to the Isles of Harris (Tarbert) & North Uist (Lochmaddy) known as the Uig Triangle. Uig rejoices in a very heavy annual rainfall.
[[Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]]

Family of Noah

2007-05-12T20:13:55Z

Auld Nick: source?

{{merge|Noah}}
''In Genesis, Chs 5 and 10, we are told:''

The sons of '''Noah''' were Shem, Ham and Japheth

The children of '''Shem''' were Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram

The sons of '''Ham''' were Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan

The sons of '''Japheth''' were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshek and Tiras

Some people believe that all [[Homo sapiens|people]] alive today are descendants of [[Noah]] and his family{{fact}}.