Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:ECL

2008-11-30T23:14:19Z

ECL:

'''ECL's Conservapedia page '''
Welcome to my Conservapedia page.

'''Who am I'''
Im a person who lives just north of St.louis Missouri.

'''My politcal beliefs'''
I beleve in centrist and agnostic theories on life and its meanings. I also beleve in the Deontological theories of [[Immanuel Kant]]. I disagree with both the political Left & Right because I beleve that the left and right can be unethical with there methods of politcal persuasion. I believe that America is one of the greatest places in the world but I don't beleve that there is such thing as "the best nation in the world". I also don't beleve in the whole concept of good and evil and i think that if you want to define something as good than its good but if you want to define something as evil than its evil by your stand point and i beleve that when people constantly define something as good or evil that it can cause negative outcomes in the world.

'''What I believe on the seperation of church and state'''
Personally I believe that the American conservative view on the separation on church and state is overly centric towards one religion. Although I believe that the more further left view that believes in the seperation of church and state is a misinterpretation of the constitution. The constitution says that "the state shall make no law regaurding religion" so therefore things like putting the ten commandments in front of a courthouse are ok under the constitution but trying to make same-sex civil unions illegal because your holy book says so isn't ok under the constitutuion.

User:ECL

2008-11-30T23:13:54Z

ECL:

'''ECL's Conservapedia page '''
Welcome to my Conservapedia page.

'''Who am I'''
Im a 14 year old who lives just north of St.louis Missouri.

'''My politcal beliefs'''
I beleve in centrist and agnostic theories on life and its meanings. I also beleve in the Deontological theories of [[Immanuel Kant]]. I disagree with both the political Left & Right because I beleve that the left and right can be unethical with there methods of politcal persuasion. I believe that America is one of the greatest places in the world but I don't beleve that there is such thing as "the best nation in the world". I also don't beleve in the whole concept of good and evil and i think that if you want to define something as good than its good but if you want to define something as evil than its evil by your stand point and i beleve that when people constantly define something as good or evil that it can cause negative outcomes in the world.

'''What I believe on the seperation of church and state'''
Personally I believe that the American conservative view on the separation on church and state is overly centric towards one religion. Although I believe that the more further left view that believes in the seperation of church and state is a misinterpretation of the constitution. The constitution says that "the state shall make no law regaurding religion" so therefore things like putting the ten commandments in front of a courthouse are ok under the constitution but trying to make same-sex civil unions illegal because your holy book says so isn't ok under the constitutuion.

User:ECL

2008-09-14T04:57:39Z

ECL:

'''ECL's Conservapedia page '''
Welcome to my Conservapedia page.

'''Who am I'''
Im a 14 year old who lives just outside of St.louis Missouri.

'''My politcal beliefs'''
I beleve in centrist and agnostic theories on life and its meanings. I also beleve in the Deontological theories of [[Immanuel Kant]]. I disagree with both the political Left & Right because I beleve that the left and right can be unethical with there methods of politcal persuasion. I believe that America is one of the greatest places in the world but I don't beleve that there is such thing as "the best nation in the world". I also don't beleve in the whole concept of good and evil and i think that if you want to define something as good than its good but if you want to define something as evil than its evil by your stand point and i beleve that when people constantly define something as good or evil that it can cause negative outcomes in the world.

'''What I believe on the seperation of church and state'''
Personally I believe that the American conservative view on the separation on church and state is overly centric towards one religion. Although I believe that the more further left view that believes in the seperation of church and state is a misinterpretation of the constitution. The constitution says that "the state shall make no law regaurding religion" so therefore things like putting the ten commandments in front of a courthouse are ok under the constitution but trying to make same-sex civil unions illegal because your holy book says so isn't ok under the constitutuion.

American Patriots

2008-09-14T04:22:08Z

ECL:

A patriot is a term with many different meanings. Many conservative scholars have beliefs that the term indicates loyalty to ones country and participation in national defence. Although many libertarians,liberals and centrist tend to believe that it is doing what is in the best interest of the country and its citizens. The word "patriot" started to have more common use during the [[American Revolution]].

[[Category:Political Terms]]

American Patriots

2008-09-14T04:08:32Z

ECL:

A patriot is someone who does what they think will be within the best interest of their country and its citizens.

[[Category:Political Terms]]

Decriminalize

2008-09-14T04:04:15Z

ECL:

To '''decriminalize''' an activity is to [[repeal]] [[laws]] that made such an activity a [[Crime|criminal offence]]. In some cases this may mean the legalization of the activity, and in others the activity may still be illegal, but offenders are only reprimanded with a warning rather than being punished with arrest, trial, sentencing and a criminal record. Many people wish to decriminalize the possession and use of [[marijuana]] and other illegal [[drugs]].

[[Category:Law]]

Weather Underground

2008-09-11T23:48:49Z

ECL: /* Profile */

The '''Weather Underground''', or '''Weathermen''' was a [[leftist]] [[terrorist]] organization <ref>[http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=wuo ATTAC Report]</ref>, active mostly in New York City in the 1960s. They took their name from the [[Bob Dylan]] song, "Subterranean Homesick Blues".
::''...you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...''

Their ideology was explicitly [[communist]] and [[Revolution|revolutionary]]. In one famous incident, several members were killed in the "Greenwich Village Explosion", in which amateur bomb-makers immolated themselves <ref>[http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/brinks/1.html Court TV – Crime Library: Terrorists, The Weather Underground] </ref> preparing for a [[terrorist]] attack on [[Fort Dix]]. Other members, [[Cathy Wilkerson]] and [[Kathy Boudin]],
survived and were defended by [[National Lawyers Guild]] <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7494 NLG: The Legal Fifth Column], By Jesse Rigsby, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', April 25, 2003. </ref> members. Kathy Boudin later received a 20-years-to-life sentence for her role in the 1981 Weatherman Nyack, New York Brinks armored truck robbery which resulted in the murders of two policemen and an armored truck security guard. <ref>[http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/brinks/15.html Court TV – Crime Library: The Brinks Robbery of 1981] </ref>

==Profile==
'''Founding/Supervisory Organizations:'''
*Cuban General Directorate of Intelligence (DGI)
*Communist Czechoslovakia
*Organization of Solidarity of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (OSPAAL)
*[[Communist Vietnam]]
*[[National Lawyers Guild]] (NLG)
*[[Students for a Democratic Society]] (SDS)

'''Supporting Organizations:'''
*Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PSP)
*[[Workers World Party]] (WWP)
*[[Youth International Party]] (YIP) <ref>[http://www.jbs.org/node/735 Propagandizing the Police], By William Norman Grigg, ''New American'', 1999-11-08.</ref>

Type of Organization: Terrorist/revolutionary

Location: United States

Ideological cover: Openly [[Marxist-Leninist]]

Activities: Urban guerrilla warfare; bombings; [[assassination]]s; riots; armed robbery; prison organizing; prison breaks

Target countries: [[United States]]

Status: Innactive

'''Assisted Organizations:'''
*[[American Indian Movement]] (AIM)
*Black Guerrilla Family (BGF)
*[[Black Liberation Army]] (BLA)
*[[Black Panther Party]] (BPP)
*[[Armed Forces of National Liberation]] (FALN)
*Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PSP)
*Republic of New Africa (RNA)
*[[Workers World Party]] (WWP)

'''Derivative/Controlled Organizations:'''
*Black Guerrilla Family (BGF)
*Black Liberation Army (BLA)
*[[John Brown Anti-Klan Committee]] (JBAKC) <ref>[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/1983/11/armed-resistance-unit-bombs-us-capitol.html Armed Resistance Unit Bombs US Capitol], ''Death To The Klan'', Winter, 1984, No. 3.</ref>
*[[Prairie Fire Organizing Committee]] (PFOC)
*[[Symbionese Liberation Army]] (SLA)
*[[Youth International Party]] (YIP)

==References==
<small><references/></small>
[[category:United States History]][[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category:Communism]]

==External links==

[http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Terrorist.html#Weathermen wolrdstatesman.org] Weathermen (Weather Underground Organization)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-09-09T23:09:22Z

ECL:

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



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

Here is what I added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Two questions ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

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

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

And so it was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Please list banned sites ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2008-09-09T23:08:57Z

ECL: /* Please list banned sites */

User:ECL

2008-09-09T22:50:46Z

ECL: New page: '''ECL's Conservapedia page ''' Welcome to my Conservapedia page. '''Who am I''' Im a 14 year old who lives just outside of St.louis Missouri. '''My politcal beliefs''' I beleve in centr...