Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Davidkon

2014-01-26T02:18:47Z

Davidkon:

Romney is a RINO unfit for public office.
I live in the terrifying liberal hellscape of Northern Virginia
{{userboxtop|Davidkon}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User KnowsNoEvo}}
{{userboxbottom}}

User:Davidkon

2012-11-17T19:21:28Z

Davidkon:

Romney is a RINO unfit for public office.
I put my support behind Ken Cuccinelli, a real American!
{{userboxtop|Davidkon}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User KnowsNoEvo}}
{{userboxbottom}}

User:Davidkon

2012-10-18T04:39:09Z

Davidkon: Just Sprucing up my User Page a little :)

ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!
{{userboxtop|Davidkon}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User KnowsNoEvo}}
{{userboxbottom}}

User:Davidkon

2012-10-18T04:28:01Z

Davidkon:

ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!

Talk:Conservative media

2012-01-16T03:05:21Z

Davidkon: /* Satire? */

== Satire? ==

It seems to me that about half of the additions on this page are satire but I'm really not sure what is and what isn't since I'm not really familiar with the political views of celebrities and don't have the time/will power to actually read about them. Anyone up for it? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 22:03, 15 January 2012 (EST)

I'll give it a try. :) --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 22:05, 15 January 2012 (EST)

The Life Zone

2012-01-16T02:57:19Z

Davidkon:

The Life Zone is a successful movie by Kenneth del Vecchio. The Life Zone tells the story of three women who think they have been kidnapped while they were getting abortions. They are encouraged by a mysterious keeper, played by Robert Loggia, to bring their pregnancies to term. While they wait to do so they are given reading material and movies to watch about abortion and related issues, including material produced by del Vecchio. Eventually, two of the women decide to give birth and the third tries to murder her unborn child. Then it is revealed that all three were in purgatory, and that the two who decided to give birth will go to Heaven while the third will burn in hell, to be subject to eternally repeated pregnancy and child birth. The film also stars Amanda Antonucci, Blanche Baker and Rebecca Baron. As to be expected of a film with a strong Conservative message, it was heavily criticized by the lame-stream media who attempted to downplay its success, not to mention its strong directing, acting, and script.

The Life Zone

2012-01-16T02:55:01Z

Davidkon: Created page with " The Life Zone is a successful movie by Kenneth del Vecchio. The Life Zone tells the story of three women who think they have been kidnapped while they were getting a..."

The Life Zone is a successful movie by Kenneth del Vecchio. The Life Zone tells the story of three women who think they have been kidnapped while they were getting abortions. They are encouraged by a mysterious keeper, played by Robert Loggia, to bring their pregnancies to term. While they wait to do so they are given reading material and movies to watch about abortion and related issues, including material produced by del Vecchio. Eventually, two of the women decide to give birth and the third tries to murder her unborn child. Then it is revealed that all three were in purgatory, and that the two who decided to give birth will go to Heaven while the third will burn in hell, to be subject to eternally repeated pregnancy and child birth. The film also stars Amanda Antonucci, Blanche Baker and Rebecca Baron.

As to be expected of a film with a strong Conservative message, it was heavily criticized by the lame-stream media who attempted to downplay its success, not to mention its strong directing, acting, and script.

Precious metal

2012-01-16T02:27:48Z

Davidkon: Created page with "A precious metal is a rare, naturally occurring metallic chemical element of high economic value. Chemically, the precious metals are less reactive than most elements, have high ..."

A precious metal is a rare, naturally occurring metallic chemical element of high economic value. Chemically, the precious metals are less reactive than most elements, have high lustre, are softer or more ductile, and have higher melting points than other metals. Historically, precious metals were important as currency but are now regarded mainly as investment and industrial commodities.

Appendectomy

2012-01-16T02:22:47Z

Davidkon: Created page with "An appendectomy is surgery to remove the appendix."

An appendectomy is surgery to remove the appendix.

Blue-footed Booby

2012-01-16T01:51:14Z

Davidkon: Created page with "The Blue-footed Booby is a bird that resembles a long winged seagull. The Blue-footed Booby is on average 32 in long and weighs 3.3 lb, with the females slightly larger than the ..."

The Blue-footed Booby is a bird that resembles a long winged seagull. The Blue-footed Booby is on average 32 in long and weighs 3.3 lb, with the females slightly larger than the males. It has long pointed wings and a wedge shaped tail. They have strong, thick necks. The booby's eyes are placed on either side of their bill and oriented towards the front. They have excellent binocular vision. The Blue-footed Booby's eyes are yellow. The male has more yellow on its iris than the female. The Blue-footed Booby has permanently closed nostrils made for diving. They breathe through the corners of their mouths. Their feet range from a pale turquoise to a deep aquamarine. Males and younger birds have lighter feet than females do.

Conservapedia:Essays

2011-05-31T18:13:36Z

Davidkon: /* Politics */

'''''This is an Index of "Essays" written by Conservapedia Members.'''''

Unlike articles, essays may represent a particular point of view. If you write an essay, please attribute it to yourself and link it to this top page. Essays are still subject to control for obscenities, etcetera.
==Politics==
#'''[[Essay:Gun control]]''' by [[User:StephenW|StephenW]]
#'''[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]''' by --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)
#'''[[Essay:End Gates' Tax Exemption]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods]]'''
#'''[[Cuban Dealings Essay]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Gun Control Essay "Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark"]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Court Rules for Gay Club, but Gives School Alternatives]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Title IX]]''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power]]'''
#'''[[Essay: 12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity]] by American Solutions
#'''[[Essay:School Prayer and the First Amendment]] by Leo Samuels
#'''[[Essay:Liberals can't lose in the 2010 UK Elections]] - [[User:Newton|Newton]] 11:53, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
#'''[[Essay: Real Environmentalism]] by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]
#'''[[Essay: Why the Liberals will Never Beat Us.]] by --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:07, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

==Religion==
#'''[[Essay:Oath of Saint Luke]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power#What Is All This About?]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Noah's Ark Was Real]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay: Young Earth Cosmology]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay:Allegiance]]''' by [[User:DanH|DanH]]
#'''[[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]]''' by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]
#'''[[Essay:Shock "Value"?]]''' by [[User:JY23|JY23]]
#'''[[Essay:Christianity Under Attack]]''' by [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]]

==Conservapedia==
#'''[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Rules_of_Chivalry_for_Students]]''', by [[User:Aschlafly|Ashlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]]''' by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]

==Wikipedia==
#'''[[Essay:Wikipedia's Ads-for-Charity]]
#'''[[Essay:Uses of Wikipedia]]'''
==Conservative popular culture==
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Music is not neutral]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Born Again American]]'''

==Science==
#'''[[Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design]]
#'''[[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine]]''' by [[User:RobS|RobS]]
# '''[[Essay: Out-of-place Artifacts, ET's, and the Great Flood]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay:Darwin's The Origin of Species: Supplanting William Paley's Notion of Creator]] by [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

==Other==
#'''[[Essay: Is File-sharing a Moral Action?]]''' by [[user:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
#'''[[Essay:Most Influential Persons]]
#'''[[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
#'''[[Essay:Accuracy in Academia Interview]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Interview with Australian Researcher]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Adultress Story]]''' by ([[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]])

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Essays|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]

Conservapedia:Essays

2011-05-31T18:07:38Z

Davidkon: /* Politics */

'''''This is an Index of "Essays" written by Conservapedia Members.'''''

Unlike articles, essays may represent a particular point of view. If you write an essay, please attribute it to yourself and link it to this top page. Essays are still subject to control for obscenities, etcetera.
==Politics==
#'''[[Essay:Gun control]]''' by [[User:StephenW|StephenW]]
#'''[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]''' by --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)
#'''[[Essay:End Gates' Tax Exemption]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods]]'''
#'''[[Cuban Dealings Essay]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Gun Control Essay "Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark"]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Court Rules for Gay Club, but Gives School Alternatives]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Title IX]]''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power]]'''
#'''[[Essay: 12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity]] by American Solutions
#'''[[Essay:School Prayer and the First Amendment]] by Leo Samuels
#'''[[Essay:Liberals can't lose in the 2010 UK Elections]] - [[User:Newton|Newton]] 11:53, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
#'''[[Essay: Real Environmentalism]] by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]
#'''[[Essay: Why the Liberals will Never Beat Us.]] by --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:07, 31 May 2011 (EDT)[[User:Davidkon]]

==Religion==
#'''[[Essay:Oath of Saint Luke]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power#What Is All This About?]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Noah's Ark Was Real]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay: Young Earth Cosmology]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay:Allegiance]]''' by [[User:DanH|DanH]]
#'''[[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]]''' by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]
#'''[[Essay:Shock "Value"?]]''' by [[User:JY23|JY23]]
#'''[[Essay:Christianity Under Attack]]''' by [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]]

==Conservapedia==
#'''[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Rules_of_Chivalry_for_Students]]''', by [[User:Aschlafly|Ashlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]]''' by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]

==Wikipedia==
#'''[[Essay:Wikipedia's Ads-for-Charity]]
#'''[[Essay:Uses of Wikipedia]]'''
==Conservative popular culture==
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Music is not neutral]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Born Again American]]'''

==Science==
#'''[[Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design]]
#'''[[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine]]''' by [[User:RobS|RobS]]
# '''[[Essay: Out-of-place Artifacts, ET's, and the Great Flood]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay:Darwin's The Origin of Species: Supplanting William Paley's Notion of Creator]] by [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

==Other==
#'''[[Essay: Is File-sharing a Moral Action?]]''' by [[user:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
#'''[[Essay:Most Influential Persons]]
#'''[[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
#'''[[Essay:Accuracy in Academia Interview]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Interview with Australian Researcher]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Adultress Story]]''' by ([[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]])

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Essays|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]

Essay: Why the Liberals will Never Beat Us.

2011-05-31T18:05:17Z

Davidkon:

What's wrong with Liberals? Why do they trundle around the country shouting “POLITICALLY INCORRECT” whenever they bump into things that don't support the homosexual agenda and act like them? The problem is, Liberals will never learn – they're just not capable of understanding why Conservatives gets on so well with other people.

Conservatives love other people, but liberals haven't got a clue what compassion is or why it matters. Poor things – the media has made them so closed minded that fighting and arguing is all they can do. Unfortunately, a Liberal is without a whole load of important stuff that Conservatives have. Okay, so Conservatives aren't perfect – we bicker from time to time and disagree on some details, but at least most of the time we're capable of getting along with other people and making logical choices.

Because of their notoriety for being grounded in academia, we're told that Liberals are philosophers. Well, if they were, they can't have been very good ones, or so many of them wouldn't be Atheists. It's not worth bothering to tell Liberals what's wrong with their thinking – they wouldn't listen because they're too busy shouting – but I'll tell you.

So what's the important stuff missing from the Liberals? Why do they think they're so superior to other people? It's because of their belief that superiority is based solely on illogical ability and similarity of thought – and that these are the only two things worthy of consideration. According to Liberals, anybody who doesn't act or think like them is necessarily inferior and therefore should be eliminated. They don't understand that other people might be subjects worthy of moral consideration, too.

Conservatives understand both liberal-mentality as well as our own mentality, and this is why we succeed where the liberals fail – we appreciate those human traits that liberals overlook. Conservatives realize that love and compassion are an important part of our lives, and that these play a part in our everyday lives when we're working out how we should act. And, unlike liberals, conservatives have the capacity to realize that other people also count. The problem with Liberals is that they are Atheists – and that's a really, really bad thing to be.

Liberals hate to be told, by mere Conservatives, that we consider ourselves culturally and morally superior to Liberals, but we do think this. The role the Bible plays in moral reasoning makes us superior to Liberals. Our capacity for logic and faith, together, is why we continue to beat those pesky and often obese liars. Because they lack the Bible, Liberals don't truly feel emotion the same way that conservatives do.

So how is the capacity to feel emotions relevant to moral reasoning? Okay, a Liberal might say, “having emotions such as love and compassion make us nicer people, but surely emotions are just irrational impulses that should be disregarded when we're working out our moral theory.” Many philosophers have thought so. However, both ancient and contemporary philosophers have plausibly argued that emotions can, and should, play a role when we're thinking about how to treat other people. One such philosopher is Martha Nussbaum. She argues that emotions aren't just unthinking impulses as Liberals say, but that they also include and element of belief and interpretation – they're a type of judgment.

An emotion such as fear, for example, isn't just a mindless response to the environment as Evolutionists would have us believe; it involves a belief that something scary looms, and that action should be taken to remove oneself from danger. This doesn't mean we should always trust our emotions – they can be wrong. But it does allow for the possibility of training our emotions to become appropriate responses to the world around us. As Aristotle wrote, the enlightened person is one who'll respond in the appropriate manner to each situation. This is what's missing from Liberals and Atheists – the ability to adapt their behavior according to the situations in which they find themselves. Rather, they just sit around and make noise, blaspheme and raise taxes.

Essay: Why the Liberals will Never Beat Us.

2011-05-31T18:04:03Z

Davidkon: A thought-provoking essay on why Liberals are doomed to fail.

What's wrong with Liberals? Why do they trundle around the country shouting “POLITICALLY INCORRECT” whenever they bump into things that don't support the homosexual agenda and act like them? The problem is, Liberals will never learn – they're just not capable of understanding why Conservatives gets on so well with other species.
Conservatives love other people, but liberals haven't got a clue what compassion is or why it matters. Poor things – the media has made them so closed minded that fighting and arguing is all they can do. Unfortunately, a Liberal is without a whole load of important stuff that Conservatives have. Okay, so Conservatives aren't perfect – we bicker from time to time and disagree on some details, but at least most of the time we're capable of getting along with other people and making logical choices.
Because of their notoriety for being grounded in academia, we're told that Liberals are philosophers. Well, if they were, they can't have been very good ones, or so many of them wouldn't be Atheists. It's not worth bothering to tell Liberals what's wrong with their thinking – they wouldn't listen because they're too busy shouting – but I'll tell you.
So what's the important stuff missing from the Liberals? Why do they think they're so superior to other people? It's because of their belief that superiority is based solely on illogical ability and similarity of thought – and that these are the only two things worthy of consideration. According to Liberals, anybody who doesn't act or think like them is necessarily inferior and therefore should be eliminated. They don't understand that other people might be subjects worthy of moral consideration, too.
Conservatives understand both liberal-mentality as well as our own mentality, and this is why we succeed where the liberals fail – we appreciate those human traits that liberals overlook. Conservatives realize that love and compassion are an important part of our lives, and that these play a part in our everyday lives when we're working out how we should act. And, unlike liberals, conservatives have the capacity to realize that other people also count. The problem with Liberals is that they are Atheists – and that's a really, really bad thing to be.
Liberals hate to be told, by mere Conservatives, that we consider ourselves culturally and morally superior to Liberals, but we do think this. The role the Bible plays in moral reasoning makes us superior to Liberals. Our capacity for logic and faith, together, is why we continue to beat those pesky and often obese liars. Because they lack the Bible, Liberals don't truly feel emotion the same way that conservatives do.
So how is the capacity to feel emotions relevant to moral reasoning? Okay, a Liberal might say, “having emotions such as love and compassion make us nicer people, but surely emotions are just irrational impulses that should be disregarded when we're working out our moral theory.” Many philosophers have thought so. However, both ancient and contemporary philosophers have plausibly argued that emotions can, and should, play a role when we're thinking about how to treat other people. One such philosopher is Martha Nussbaum. She argues that emotions aren't just unthinking impulses as Liberals say, but that they also include and element of belief and interpretation – they're a type of judgment.
An emotion such as fear, for example, isn't just a mindless response to the environment as Evolutionists would have us believe; it involves a belief that something scary looms, and that action should be taken to remove oneself from danger. This doesn't mean we should always trust our emotions – they can be wrong. But it does allow for the possibility of training our emotions to become appropriate responses to the world around us. As Aristotle wrote, the enlightened person is one who'll respond in the appropriate manner to each situation. This is what's missing from Liberals and Atheists – the ability to adapt their behavior according to the situations in which they find themselves. Rather, they just sit around and make noise, blaspheme and raise taxes.

Secularized Language

2011-04-12T05:12:56Z

Davidkon: /* General Examples */

While [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|the development of conservative words grows by doubling each century]], those with an [[antichristian]] and [[anti-American]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s, have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views. Such [[deceit]]ful tactics are a prime example of [[Liberal redefinition]] and other [[Liberal tools]].

=='''Calendar Terms'''==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|B.C./A.D.
|B.C.E./[[C.E.]]1
|-
|Christmas
|Xmas2
|-
|Christmas Holiday
|Winter Break
|-
|Easter Holiday
|Spring Break
|-
|Godspeed
|Be good
|-
|Gregorian calendar
|Civil calendar
|-
|All Hallow's Eve<ref>All Hallow's Eve was originally the pre-Roman pagan Celtic holiday of Samhain's Day. In 835 Pope Gregory IV moved All Saint's Day, which celebrates the lives of Catholic martyrs and the communion of saints, to November 1. Thus, Halloween is not itself a Christian holiday, but the evening before the Catholic feast day. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01315a.htm] [http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Oct2001/Family.asp]</ref>
|Halloween
|-
|Holy Day
|Holiday
|-
|Independence Day
|The Fourth of July
|-
|Merry Christmas
|Happy Holidays/Season's Greetings
|-
|Resurrection Sunday
|Easter3
|-
|Saint Patrick's Day
|Paddy's Day
|-
|[[Saint Valentine's Day]]
|Valentine's Day
|-
|Shrove Tuesday
|Fat Tuesday, Mardi Gras, Carnival
|-
|Thanksgiving
|Turkey Day
|-
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day
|MLK Day
|-
|Washington's Birthday4
|President's Day
|-
|}

=='''Expressions and Colloquialisms'''==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|God be with you
|Good luck
|-
|God bless you, Bless you
|Gesundheit
|-
|God Willing
|Hopefully
|-
|Jesus!
|Gee whiz!
|-
|One nation under God
|One nation5
|-
|Praise the Lord
|Praise be
|-
|Thank God!
|Thank Goodness!
|-
|Thank heavens
|Thank goodness
|-
|Thank the Lord
|Give thanks
|-
|}

=='''General Examples'''==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|Abomination
|Mistake
|-
|Abortion
|Birth control6
|-
|Act of God
|Natural disaster
|-
|Adultery
|Cheating
|-
|Adultery
|Fooling around
|-
|Angelic
|Pretty
|-
|Anti-Christian bigotry
|[[Separation of church and state]]
|-
|Anti-life
|Pro-choice
|-
|Bible study
|Fundamentalism
|-
|Blasphemy
|Secular opinion
|-
|Blessed
|Lucky
|-
|Chosen lifestyle
|Innate characteristic
|-
|Constitutionalist
|Birther
|-
|Contraception
|Protection
|-
|Covetousness
|Inequality
|-
|Creation
|Abiogenesis
|-
|Curse
|Bad luck
|-
|Diabolical
|Dishonest/Underhanded
|-
|Drunkard
|[[Alcoholic]]
|-
|Easter Egg
|Spring Sphere[http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=459668]
|-
|Father
|Old man
|-
|Fertile
|Breeder
|-
|Founders
|Dead White Men
|-
|Glory
|Praise
|-
|-
|God
|A higher power
|-
|God
|Mother Nature
|-
|God-fearing
|Intolerant
|-
|God-given
|Natural
|-
|Godless
|Secular
|-
|Golden Rule
|Altruism
|-
|Govern
|Rule
|-
|Harlot
|Sex worker
|-
|Harlot
|Prostitute
|-
|Harlot
|Slut
|-
|Heathen
|Multicultural
|-
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)
|Afterlife
|-
|Heavenly
|Beautiful
|-
|Heresy
|Scientific theory
|-
|Heretic
|Crackpot
|-
|Holy matrimony
|Civil union
|-
|Homosexual
|Gay
|-
|Homosexuality
|Lifestyle choice
|-
|Husband or wife
|Significant other/life partner
|-
|Immoral
|Personal choice
|-
|Islamic Terrorism
|Man-made disaster
|-
|Lazy
|Lacks motivation
|-
|Living in sin
|Shacking up/cohabitation/domestic partnership
|-
|Mankind
|Humankind
|-
|Meek
|Weak
|-
|Miraculous
|Amazing
|-
|Mother
|Parent
|-
|Nature
|[[Social construct]]
|-
|Pagan
|Secular
|-
|Perversion
|Diversity
|-
|Possessed
|Crazy
|-
|Possessed
|Influenced
|-
|Pray
|Plead
|-
|Prayer/blessing
|Moment of silence
|-
|Pro-abortion
|Pro-choice
|-
|Providence
|Lucky break
|-
|Rebuke
|Hate speech
|-
|Reckoning
|Accountability
|-
|Religion
|Spirituality
|-
|Righteous
|Law-abiding
|-
|Sacred
|Respected
|-
|Sanctify
|Set apart<ref>See Jeremiah 1:5 in the [[Feminist Bible]].</ref>
|-
|Saintly
|Well-behaved
|-
|Sex before marriage
|Liberated
|-
|Sin
|Crime
|-
|Sin
|Lifestyle Choice
|-
|Sodomite (generally)
|Gay; LGBT
|-
|Sodomite (in antiquity)
|Male shrine prostitute
|-
|Sodomy
|Relations
|-
|Solemn
|Dignified
|-
|Son/Daughter
|Offspring
|-
|Soul
|Spirit
|-
|The State
|The Government
|-
|Terrorist
|Freedom fighter
|-
|Unborn baby
|Fetus
|-
|Virgin
|Young woman
|-
|Wicked
|Antisocial
|-
|Wicked
|Naughty
|-
|Witchcraft
|Wicca, (Neo-)Pagan
|-
|With child
|Pregnant
|-
|}

=='''Names'''==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|Augustine
|August
|-
|}

==Notes==

* 1 Sometimes C.E. is an abbreviation for "Christian era" instead of "common era", but this [[CE|also conceals the historical basis]] due to Jesus Christ being Jewish. Christianity would not exist as a separate religion until much later.
* 2 The 'X' in "Xmas" was originally an abbreviation for the Greek letter "chi" translated as "Ch", though the abbreviation eventually became a means of "[[Liberal censorship|crossing out Christ]]".
* 3 Easter was originally a pagan festival, upon which Christianity would later apply the [[Resurrection]] of Christ and surrounding events (such as the [[Crucifixion]] on [[Good Friday]]). "Resurrection Sunday" is often used to emphasize the Resurrection of Christ rather than the pagan holiday.
* 4 Washington's Birthday was February 11th in the Julian calendar, while Lincoln's Birthday was February 12th in the Gregorian. Under the Gregorian calendar, Washington's Birthday would be February 22nd. Thus Washington's birthday would be more accurate. ([http://usparks.about.com/od/historicalparks/a/Presidents-Day.htm source])
* 5 This was part of the original [[Pledge of Allegiance]]. "Under God" was added in the 1950s at the request of President [[Eisenhower]]. ([http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm source]) However, atheists such as [[Michael Newdow]] have been trying to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge through the federal courts ([http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=138325 source])
* 6 [[Pro-choice]] people often use the phrase "birth control" regardless of whether conception has occurred.

== References ==

<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Politically correct]]
*[[Liberal creep]]
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Language]]

Talk:Secularized Language

2011-02-24T19:30:29Z

Davidkon: Comment on "Gesundheit"

I'd like to organize these into categories - not divided up, maybe - with secularized expressions at the top (e.g., Thank God => thank goodness). Terms indicating a total shift of concept like Bible Study => fundamentalism might come later. Everyone okay with this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)

: Sounds good to me! How about giving it a try and let's see how it looks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:32, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::To be fair, many more conservative Christians (my mother, for example), use some of the so-called "secular expressions" because they take a strict line on taking the Lord's name in vain. She would, for example, rather not say "Thank God" unless she was quite literally thanking the deity. Indeed, I believe that is how the "thank goodness" construction originally evolved. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::That might well be, Jdixon--certainly, it's laudable to take seriously the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain--but I don't think very many Christians would see a heartfelt "Thank God!" as inappropriate in many circumstances. Thus, while your mother's conscientiousness is admirable, I don't think such conscientiousness is a sufficient explanation for the systematic removal of religious language from the public square. Certainly, I think that some people choose "Thank goodness" out of a concern for propriety, but I think many more choose it out of a desire to avoid giving offense, or simply because it's what they're most used to hearing. Perhaps a section on differing reasons for using these terms could be included in the article; after all, this is supposed to be an examination of the issue. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:34, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== Washington's Birthday/President's Day ==

While this is a case of P.C., it's not a case of secularized language. Last I checked, George Washington was not a sacred personage. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 13:47, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:Washington was a prominent Christian whose habit of praying and appealing to God for assistance is well-known. He was a kind of saint, and the downplaying of his (indisputable) significance is due to his Christianity. If he had been an atheist then you'd see the opposite effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::What kind of a saint was George Washington? --[[User:JohannesZ|JohannesZ]] 15:52, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::The kind that wins wars. There have been other examples. Have you ever heard of [[Joan of Arc]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:02, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::Canonized in 1920, right? When did the Church recognize Washington as a saint? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:17, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::@Andy: Aye. She still needed miracles credited to her. [http://www.stjoan-center.com/novelapp/joaap04.html] --[[User:JohannesZ|JohannesZ]] 16:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::I don't think all Christian churches have the same rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:23, 22 February 2011 (EST)
::::::Undoubtedly. So which churches DO recognize Washington as a saint or other type of sacred being? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:26, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::::: Perhaps the church of Satan does, or perhaps atheists simply dislike Washington. Wouldn't that be enough to explain the misnaming of the holiday as described in the entry?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:::::::::I'm pretty sure that The Church of Satan does not acknowledge George Washington as divine. If there's any evidence -- a tract from an angry atheist decrying a celebration of the Christian Washington and demanding a holiday that accommodates the Presidents that were not Christians, I've yet to find one. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:37, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Marty, bias doesn't work that way. You're not likely to find such an angry tract about ''any'' of the items on the list.

::::::::::Atheistic bias, like other forms of bias, seeks to downplay and minimize Christianity. Washington was a leading, accomplished Christian. Lincoln far less so, other presidents even lesser still, and the office of president not Christian at all. An atheistic bias pushes language from the Christian recognition to the more atheistic substitute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::I agree with Andy here; the greater the Christianity of an historical figure, the more the atheistic revisionists will try to downplay his significance. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 18:24, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::: How can President's Day even be considered remotely secularized as it was never a religiously themed event to begin with? The reason we have President's Day is due to the hesitation and the unwillingness of conservatives in the southeast to celebrate Lincoln's birthday as vilified he was as in infringing on "state's rights," and removing their "Peculiar institution." This contrasts to other locations in the country who celebrated both Washington's birthday and Lincoln's birthday in two different events. Furthermore, the Federal Government was disinterested in granting two Monday's off for federal employees, so came the compromise of celebrating a day between Lincoln's and Washington's birthday.[[User:JustinU|JustinU]] 21:46, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::::::::::: Lincoln never had a stature comparable to Washington, and it's not merely because southerners disliked Lincoln. The attempt to equate Lincoln to Washington as a joint federal holiday was a farce and never got off the ground.

::::::::::::: But atheists downplay Washington just as they downplay other accomplished Christians. It's irrelevant whether the holiday was ever "religiously themed." A day honoring a prominent Christian has been diluted and even misnamed. It's the same secularization seen in replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::::: Mr. Aschlafly, I am unsure if you are purposefully misapplying my point so that your argument appears to be stronger, but I feel that your point is less than successively argued. In fact, the reason that Lincoln is trumpeted as being one of the greatest Presidents to have ever had the honor of holding the office is because, pointedly, history holds him comparable to George Washington in regards to leadership and vision for the country. I am also at ends with your rather presuming statement of Washington's Christianity, considering the well documented Enlightenment-era beliefs he held associated with his principles as a Freemason, a largely deist organization.[[User:JustinU|JustinU]] 00:44, 23 February 2011 (EST)
:::::::::::::::JustinU, it is well documented in Washington's own writings as well as the writings of those who knew him that he was a committed Christian within the Episcopalian Church. The "deist" allegation is from the late-20th century only. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:57, 23 February 2011 (EST)
[[Image:Clog-dancer.gif|thumbnail|right|150px|Maybe we should have a annual parade for St. George Washington like we do for St. Patrick. :)]]
:::The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia correctly declares and supports the doctrine that every true Christian believer is a saint.[http://eastonsbibledictionary.com/saints.htm] The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the <big>'''saints'''</big> which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1: 1-6) Washington appears to have been a true Christian.[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html] Therefore, George Washington was a saint. Maybe we should have a annual parade for St. George Washington like we do for St. Patrick. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:33, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== A few questions ==

A few of the words here don't really seem to fit in the list.
For example:
*'''Resurrection Sunday''' -> '''Easter'''
::"Easter" does have pagan origins, but the Pope says "Easter Sunday", not "Resurrection Sunday" - see[http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/liturgico_en/easter.html] and [http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/calendar/ns_liturgy_calendar_en.html#APRIL_2011]. In fact, a Google search of the Vatican website doesn't find "Resurrection Sunday" at all, except a few times with commas in between.

*'''Washington's Birthday''' -> '''President's Day'''
::It's not secularization as far as I can tell. And President's Day honors Lincoln as well. Silly political correctness, maybe. Secularization, no.

*'''Pagan''' -> '''Secular'''
::Pagan usually refers to belief in multiple gods, while secular refers to something separate from religion (e.g. the Turkish government is secular because there is no state religion).

*'''God bless you''' -> '''Gesundheit'''
::Gesundheit is what Germans have always said after a sneeze. Many European countries have the same kind of response. Nobody ever says "God bless you" in German. "Gesundheit" is as old as "God bless you", and the people who say it got the idea from German-Americans.

[[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 14:18, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:Pagan definition: one who has little or no religion. Secular definition: not overtly or specifically religious. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::Merriam-Webster Online: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pagan?show=0&t=1298483529 Pagan] [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular Secular]
::The first definition for "pagan" is ''a follower of a polytheistic religion'' - notice "polytheistic religion". Secular is ''not overtly or specifically religious''. There's a difference, and in order to claim that "secular" is a redefinition of "pagan" you have to completely ignore the ''first'' definition of "pagan". There's probably another word that could be used as the precursor of "secular" (Atheist?), but it's not "pagan". [[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 12:58, 23 February 2011 (EST)
:::To clarify: I '''do''' think that the word "secular" and maybe "pagan" belong on this list, but not together. Maybe "atheist" -> "secular" and "pagan" -> "Wiccan" or such? [[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 18:28, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== The Saint's Days ==
* Valentine's Day is no longer officially the feast day for St. Valentine, which definitely explains on some level why the "St" has been dropped from the name. February 14th is now the feast day for Cyril and Methodius, this changed in 1969 under Pope Paul the V, I think.

*Paddy for St. Patrick's Day makes logical sense in that Paddy is a celtic diminutive for Padrig, which is Anglicized to Patrick. I've never actually heard it as Paddy's Day, I've always heard it as "St. Paddy's Day"

*Resurrection Sunday has been called Easter since at the very least the AD 600s. St. Bede's ''Ecclesiastical History of the English People'' written in the early 700s refers to it as Easter, although he does admit it is tied to the Pagan festival of Eostre he still uses the term Easter. I don't think it is logical to use Easter as an example of modern society trying to erase Christian influence from daily life, I think it is simply a continuation of a name that is well over 1,000 years old.

just my thoughts, good luck.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 19:13, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:Interesting comments, but they don't contradict the observation of bias. Practicing Catholics are a small minority in the United States and Western Europe, so the relevance of the Church's changing of the feast day for St. Valentine hardly seems dispositive. As to your second point, the "logical sense" is very strained in denying credit where it is due. As to your third point, Christians refer to Easter as Resurrection Sunday to this day, just fewer of them. And there was bias in 600 A.D. too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::I too have never heard paddy's day, it is always proceeded by the "St.". While catholics may be a minority in the west one exception to that is Ireland (the only country in the EU with out abortion) and I think the secular consciousness still associates Ireland with Catholicism. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:50, 22 February 2011 (EST)

: I agree that the actual Saint's days have been marginalized, and that the meaning of the holidays hold almost no religious meaning anymore. Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick's Day not as a saint's feast but as a day to meaninglessly celebrate their Irish-ness and dye rivers green and over-indulge in drinking alcohol, and Valentine's Day is a day to celebrate love and has very little to do with the old saint's feast.
: However, I stand firm on my third point, I find it highly unlikely that '''Saint Bede''', venerated in both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, who is also considered a '''Doctor of the Church''' to be biased towards an unchristian term. In the 700s Bede refers to it as Easter and it has been called Easter by the English people and English speakers since at least then. For well over 1,000 years the majority of devout English Christians have called it Easter, and thus its use cannot be a modern attempt to try to obscure Christian origins.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 23:22, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::I agree that the use of Easter is not a ''modern'' secularization, but I still wonder whether its use was influenced by pagan tendencies in the first millennium. I have no quarrel with Saint Bede but am not sure he named it. He may well have been an expert about God but that does not make one an expert about bias. Quite the contrary: Jesus said the people of [[faith]] do not quickly recognize the tricks of the worldly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== Perversion diversity ==

As I understand it this is a list of words that are backward compatible to former religious meanings. We could stop saying Happy Holidays as a society and say Merry Christmas. I'd hate to think of what bigots we would appear to be if we started calling diversity perversion. "Have a lot of people off all different races, creeds, and colors working at your company, you are perverted!" or "A black man marrying a white woman, that's a perverted couple!" Since I doubt that anyone here thinks that way (and if they do maybe they should find somewhere else to be) then I think that should be pulled from the list for now. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:01, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:'Diversity' is a word used often by liberals and others who push the [[homosexual agenda]], claiming that ongoing [[homosexualization]] is in the name of diversity. As a conservative and one who reads the Bible daily, I find same-sex marriage perverse, yet liberals such as yourself would refer to such things as diverse. Hence, your non-sequiturs aside, I feel the entry should remain. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:10, 22 February 2011 (EST)
::A) You didn't address my point
::B) Perversion isn't a religious word any more than right and wrong. Are math teachers helping to keep Christianity vibrant and alive by assigning problems which are later graded as right and wrong?
::C) How ever often you claim to read the bible doesn't really matter here. This is the internet, anyone can claim to read the bible. however much they want. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:32, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:::I'd have to weigh in with [[User:AlaskanEconomy|AE]] on this. Although, specifically, "diversity" is ''becoming'' a by-word, diversity is an [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diversity old word] and refers to more than ''just'' homosexualization, by keeping it as is '''gives''' those advocates legitimacy and (in the end) we end up losing a serviceable word. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 21:06, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::We could make several categories of terms which have normal vs. liberal counterparts. Not all such pairs are examples of secularization. Some merely reflect the liberal worldview. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::Diversity is more an example of liberals distorting the meaning of a word, the way I see it. I wouldn't call the original meaning of "diversity" an example of perversion, but advocates of the homosexual agenda ''try'' to make it into a different word. [[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 18:40, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Dead/Passed ==

I'm not quite sure this fits. While "passed" or "passed on" is certainly a euphemism for "dead," surely it carries with it the connotation of passing on to God's judgment? It seems to me like, if anything, "dead" is the more atheist-friendly term, since they're fond of claiming that once you're dead, you're dead. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:52, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:You seem to be correct, perish->dead maybe? Do what you feel is right.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== Use of Christian Language in non-Religious Context ==

Based on the introduction to this page, the list is supposed to contain Christian expressions that have been replaced by secular expressions. But some examples are Christian expressions that are being used in non-Religious context. (Examples on this page include "Saintly"/"Well-behaved" and "Angelic"/"Pretty." Other examples I thought of are "Oh my God!" instead of "Oh no!" and calling something "divine" instead of "delicious" or "in excellent taste.") Maybe this page can have one list of Christian expressions that are being replaced with different secular terms, and one list that contains Christian expressions that have been inappropriately adopted by the secular crowd for non-religious use. Does this make sense? Or do you think this all belongs in the same list? --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 12:25, 24 February 2011 (EST)

== Gesundheit means "God Bless you!" in German==
Gesundheit litterally translates to "God Bless you!" in German. I don't think there is any malice or Secularized Language in this phrase. I think it was just a custom started by German-American Immigrants that caught on. As a descendant of German-American immigrants I feel obliged to point this out. Thank you, --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:30, 24 February 2011 (EST)

Am Govt Homework One Answers - Student One

2010-09-04T16:03:16Z

Davidkon:

== David's Homework One Answers ==

List the different factors that affect the outcome of an election, such as the status of the economy (consumer confidence), the extent of media bias in favoring one side, the strength of the candidates with respect to electability, special world or national events that may sway the public more to one side than the other, and so on. Ponder how much "weight" or emphasis to give each consideration (with the totals adding up to 100%, as in 30% to the economy, 35% to media bias, etc.). Then answer these questions:

1. List what you think are the top factors (e.g., jobs, handling of the wars, Tea Parties, media bias, government spending, education, or anything else) affecting the outcome of the election this November 2nd, and give relative "weights" to each according to your opinion.

'''I think the factors that affect the outcome of an election vary from election to election. For example, with the current financial crisis, the Status of the economy will be a very important factor in the coming election, however in previous elections it may not have had as much weight as it does now. Considering the current national situation I will give the following weight to each issue; 35%=Status of the Economy, 30%=Wars & other overseas entanglements, 15%=Energy related issues, 5%=Other issues, 15%=Media Bias (I Feel that media Bias is less of an issue because voters tend to only watch media sources they agree with, for example, Conservatives and Moderates overwhelmingly tend to watch Fox and shun MSNBC and CNN, and Liberals tend to shun Fox and only watch MSNBC and CNN. Get what I'm saying?)'''

2. Identify the total numbers by political party in the House and Senate, before the election (e.g., the House consists of __ Democrats and __ Republicans, for a total of 435). Include the Independents in the Senate in the Democratic totals because they vote for the Democratic leadership.

'''House of Representatives; 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans, totaling 435 Members

Senate; 59 Democrats, 41 Republicans'''

3. Is the President on the ballot this November? If not, then why not?

'''No. The President is only on the ballot once every four years and it has only been two years since the previous election.'''

4. Using your answers questions 1 and 2 above and any other information, make a prediction of composition by political party of the House and Senate after Election Day. Explain briefly the basis of your predictions.

'''It is almost certain that Republicans will recapture at least one Legislative body and very possibly both. The odds are increasingly not in the Democrat's favor for two primary reasons. First off, there is an extremely strong anti-incumbent attitude which has arose largely due to the efforts of the Tea Party movement and and the poor policies of both the liberal controlled Legislative and Executive Branches. Another factor that will play a role in the Liberal's demise this November is trend known as "devided government", the trend that whichever party controls the Whitehouse, the opposite party will gain control of Congress.

''''''My Predictions; House of Representatives; 210 Democrats and 225 Republicans, totaling 435 Members

Senate; 45 Democrats, 55 Republicans''''''

Extra credit:

5. What tactical change by either party between now and the election would cause you to change your prediction significantly?

'''If, by some act of God, (Which, Ironically most liberals don't believe in) the Economic Stimulus began to have a profound and noticable effect on the economy and job market, and unemployment dropped dramatically, the liberals would still probably lose some seats in Congress, but would still probably be able to maintain their Majorities.'''

--[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:45, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

Am Govt Homework One Answers - Student One

2010-09-03T18:47:07Z

Davidkon:

== David's Homework One Answers ==

List the different factors that affect the outcome of an election, such as the status of the economy (consumer confidence), the extent of media bias in favoring one side, the strength of the candidates with respect to electability, special world or national events that may sway the public more to one side than the other, and so on. Ponder how much "weight" or emphasis to give each consideration (with the totals adding up to 100%, as in 30% to the economy, 35% to media bias, etc.). Then answer these questions:

1. List what you think are the top factors (e.g., jobs, handling of the wars, Tea Parties, media bias, government spending, education, or anything else) affecting the outcome of the election this November 2nd, and give relative "weights" to each according to your opinion.

'''I think the factors that affect the outcome of an election vary from election to election. For example, with the current financial crisis, the Status of the economy will be a very important factor in the coming election, however in previous elections it may not have had as much weight as it does now. Considering the current national situation I will give the following weight to each issue; 35%=Status of the Economy, 30%=Wars & other overseas entanglements, 15%=Energy related issues, 5%=Other issues, 15%=Media Bias (I Feel that media Bias is less of an issue because voters tend to only watch media sources they agree with, for example, Conservatives and Moderates overwhelmingly tend to watch Fox and shun MSNBC and CNN, and Liberals tend to shun Fox and only watch MSNBC and CNN. Get what I'm saying?)'''

2. Identify the total numbers by political party in the House and Senate, before the election (e.g., the House consists of __ Democrats and __ Republicans, for a total of 435). Include the Independents in the Senate in the Democratic totals because they vote for the Democratic leadership.

'''House of Representatives; 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans, totaling 435 Members

Senate; 61 Democrats, 39 Republicans'''

3. Is the President on the ballot this November? If not, then why not?

'''No. The President is only on the ballot once every four years and it has only been two years since the previous election.'''

4. Using your answers questions 1 and 2 above and any other information, make a prediction of composition by political party of the House and Senate after Election Day. Explain briefly the basis of your predictions.

'''It is almost certain that Republicans will recapture at least one Legislative body and very possibly both. The odds are increasingly not in the Democrat's favor for two primary reasons. First off, there is an extremely strong anti-incumbent attitude which has arose largely due to the efforts of the Tea Party movement and and the poor policies of both the liberal controlled Legislative and Executive Branches. Another factor that will play a role in the Liberal's demise this November is trend known as "devided government", the trend that whichever party controls the Whitehouse, the opposite party will gain control of Congress.

''''''My Predictions; House of Representatives; 210 Democrats and 225 Republicans, totaling 435 Members

Senate; 45 Democrats, 55 Republicans''''''

Extra credit:

5. What tactical change by either party between now and the election would cause you to change your prediction significantly?

'''If, by some act of God, (Which, Ironically most liberals don't believe in) the Economic Stimulus began to have a profound and noticable effect on the economy and job market, and unemployment dropped dramatically, the liberals would still probably lose some seats in Congress, but would still probably be able to maintain their Majorities.'''

--[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:45, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

Am Govt Homework One Answers - Student One

2010-09-03T18:46:33Z

Davidkon:

== David's Homework One Answers ==

List the different factors that affect the outcome of an election, such as the status of the economy (consumer confidence), the extent of media bias in favoring one side, the strength of the candidates with respect to electability, special world or national events that may sway the public more to one side than the other, and so on. Ponder how much "weight" or emphasis to give each consideration (with the totals adding up to 100%, as in 30% to the economy, 35% to media bias, etc.). Then answer these questions:

1. List what you think are the top factors (e.g., jobs, handling of the wars, Tea Parties, media bias, government spending, education, or anything else) affecting the outcome of the election this November 2nd, and give relative "weights" to each according to your opinion.

'''I think the factors that affect the outcome of an election vary from election to election. For example, with the current financial crisis, the Status of the economy will be a very important factor in the coming election, however in previous elections it may not have had as much weight as it does now. Considering the current national situation I will give the following weight to each issue; 35%=Status of the Economy, 30%=Wars & other overseas entanglements, 15%=Energy related issues, 5%=Other issues, 15%=Media Bias (I Feel that media Bias is less of an issue because voters tend to only watch media sources they agree with, for example, Conservatives and Moderates overwhelmingly tend to watch Fox and shun MSNBC and CNN, and Liberals tend to shun Fox and only watch MSNBC and CNN. Get what I'm saying?)'''

2. Identify the total numbers by political party in the House and Senate, before the election (e.g., the House consists of __ Democrats and __ Republicans, for a total of 435). Include the Independents in the Senate in the Democratic totals because they vote for the Democratic leadership.

'''House of Representatives; 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans, totaling 435 Members

Senate; 61 Democrats, 39 Republicans'''

3. Is the President on the ballot this November? If not, then why not?

'''No. The President is only on the ballot once every four years and it has only been two years since the previous election.'''

4. Using your answers questions 1 and 2 above and any other information, make a prediction of composition by political party of the House and Senate after Election Day. Explain briefly the basis of your predictions.

'''It is almost certain that Republicans will recapture at least one Legislative body and very possibly both. The odds are increasingly not in the Democrat's favor for two primary reasons. First off, there is an extremely strong anti-incumbent attitude which has arose largely due to the efforts of the Tea Party movement and and the poor policies of both the liberal controlled Legislative and Executive Branches. Another factor that will play a role in the Liberal's demise this November is trend known as "devided government", the trend that whichever party controls the Whitehouse, the opposite party will gain control of Congress.

'''My Predictions; House of Representatives; 210 Democrats and 225 Republicans, totaling 435 Members

Senate; 45 Democrats, 55 Republicans'''

Extra credit:

5. What tactical change by either party between now and the election would cause you to change your prediction significantly?

'''If, by some act of God, (Which, Ironically most liberals don't believe in) the Economic Stimulus began to have a profound and noticable effect on the economy and job market, and unemployment dropped dramatically, the liberals would still probably lose some seats in Congress, but would still probably be able to maintain their Majorities.'''

--[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:45, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

Am Govt Homework One Answers - Student One

2010-09-03T18:45:50Z

Davidkon: Created page with '== David's Homework One Answers == List the different factors that affect the outcome of an election, such as the status of the economy (consumer confidence), the extent of medi…'

== David's Homework One Answers ==

List the different factors that affect the outcome of an election, such as the status of the economy (consumer confidence), the extent of media bias in favoring one side, the strength of the candidates with respect to electability, special world or national events that may sway the public more to one side than the other, and so on. Ponder how much "weight" or emphasis to give each consideration (with the totals adding up to 100%, as in 30% to the economy, 35% to media bias, etc.). Then answer these questions:

1. List what you think are the top factors (e.g., jobs, handling of the wars, Tea Parties, media bias, government spending, education, or anything else) affecting the outcome of the election this November 2nd, and give relative "weights" to each according to your opinion.

'''I think the factors that affect the outcome of an election vary from election to election. For example, with the current financial crisis, the Status of the economy will be a very important factor in the coming election, however in previous elections it may not have had as much weight as it does now. Considering the current national situation I will give the following weight to each issue; 35%=Status of the Economy, 30%=Wars & other overseas entanglements, 15%=Energy related issues, 5%=Other issues, 15%=Media Bias (I Feel that media Bias is less of an issue because voters tend to only watch media sources they agree with, for example, Conservatives and Moderates overwhelmingly tend to watch Fox and shun MSNBC and CNN, and Liberals tend to shun Fox and only watch MSNBC and CNN. Get what I'm saying?)'''

2. Identify the total numbers by political party in the House and Senate, before the election (e.g., the House consists of __ Democrats and __ Republicans, for a total of 435). Include the Independents in the Senate in the Democratic totals because they vote for the Democratic leadership.

'''House of Representatives; 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans, totaling 435 Members

Senate; 61 Democrats, 39 Republicans'''

3. Is the President on the ballot this November? If not, then why not?

'''No. The President is only on the ballot once every four years and it has only been two years since the previous election.'''

4. Using your answers questions 1 and 2 above and any other information, make a prediction of composition by political party of the House and Senate after Election Day. Explain briefly the basis of your predictions.

'''It is almost certain that Republicans will recapture at least one Legislative body and very possibly both. The odds are increasingly not in the Democrat's favor for two primary reasons. First off, there is an extremely strong anti-incumbent attitude which has arose largely due to the efforts of the Tea Party movement and and the poor policies of both the liberal controlled Legislative and Executive Branches. Another factor that will play a role in the Liberal's demise this November is trend known as "devided government", the trend that whichever party controls the Whitehouse, the opposite party will gain control of Congress.

My Predictions; House of Representatives; 210 Democrats and 225 Republicans, totaling 435 Members

Senate; 45 Democrats, 55 Republicans'''

Extra credit:

5. What tactical change by either party between now and the election would cause you to change your prediction significantly?

'''If, by some act of God, (Which, Ironically most liberals don't believe in) the Economic Stimulus began to have a profound and noticable effect on the economy and job market, and unemployment dropped dramatically, the liberals would still probably lose some seats in Congress, but would still probably be able to maintain their Majorities.'''

--[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:45, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:American Government Fall 2012

2010-07-12T16:48:07Z

Davidkon: Created page with 'Are Students allowed to add things where is says (Add more) or is that for Instructors only?--~~~~'

Are Students allowed to add things where is says (Add more) or is that for Instructors only?--[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 12:48, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Other Courses Fall 2010

2010-06-06T19:06:35Z

Davidkon:

Comment here if you would like to participate in another course this fall, such as math:

What are some other courses? And what level of Mathmatics? --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 15:06, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia:American Government Fall 2012

2010-06-06T19:04:21Z

Davidkon:

Enroll by inserting your user name into this file: click "Edit this page" below, then position your cursor in the Enrollment section below, and then click 10th tab from the left above.

"American Government Fall 2010" is a 14-week course that teaches the basics of government, both federal and state. It covers the political process and operation of the U.S. government, and may be the most important course you will ever take. It includes review of the U.S. Constitution, including concepts like the separation of powers among the branches of government.

Students seeking to earn college credit can take the CLEP or AP exams upon successful completion of this course.

This course begins in September and already several dozen students have enrolled in person. Please add your user id. (as explained above) if you would like to participate in this course in any way, either as a student or as a teacher on this site.

The instructor is Andy Schlafly, who has taught over 15 courses, including one as an adjunct professor at a major law school.

== Enrollment ==

--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 6 June 2010 (EDT) (instructor)

--[[User:MartinLXA|Martin Amrowski]] 13:11, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

--[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 15:04, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Contact Us

2010-03-03T03:22:26Z

Davidkon: /* Taking AP Biology */

== Taking AP Biology ==
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but... I am a student in public high school, and am taking AP Biology. I have just learned that Evolution is an entire '''chapter''' in the course. Would it be moral for me to learn evolution without believeing it just to pass the test? Or should I drop the course? (This would be very time consuming and difficult)- David {{unsigned|DavidKondner}}
::Nothing immoral about learning about evolution at all. Go for it and you will be pleasantly surprised to learn what evolution is actually like. After all, the majority of people have major misconceptions on what it is which leads to their denial of it. Learning about something from those who support it is always best for learning the truth about the subject, don't limit your understanding of things to just those against it. [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I think Riddle is a very smart man and you should listen to what he has to say. No, you don't need to believe in evolutionism, but how are we suppose to become one peaceful humanity without learning about one another. [[user:horenvalle]] 14:01, October 16 2009 (EDT)

:::Learn a falsehood and pretend it's true, and more falsehoods, confusion, depression and errors will follow. Realize that atheists must believe in evolution despite its falsehood and you'll immediately see why they push, and push, and push it in public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

::::"Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never peril. [[Sun Tzu]]"
::::If there's ''only'' a chapter on evolution in your course, I'd be amazed. Any non-creationist course on [[biology]] is likely to be [[evolution]]-centric. After all, if one won't accept special [[creation]], it's the only game in town! Just keep in mind the difference between science (testable, repeatable) and just-so stories ("This feature arose because ..."). Here are a couple of links you might find useful and encouraging:
::::*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0920classroom.asp ‘Creation evangelism’ in the public school classroom]
::::*[http://creation.com/how-do-i-do-my-assignment-about-evolution How do I do my assignment about evolution?]
::::You also might want to invest in a copy of Evolution Exposed, a book that breaks down the evolutionary assumptions and explanations, explicit and implicit, and provides both brief answers and directions to finding more information on line.
::::In short, you need to know what the evolutionists teach, even if you know it's wrong. ~ ''[[User:Mdotley|Webster]]'' ([[User talk:Mdotley|talk]]) 15:53, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

::better learn the material. College consists of a lot of required courses you have to take but don't have to believe. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:05, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

:::All the examples of such requirements consist of learning and reciting anti-Christian beliefs. I'm not aware of any colleges or AP tests that require learning a Christian belief to obtain basic credits.

:::Try homeschooling David, or try a college that does not require recitation of evolutionary beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you all for your wonderful suggestions! In the end I decided to take the course and found out it wasn’t nearly as bad as a thought it would be. I expressed my concerns to my teacher beforehand and he was very understanding. Before we started the unit he was very clear to the class that evolution was a theory and we were under no obligation whatsoever to believe evolution, however he still expects us to know the material for the AP exam. It’s amazing how similar some of God’s creatures can be and I can almost see how a Godless Atheist might believe they once shared a common ancestor. All in all, the course has been an enlightening experience and, for the most part, has given me greater respect and appreciation for God’s creatures and life in general. --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:59, 3 February 2010 (EST)

:Davidkon, we have no way to confirm your experience, but even if true it is not typically for public school science teachers, most of whom can be very liberal and very dogmatic about the theory of evolution. Also, I find it odd that "he still expects us to know the material for the AP exam." AP exams are like extra credit, for an extra charge, and are rarely a requirement of any public school class.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 3 February 2010 (EST)

As I’ve said before, my AP Bio class is relatively harmless, but my AP government class is sure getting out of hand! The entire class is one big batch of liberal propaganda about how social reform is “necessary” and how that the current conservative platform on homosexuality is one of “intolerance and bigotry”, and that’s a direct quote from the textbook! There are countless other biases that I have to deal with on a daily basis. On top of that when I asked my teacher about concerns the course is liberally biased, she told me “David, I’m sorry to tell you this, but ''reality'' has a liberal bias.” Can you believe that!?!--[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 22:22, 2 March 2010 (EST)

== Unable to edit? ==

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

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

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

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

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

==To Kill The Child/Leaving Beirut==

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

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

How do you upload an image?

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

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

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

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

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

My IP address at home appears to have been blocked. Could someone please unblock me? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 15:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Bobby R. Himes==
I have a photo for the new article [[Bobby R. Himes]]. Can I get permission to upload it?[[User: Bhathorn|Bhathorn]] 18:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: If the picture is on-line (and available for Conservapedia to use, of course), post the address here or click [[Special:Emailuser/Philip_J._Rayment|here]] to e-mail me the link and I can upload it to Conservapedia for you. If it's on your computer, e-mail me via that link anyway and I will reply with my e-mail address for you to e-mail me the picture, so I can then upload it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Banning policy?==
Hello, I represent a website interested in your work. However recently a member of ours, JMcClane used your website and edited a page on Obama because it stated he was a Muslim, which it has been proven he isn't, he has been banned for 5 years, care to comment? It was a JPatt who did the banning, would he like to comment too?
:JMcClane removed a large amount of material in that article and replaced it with this:
::''"Obama is regularly mistaken as Islamic due to his second name, in fact he is not Muslim though stands for equality between religions. He is in fact Christian, though rumours were spread by Conservative spin Doctors hoping to turn the public against him."''
:And who is JMcClane to you? Care to comment on that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:16, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:Beyond the fact that you didn't answer my question mate, we're part of the same website who are interested in the current election in America, you might have heard of it. He became involved in this site and this happened, so I reiterate, gonna answer the question properly?
::I did answer your question, "mate", and you're not going to act like you run ''this place''; you will answer mine now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, we're part of the same website. I'm sorry about the mate comments, I'm just friendly like that. You've said you banned him cause of the edit, but isn't it kind of harsh as it is proven he's not Muslim so the entire article was pointless. That's all I'd like to know. And 5 years does seem steep.

Which website do you represent? Why are you interested in Conservapedia? Our banning policy is carefully calibrated and appropriate to the demands of the various situations. And sign your posts with four tildes, please; we are not interested in anonymous 'contributions'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:10, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Google misdirection==
In Google Search, the entry for ""Alger Hiss - Conservapedia" was changed today from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Alger_Hiss" to misdirect to the nonexistent Web page "http://www.conservativeencyclopedia.com/wiki/Alger_Hiss." Is there a way to ask Google to restore the correct link? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 13:19, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*Thanks for noticing and reporting this, FOIA, but nothing needs to be done. When we had the hard drive failure, and temporarily re-directed, the search engine bots picked that up. Now that things are restored, the bots will report back to all the search engines, and in due time will be directing properly. The Google (and all other engines) are smart enough to compare and repair. Or so they say. Administrator Conservative might have more insight into this, and I have linked him to this page. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:23, 4 February 2009 (EST)
** For what its worth, Google is pretty much 100% automated. They almost never manually intervene in their search results, and that's generally due to a court or otherwise governmental order. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
*** You mean that they generally ''only'' intervene due to court or governmental orders, correct? [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== Copyright? ==
I'd like to comment that [[:File:Kathleen Sebelius.jpg]] should probably be tagged as “fair use” rather than as “public domain.” Also, I think the description of the {{tl|commons}} template, both in [[Help:List of Templates]] and in the template body itself, is slightly misleading: items in Wikimedia Commons are not necessarily in the public domain. Thank you. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== In the News ==
I'm not sure how to submit suggestions, so I'll post this here: Timothy Larsen, "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355313058264477.html Look Who's a Believer Now]," ''The Wall Street Journal'', May 29, 2009, p. W13. [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 10:40, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

== Google Gadget? ==
I understand that [[google]] has problems, but has there ever been thought to developing a "Google Gadget" with a conservapedia news feed?[[User:Mrguido45|Mrguido45]] 20:59, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== Evolution Feature on the Main Page ==
The section of the main page devoted to the Evolution article states that, "In 2006, the prestigious science journal Science reported concerning the United States: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year." The study was conducted with 2000 Americans (approximately), selected by pseudo-random digit dialing over the telephone. the study found that the portion of people unsure about evolution has increased in a statistically significant manner. The second finding of the study was that the proportion of people who believe in evolution and creationism have not changed in any statistically significant way (i.e.: That the p-value of the 1985 and 2005 data sets is greater than 0.05 - simply put, that there is not enough detectable difference between the respondents in 1985 and 2005 to make any kind of statement about it). Essentially, the study cited on the main page didn't actually prove that the public belief in evolution is declining. I would request a change to that article to remove the irrelevant citation about a decrease in evolutionary thinking among Americans. [[User: Praboud|Praboud]] 19:52, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== Referred to as a Methodist ==

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right location to ask this, but at the bottom of my user page there is a category section that says "Category: Methodist Conservapedians". I didn't place that there and it isn't available for editing out when I look at the editable content for my user page. I only bring this up because I am not a Methodist and I do not wish to mislead anyone into thinking I am. I do not know who added me to this category or why, or somehow if I accidentally did this myself. If possible, may I be added to the "Agnostic conservapedians" category instead? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 8:42, 20 June 2009 [EDT]

:It appears to be because of your userbox "This user believes in the United States Constitution." When I tried putting it on my user page, the Methodist category automatically appeared there as well. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 09:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::Fixed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:20, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

== I might be wrong... ==

But I do see quite a bit of bias on Conservapedia. If this is supposed to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" then shouldn't bias be removed? I think that some of the articles are great and others are blatantly biased based upon the authors moral views. I know that some of the topics go against the beliefs of the people who run this site but it isn't a great way to run things. Tolerance of others and their beliefs, no matter what we think of them, is what Conservapedia should be about. Just my opinion and nothing more.

:Just your '''unsupported''' opinion and nothing more, you might have said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:35, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::I could have, but I figured that people would pick that up from "'''I might be wrong...'''". I never had any beliefs that my opinions were supported here, as I had to make an effort to "vocalize" them. Generally people on and off of the internet don't support my opinions.

:::What I meant was that you made a claim of bias without providing any examples to support your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Ah. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Che_Guevara]] "Ernesto "Che" Guevara" "became a cultural icon for" "'''dumb white teenagers'''." [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Communism]] "Communism is an atheistic political system" Although extremely hilarious, I think that those articles are somewhat biased and detract from Conservapedia's accountability. I have not seen Wikipedia style hijackings yet though.

==Tau ceti to Tau Ceti==

I created an article called [[Tau ceti]], but it should be Tau Ceti, is there anyway the name can be reset as the latter? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:00, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

:Yes, there [[Tau Ceti|'''is''']]. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:17, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks! -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:22, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

==Alger Hiss==
I just tried to link to The Encyclopedia of Ukraine at and got this message:

::Spam protection filter

::The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.

The spam filter apparently mistook part of the URL for an obscenity.

Is there any way to fix this? Thanks![[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 21:40, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

*You can give the URL without making it a link, so that people can copy and paste the link into their own browser, but I am not inclined to unblock any part of that corner of the world, for pretty obvious reasons. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

==Kapteyn's star to Kapteyn's Star==

The article I created called [[Kapteyn's star]] was created with a lower case s for star, it should be upper case, could someone with the rights change the title to Kapteyn's Star? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:00, 8 July 2009 [EDT]

== Double Redirects ==
All three of the current [[Special:doubleredirects|double redirects]] are protected. Could a Sysop fix them, please? Thanks. ~ ''[[User:Mdotley|Webster]]'' ([[User talk:Mdotley|talk]]) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

==I'm having a bit of trouble with some linking==

I'm trying to get the "Weather Report" and "Return to Forever" articles to link to jazz fusion. Instead, it's linking me to another jazz fusion article that I accidentally created and was recently deleted. Any help is much appreciated. [[User:Jdelong11|Jdelong11]]

: Did my change fix this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:55, 28 December 2009 (EST)

==Username change==
Is it possible to change one's username? I haven't decided what I want the new one to be but will let you know when I have.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 13:30, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

If this is possible, I would also be interested in doing so, since I have been recently denuked, and it would be disingenuous to continue with this username. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]]

:Sure, just provide your requested new name here and I'll change it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 1 December 2009 (EST)

==User Additions to this site==
Hi, I'm new here and I'm interested in adding some content to Conservapedia, namely in respect to firearm laws. Just a cursory glace makes me think that users can only edit existing topics? Am I wrong?
--[[User:LibGunslinger|LibGunslinger]] 11:28, Dec 10 2009
:You can add new pages if you so desire.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)

==Nova==

I believe this is right place to ask this, so here I am. I want to write an article on the astronomical phenomenon known as a "Nova", however all search on this site for that word is already directed towards "NOVA", a stub on the PBS series of that name. Should I rebuild that article to focus on the astronomical phenomena as that is what the base definition of a nova means? Or start a whole new article, such as "nova_(star)"? Thanks. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 13:18, 28 December 2009 (EST)

: I'll move "NOVA" to "NOVA (PBS)", and you can then have "Nova". Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:56, 28 December 2009 (EST)

::I turned the NOVA page into a disambiguation page that now points to both [[NOVA_(PBS)]] and [[Nova_(star)]], is this good? May want to make it Nova instead of NOVA though. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 17:29, 28 December 2009 (EST)

:::It's fine as you did it. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 28 December 2009 (EST)

==Deleting Account==
I'm not sure how it's done but I can't seem to find an option to shutdown/cancel my account. Please, shutdown/cancel my account. I've simply decided to not work on this project anymore. I didn't do many edits but if they all have to go, that's fine.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 22:14, 16 February 2010 (EST)
:The easiest way is the most direct way, "Composer"...simply stop logging in. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:24, 16 February 2010 (EST)
::Is that an auto-account deletion function? How many days does it take? I don't want this account sitting on this IP address.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 22:28, 16 February 2010 (EST)

User:Davidkon

2010-02-25T03:23:41Z

Davidkon:

Hi, I am a 18 year old Roman Catholic from Northern VA and I heard about this website from my homeschooled friend. I am hesitant to edit articles as I'm terrified I'll mess something up, but I am eager and willing to participate in debates and take the offered online courses! I am also a huge supporter of Sarah Palin! GO PALIN!

User:Davidkon

2010-02-18T02:54:20Z

Davidkon:

User:Davidkon

2010-02-18T02:53:04Z

Davidkon: Created page with 'Hi, I am a 18 year old Roman Catholic from Northern VA and I heard about this website from my homeschooled friend. I am hesitent to edit articles as I'm terrified I'll mess somet...'

Hi, I am a 18 year old Roman Catholic from Northern VA and I heard about this website from my homeschooled friend. I am hesitent to edit articles as I'm terrified I'll mess something up, but I am eager and willing to participate in debates and take the offered online courses! I am also a huge supporter of Sarah Palin! GO PALIN!

User talk:Davidkon

2010-02-18T02:52:38Z

Writing Homework One Answers - Student Two

2010-02-12T02:53:23Z

Davidkon:

David K

Snowmaggedon: The Storm of ’10

The winter storm of February 5th and 6th impacted the Washington region significantly. Despite liberals, who have the '''audacity''' to claim the existence of global warming, ice and snow severely restricted access to the roads, causing the federal government to close for many days afterwards. Several accidents were reported and for safety reasons the usual school snow day was transformed into a snow week. I personally am enjoying the exceptionally long break from the rigors of public education.
As a resident of Northern Virginia for much of my life, I am not used to seeing large snowfalls. The most I have come to expect are small storms yielding 6-8 inches at the most. Needless to say this new development of 3 ½ feet of snow came as a most pleasant surprise. I swiftly found that this new volume of snow endows an excellent medium for sledding and snow forts, not otherwise feasible in the conventional light snowfall. On an interesting note, a 60 ft. pine tree outside of my home, weighed down by the copious amount of wet snow, shattered and came to a crashing down, crushing the iron railing on the back porch of my parents’ house as though it were cardboard. The resulting damage, while severe, was nevertheless quite spectacular.
Unfortunately, I found that the excitement of a gigantic snowfall can quickly grow old. While the amount of snow was novel and thus very interesting, it also had some negative impacts on my on my schedule. For example several of my regular activities were canceled, and ice on the roads made it impossible to go anywhere safely. Moreover, snow on the driveway necessitated a high degree of shoveling, which quickly became rather tiring. This task was not helped by the snowplow driver, who, for the sake of personal convenience, left a large pile of slush in front of the driveway when plowing the main road. So the large snowfall had its downsides as well as advantages.
By conclusion, the winter snow storm of 2010 was a remarkable phenomenon. While I enjoyed the snow itself and the break from school, I was not so happy with its effects on my other routines. In any case, it was still a phenomenon worth seeing. It is not every day one gets to witness 3 ½ feet of snow!

--[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 21:47, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Writing Homework One Answers - Student Two

2010-02-12T02:47:26Z

Davidkon: Created page with 'David K Snowmaggedon: The Storm of ’10 The winter storm of February 5th and 6th impacted the Washington region significantly. Despite liberals, who have the audacity to clai...'

David K

Snowmaggedon: The Storm of ’10
The winter storm of February 5th and 6th impacted the Washington region significantly. Despite liberals, who have the audacity to claim the existence of global warming, ice and snow severely restricted access to the roads, causing the federal government to close for many days afterwards. Several accidents were reported and for safety reasons the usual school snow day was transformed into a snow week. I personally am enjoying the exceptionally long break from the rigors of public education.
As a resident of Northern Virginia for much of my life, I am not used to seeing large snowfalls. The most I have come to expect are small storms yielding 6-8 inches at the most. Needless to say this new development of 3 ½ feet of snow came as a most pleasant surprise. I swiftly found that this new volume of snow endows an excellent medium for sledding and snow forts, not otherwise feasible in the conventional light snowfall. On an interesting note, a 60 ft. pine tree outside of my home, weighed down by the copious amount of wet snow, shattered and came to a crashing down, crushing the iron railing on the back porch of my parents’ house as though it were cardboard. The resulting damage, while severe, was nevertheless quite spectacular.
Unfortunately, I found that the excitement of a gigantic snowfall can quickly grow old. While the amount of snow was novel and thus very interesting, it also had some negative impacts on my on my schedule. For example several of my regular activities were canceled, and ice on the roads made it impossible to go anywhere safely. Moreover, snow on the driveway necessitated a high degree of shoveling, which quickly became rather tiring. This task was not helped by the snowplow driver, who, for the sake of personal convenience, left a large pile of slush in front of the driveway when plowing the main road. So the large snowfall had its downsides as well as advantages.
By conclusion, the winter snow storm of 2010 was a remarkable phenomenon. While I enjoyed the snow itself and the break from school, I was not so happy with its effects on my other routines. In any case, it was still a phenomenon worth seeing. It is not every day one gets to witness 3 ½ feet of snow!

--[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 21:47, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Conservapedia:Contact Us

2010-02-03T19:59:12Z

Davidkon: /* Taking AP Biology */

== Taking AP Biology ==
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but... I am a student in public high school, and am taking AP Biology. I have just learned that Evolution is an entire '''chapter''' in the course. Would it be moral for me to learn evolution without believeing it just to pass the test? Or should I drop the course? (This would be very time consuming and difficult)- David {{unsigned|DavidKondner}}
::Nothing immoral about learning about evolution at all. Go for it and you will be pleasantly surprised to learn what evolution is actually like. After all, the majority of people have major misconceptions on what it is which leads to their denial of it. Learning about something from those who support it is always best for learning the truth about the subject, don't limit your understanding of things to just those against it. [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:30, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I think Riddle is a very smart man and you should listen to what he has to say. No, you don't need to believe in evolutionism, but how are we suppose to become one peaceful humanity without learning about one another. [[user:horenvalle]] 14:01, October 16 2009 (EDT)

:::Learn a falsehood and pretend it's true, and more falsehoods, confusion, depression and errors will follow. Realize that atheists must believe in evolution despite its falsehood and you'll immediately see why they push, and push, and push it in public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

::::"Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never peril. [[Sun Tzu]]"
::::If there's ''only'' a chapter on evolution in your course, I'd be amazed. Any non-creationist course on [[biology]] is likely to be [[evolution]]-centric. After all, if one won't accept special [[creation]], it's the only game in town! Just keep in mind the difference between science (testable, repeatable) and just-so stories ("This feature arose because ..."). Here are a couple of links you might find useful and encouraging:
::::*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0920classroom.asp ‘Creation evangelism’ in the public school classroom]
::::*[http://creation.com/how-do-i-do-my-assignment-about-evolution How do I do my assignment about evolution?]
::::You also might want to invest in a copy of Evolution Exposed, a book that breaks down the evolutionary assumptions and explanations, explicit and implicit, and provides both brief answers and directions to finding more information on line.
::::In short, you need to know what the evolutionists teach, even if you know it's wrong. ~ ''[[User:Mdotley|Webster]]'' ([[User talk:Mdotley|talk]]) 15:53, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

::better learn the material. College consists of a lot of required courses you have to take but don't have to believe. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:05, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

:::All the examples of such requirements consist of learning and reciting anti-Christian beliefs. I'm not aware of any colleges or AP tests that require learning a Christian belief to obtain basic credits.

:::Try homeschooling David, or try a college that does not require recitation of evolutionary beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you all for your wonderful suggestions! In the end I decided to take the course and found out it wasn’t nearly as bad as a thought it would be. I expressed my concerns to my teacher beforehand and he was very understanding. Before we started the unit he was very clear to the class that evolution was a theory and we were under no obligation whatsoever to believe evolution, however he still expects us to know the material for the AP exam. It’s amazing how similar some of God’s creatures can be and I can almost see how a Godless Atheist might believe they once shared a common ancestor. All in all, the course has been an enlightening experience and, for the most part, has given me greater respect and appreciation for God’s creatures and life in general. --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:59, 3 February 2010 (EST)

== Unable to edit? ==

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

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

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

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

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

==To Kill The Child/Leaving Beirut==

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

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

How do you upload an image?

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

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

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

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

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

My IP address at home appears to have been blocked. Could someone please unblock me? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 15:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Bobby R. Himes==
I have a photo for the new article [[Bobby R. Himes]]. Can I get permission to upload it?[[User: Bhathorn|Bhathorn]] 18:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: If the picture is on-line (and available for Conservapedia to use, of course), post the address here or click [[Special:Emailuser/Philip_J._Rayment|here]] to e-mail me the link and I can upload it to Conservapedia for you. If it's on your computer, e-mail me via that link anyway and I will reply with my e-mail address for you to e-mail me the picture, so I can then upload it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Banning policy?==
Hello, I represent a website interested in your work. However recently a member of ours, JMcClane used your website and edited a page on Obama because it stated he was a Muslim, which it has been proven he isn't, he has been banned for 5 years, care to comment? It was a JPatt who did the banning, would he like to comment too?
:JMcClane removed a large amount of material in that article and replaced it with this:
::''"Obama is regularly mistaken as Islamic due to his second name, in fact he is not Muslim though stands for equality between religions. He is in fact Christian, though rumours were spread by Conservative spin Doctors hoping to turn the public against him."''
:And who is JMcClane to you? Care to comment on that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:16, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:Beyond the fact that you didn't answer my question mate, we're part of the same website who are interested in the current election in America, you might have heard of it. He became involved in this site and this happened, so I reiterate, gonna answer the question properly?
::I did answer your question, "mate", and you're not going to act like you run ''this place''; you will answer mine now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:As I said, we're part of the same website. I'm sorry about the mate comments, I'm just friendly like that. You've said you banned him cause of the edit, but isn't it kind of harsh as it is proven he's not Muslim so the entire article was pointless. That's all I'd like to know. And 5 years does seem steep.

Which website do you represent? Why are you interested in Conservapedia? Our banning policy is carefully calibrated and appropriate to the demands of the various situations. And sign your posts with four tildes, please; we are not interested in anonymous 'contributions'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:10, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

==Google misdirection==
In Google Search, the entry for ""Alger Hiss - Conservapedia" was changed today from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Alger_Hiss" to misdirect to the nonexistent Web page "http://www.conservativeencyclopedia.com/wiki/Alger_Hiss." Is there a way to ask Google to restore the correct link? [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 13:19, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*Thanks for noticing and reporting this, FOIA, but nothing needs to be done. When we had the hard drive failure, and temporarily re-directed, the search engine bots picked that up. Now that things are restored, the bots will report back to all the search engines, and in due time will be directing properly. The Google (and all other engines) are smart enough to compare and repair. Or so they say. Administrator Conservative might have more insight into this, and I have linked him to this page. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:23, 4 February 2009 (EST)
** For what its worth, Google is pretty much 100% automated. They almost never manually intervene in their search results, and that's generally due to a court or otherwise governmental order. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
*** You mean that they generally ''only'' intervene due to court or governmental orders, correct? [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== Copyright? ==
I'd like to comment that [[:File:Kathleen Sebelius.jpg]] should probably be tagged as “fair use” rather than as “public domain.” Also, I think the description of the {{tl|commons}} template, both in [[Help:List of Templates]] and in the template body itself, is slightly misleading: items in Wikimedia Commons are not necessarily in the public domain. Thank you. [[User:Npov2|Npov2]] 00:56, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== In the News ==
I'm not sure how to submit suggestions, so I'll post this here: Timothy Larsen, "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355313058264477.html Look Who's a Believer Now]," ''The Wall Street Journal'', May 29, 2009, p. W13. [[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 10:40, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

== Google Gadget? ==
I understand that [[google]] has problems, but has there ever been thought to developing a "Google Gadget" with a conservapedia news feed?[[User:Mrguido45|Mrguido45]] 20:59, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== Evolution Feature on the Main Page ==
The section of the main page devoted to the Evolution article states that, "In 2006, the prestigious science journal Science reported concerning the United States: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year." The study was conducted with 2000 Americans (approximately), selected by pseudo-random digit dialing over the telephone. the study found that the portion of people unsure about evolution has increased in a statistically significant manner. The second finding of the study was that the proportion of people who believe in evolution and creationism have not changed in any statistically significant way (i.e.: That the p-value of the 1985 and 2005 data sets is greater than 0.05 - simply put, that there is not enough detectable difference between the respondents in 1985 and 2005 to make any kind of statement about it). Essentially, the study cited on the main page didn't actually prove that the public belief in evolution is declining. I would request a change to that article to remove the irrelevant citation about a decrease in evolutionary thinking among Americans. [[User: Praboud|Praboud]] 19:52, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== Referred to as a Methodist ==

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right location to ask this, but at the bottom of my user page there is a category section that says "Category: Methodist Conservapedians". I didn't place that there and it isn't available for editing out when I look at the editable content for my user page. I only bring this up because I am not a Methodist and I do not wish to mislead anyone into thinking I am. I do not know who added me to this category or why, or somehow if I accidentally did this myself. If possible, may I be added to the "Agnostic conservapedians" category instead? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 8:42, 20 June 2009 [EDT]

:It appears to be because of your userbox "This user believes in the United States Constitution." When I tried putting it on my user page, the Methodist category automatically appeared there as well. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 09:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::Fixed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:20, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

== I might be wrong... ==

But I do see quite a bit of bias on Conservapedia. If this is supposed to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" then shouldn't bias be removed? I think that some of the articles are great and others are blatantly biased based upon the authors moral views. I know that some of the topics go against the beliefs of the people who run this site but it isn't a great way to run things. Tolerance of others and their beliefs, no matter what we think of them, is what Conservapedia should be about. Just my opinion and nothing more.

:Just your '''unsupported''' opinion and nothing more, you might have said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:35, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::I could have, but I figured that people would pick that up from "'''I might be wrong...'''". I never had any beliefs that my opinions were supported here, as I had to make an effort to "vocalize" them. Generally people on and off of the internet don't support my opinions.

:::What I meant was that you made a claim of bias without providing any examples to support your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Ah. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Che_Guevara]] "Ernesto "Che" Guevara" "became a cultural icon for" "'''dumb white teenagers'''." [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Communism]] "Communism is an atheistic political system" Although extremely hilarious, I think that those articles are somewhat biased and detract from Conservapedia's accountability. I have not seen Wikipedia style hijackings yet though.

==Tau ceti to Tau Ceti==

I created an article called [[Tau ceti]], but it should be Tau Ceti, is there anyway the name can be reset as the latter? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:00, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

:Yes, there [[Tau Ceti|'''is''']]. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:17, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks! -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:22, 24 June 2009 [EDT]

==Alger Hiss==
I just tried to link to The Encyclopedia of Ukraine at and got this message:

::Spam protection filter

::The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site.

The spam filter apparently mistook part of the URL for an obscenity.

Is there any way to fix this? Thanks![[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 21:40, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

*You can give the URL without making it a link, so that people can copy and paste the link into their own browser, but I am not inclined to unblock any part of that corner of the world, for pretty obvious reasons. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:44, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

==Kapteyn's star to Kapteyn's Star==

The article I created called [[Kapteyn's star]] was created with a lower case s for star, it should be upper case, could someone with the rights change the title to Kapteyn's Star? Thank you. -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:00, 8 July 2009 [EDT]

== Double Redirects ==
All three of the current [[Special:doubleredirects|double redirects]] are protected. Could a Sysop fix them, please? Thanks. ~ ''[[User:Mdotley|Webster]]'' ([[User talk:Mdotley|talk]]) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

==I'm having a bit of trouble with some linking==

I'm trying to get the "Weather Report" and "Return to Forever" articles to link to jazz fusion. Instead, it's linking me to another jazz fusion article that I accidentally created and was recently deleted. Any help is much appreciated. [[User:Jdelong11|Jdelong11]]

: Did my change fix this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:55, 28 December 2009 (EST)

==Username change==
Is it possible to change one's username? I haven't decided what I want the new one to be but will let you know when I have.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 13:30, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

If this is possible, I would also be interested in doing so, since I have been recently denuked, and it would be disingenuous to continue with this username. [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]]

:Sure, just provide your requested new name here and I'll change it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 1 December 2009 (EST)

==User Additions to this site==
Hi, I'm new here and I'm interested in adding some content to Conservapedia, namely in respect to firearm laws. Just a cursory glace makes me think that users can only edit existing topics? Am I wrong?
--[[User:LibGunslinger|LibGunslinger]] 11:28, Dec 10 2009
:You can add new pages if you so desire.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)

==Nova==

I believe this is right place to ask this, so here I am. I want to write an article on the astronomical phenomenon known as a "Nova", however all search on this site for that word is already directed towards "NOVA", a stub on the PBS series of that name. Should I rebuild that article to focus on the astronomical phenomena as that is what the base definition of a nova means? Or start a whole new article, such as "nova_(star)"? Thanks. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 13:18, 28 December 2009 (EST)

: I'll move "NOVA" to "NOVA (PBS)", and you can then have "Nova". Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:56, 28 December 2009 (EST)

::I turned the NOVA page into a disambiguation page that now points to both [[NOVA_(PBS)]] and [[Nova_(star)]], is this good? May want to make it Nova instead of NOVA though. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 17:29, 28 December 2009 (EST)

:::It's fine as you did it. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 28 December 2009 (EST)