Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bullying

2007-11-22T16:46:45Z

GofG: It happens in private schools too.

'''Bullying''' is the use of force to get one's own way, typically for a selfish purpose at at the expense of others. [[Children]] in [[public school|school]]s are often permitted (at least tacitly) to bully other, weaker children. This can take the form of teasing, hitting, extortion ("Give me your lunch money"), and so on.

Educators have been known to countenance the practice by saying that as kids grow up, they simply must learn to deal with bullies. [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(1E76C1D5D1A37992F0B0C1C4DB87942E)~Bullying+Parents.pdf/$file/Bullying+Parents.pdf] The implication is that they can learn this on their own, while academic subjects such as arithmetic and English must be learned from books and teachers.

It is commonly said that bullying is "simply part of growing up" or part of "the rough and tumble of childhood." [http://www.police.govt.nz/service/yes/nobully/bully_info.html]

*Most students who are bullied either do not report the bullying to adults, or they wait a very long time before doing so. The reasons include feelings of shame, fear of retaliation for reporting, and fear that adults cannot or will not protect the victim in the settings where bullying usually takes place ...
*Many teachers and parents tell children not to "tattle," and to resolve their problems themselves. [http://www.lfcc.on.ca/bully.htm]

Many academic approaches go out of their way to mention using any kind of adult force (let alone [[punishment]]) to stop bullies. One Canadian program is an exception:

:If the bully(ies) will not change their behaviour, despite concerted efforts by school personnel, they, and not the victim, should be the ones who are removed from the class or school, or transferred to another program. Consequences for the perpetrators will be of considerable interest to all students, and will set the tone for future situations. [http://www.lfcc.on.ca/bully.htm]

[[Category:Sociology]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-20T02:41:44Z

GofG:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
 
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2|Archive 2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3|Archive 3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4|Archive 4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5|Archive 5]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6|Archive 6]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive7|Archive 7]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive8|Archive 8]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive9|Archive 9]]
 

----

==Wha?==

"Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses." I can't think of any other Wikis that don't permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. I suggest this bullet is removed. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-20T02:41:34Z

GofG:

Eva Braun

2007-06-26T21:48:54Z

GofG: Typo

{{stub}}

'''Eva Braun''' was the mistress of [[Adolf Hitler]]. Shortly after marrying him, they committed [[suicide]] together on April 25 1945.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Braun, Eva}}
[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:World War II]]

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-06-26T17:01:10Z

GofG: /* Neutrality */

{{unprotected|15:34, 25 March 2007|Ed Poor}}

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Nintendo

2007-05-24T21:03:23Z

GofG: "The Hero of Time" is ONE of the Links. For instance, the Link that was in LTTP was not the Hero of Time, nor was the one in WInd Waker. Similarly, Ash is not "the Pokemon Master".

[[Image:765px-Nintendo svg.png|right|thumb|Nintendo logo.]]
'''Nintendo''' is commonly known as one of the major video game hardware and software manufacturers in the world.

==Origins==
Nintendo got its start in Japan in 1889, as a company manufacturing cards for Hanafuda, a Japanese card game. In the 1960s, it diversified into a number of ultimately unsuccessful product lines, including a toy company. In the 1970s, it moved into electronic gaming, where it was ultimately successful.

In 1981, it created the popular arcade game "Donkey Kong", which brought it international attention, and introduced Nintendo to the American market. Nintendo's products in the United States are released through Nintendo of America, their American subsidiary.

==Nintendo Video game systems==
*[[NES]] - Nintendo Entertainment System 
*[[GAMEBOY]] - A classic handheld games console 
*[[SNES]] - [[Super Nintendo]] / Super Nintendo Entertainment System 
*[[N64]] - [[Nintendo 64]], Nintendo's first 64bit console 
*[[GBC]] - GAMEBOY Color, evolution of the original with a color screen 
*[[GBA]] - Gameboy Advance, a 32bit handheld. 
*[[Gamecube]] - Nintendo's entry to the 128bit console war with Sony's PS2 ([[Playstation2]]) & Microsoft [[XBOX]] 
*[[NDS]] - Nintendo DS, an innovative 64bit handheld. 
*[[DS Lite]] - Nintendo DS Lite, an improved version of the original 
*[[Wii]] - Nintendo Wii, an innovative game console, and Nintendo's latest offering, with sales exceeding expectations against stiff competition between the [[XBOX360]] & [[Playstation3]] 

==Nintendo Legends==

[[Image:Bible_adventures.jpg|right]]

'''[[Pokemon Series]]'''
*Ash Ketchum
*Pikachu
*Brock
*Misty

'''[[The Legend of Zelda Series]]'''
*Link
*Zelda
*Ganon/Ganondorf

'''[[Mario Series]]'''
*Mario
*Luigi
*Peach
*Bowser

'''[[]]'''
*Fox
*Falco
*Pippy

'''[[Metroid Series]]'''
*Samus Aran

==Games==
There are currently '''2,621''' games.

{{stub2}}

[[Category:Companies]]

Warsaw

2007-05-18T00:10:47Z

GofG: Typo

'''Warsaw''' is the capital city of [[Poland]]. The city is situated on the banks of the Vistula and is home to 1.7 million people. The city was extensively destroyed during [[World War Two]]. Many historic buildings and precincts were restored in the post war period. Warsaw is home to the Polish Parliament ([[Sejm]]).

==External links==
*[http://www.e-warsaw.pl/index.php City of Warsaw official web-site]

ANSWER

2007-05-16T11:15:45Z

GofG:

'''Act Now to Stop War and End Racism''' is an [[anti-Semitic]]{{fact}} [[liberal]] activist coalition which is in the forefront of the modern anti-War movement and [[9/11 conspiracy theories]].<ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20041019075845/http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0305/article/030512a.html Authoritarianism and Anti-Semitism in the Anti-War Movement?]. ''Tikkun'', May/June 2003. Link is to page on the Internet Archive, archived Oct 19, 2004.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Anti-war movement]]
[[Category:Liberal activists]]

Talk:Jerry Falwell

2007-05-16T11:14:59Z

GofG: /* History will judge him harshly */

{{protected|Geo.plrd}}

This page needs improvement to do justice to Rev. Falwell.

I rolled back the liberal gossip about Falwell and Rev. Moon. It's nothing more than a smear effort of the sort we don't allow under our [[rules]]. Falwell is not an adherent of Rev. Moon's church and Falwell is entitled to do business just like everyone else. The smear was unsupported by a credible resource.

Be fair to Christians and everyone else here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Also I'm not sure that rotten.com is a "reliable" source.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 22:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: My addition to this article is based on fact, not opinion. Critics do indeed attack Falwell's connection the Unification Church. This is not an attack or "smear" on Christians in general but a verifiable fact about the controversy surrounding a public figure. Opposing viewpoints supported by citations are welcome, but this is tantamount to censorhip. Rotten has an admitted liberal bias but all their info in this instance is credible and independently verifiable.

--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 22:22, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to edit this article over the next couple days. Falwell has been a tremendous educator, and his efforts deserve more than this. Stay tuned! --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 21:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure why my changes were reverted. Jerry Falwell has ties to Republican causes and the Moral Majority is a part of the Religious Right, not the Religious right. For instance the Christian Coalition is part of the Religious Right as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

(Belated question) How is it a "smear" to link Falwell and Moon? Has [[Rev. Moon]] done something wrong? (Apart from not accepting [[Young Earth creationism]], I mean ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Just passed away==
CCN just reported his death today.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Someone commented out his support for apartheid. Not sure why as it's factual and documented. I removed the comment block around it...apologies for the double edit.

: Jerry Falwell was frequently misquoted and misinterpreted by anti-Christian enemies. Don't expect any unsourced, biased and misleading information, motivated by anti-Christian animus, to be allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My Civil Procedure professor represented Larry Flynt in his successful defense of Falwell's suit before the Supreme Court. He also played Falwell's attorney (switching sides) in the film version of the trial. Fun stuff. -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==South Africa and apartheid==

Time magazine, Monday, Sep. 02, 1985:
*Falwell opposes apartheid, but professed faith that Botha will dismantle the system eventually, if only everyone is patient. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959695,00.html]

I stand corrected. I'll update changes to reflect this. Stompum
*Page is locked. Mods please remove the line about Falwell's support for Apartheid.

== Sept 11 comments ==

Why were these deleted? They're important, widely publicized, etc. I can't imagine anything other than censorship - that hallmark of Wikipedia - that would compel you to leave his unpopular side out of the article.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:When will you revert to re-include his Sept 11th comments?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe that in the Nancy Pelosi article there is a section about her marching in the same group as a NAMBLA member. Seems very biased and one-sided to leave that part in there, but then take out any mention of Falwell's hateful statements on 9-11 because it might make him look bad. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 17:52, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think you are going to see anything but a hagiography here. Mr. Falwell represents everything this site's owners hold dear. I'll stick to paraphrasing Randi Rhodes: "If I had anything sympathetic to say about that man at all, I'd say it." But these people love him, and it's their site. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Quotes==
Here's a website (I know it's biased, but the quotes are accurate): http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/devil.html

You can form your own opinion about him, I don't care what you think, but I just thought it might be helpful to create an opinion on him (to conservatives: look for the two anti-semitic quotes.)
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
:Oh really? Let's take this one,
*''Alcoholism and Negroes
"There are almost as many alcoholics as there
are negroes."
Rev. Jerry Falwell

You alleged "source" gives us a classic ''argumentum ad ignoratiam''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Your reply is barely coherent. Explanation?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Your source uses the conjunctive word, "and"; Rev. Falwell nowhere conjoins alcholism and Negroes; in fact, Rev. Falwell does a compararison of the statisical population of both. This is typical of the trite garbage that passes as reasoned discourse from some sectors of liberalism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
So that's one quote that might be out of context. The rest, though?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 18:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey, don't shoot the messenger (I did mention the source is biased), you're entitled to your own opinion.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

OK, I randomly picked a liberal quote of [[Jerry Falwell]]:

"I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men - that's their
problem."

Colorful and statistically accurate. I agree it's not politically correct. Go to Hillary Clinton for political correctness. [[Jerry Falwell]] spoke the truth in a colorful way, and we thank him for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:How come you don't like women?

How about these?

"The idea of separation of Church and State
was invented by the Devil to keep Christians
from running their own country."

Rev. Jerry Falwell

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure
as a human being."

Rev. Jerry Falwell

"He is purple - the gay-pride colour; and his antenna
is shaped like a triangle - the gay-pride symbol."

Rev. Jerry Falwell
(Falwell on the teletubbies, come on, how much more paranoid can you get?)
::Did he really say this? Check a less biased source.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I got 10 identical matches on the first page of google...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
::Yes, but he himself did not say this. It was his newspaper. He had no involvement.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I wasn't there, and wikipedia is rather vague about it, but the BBC link is pretty clear, what do you think of his claims about Jews?
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

And for all those people with little Israeli flags on their user pages:

"I know a few of you here today don't like Jews.
And I know why. He can make more money accidentally
than you can on purpose.

Rev. Jerry Falwell

The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief.
They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of
their Messiah and Savior.

Jerry Falwell, Listen, America!

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Confronting his critics ==

While I disagree with the Rev on many issues, he was never afraid to discuss his disagreements with others. He would have gladly sat down with Clinton, Dawkins, anyone, and debated any issue. I do wish more people would follow that example, rather than censoring or pushing away those with whom they disagree.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== History will judge him harshly ==

Ultimately, Falwell was one of the group who used religion as a cause for separating rather than uniting. His notoriously stupid remarks about gays just after 9/11, a somewhat thinly disguised anti-semetism, and some absurd remarks on pop culture (you know, the one about the Tele-tubby being a gay role model), rather than appealing to our better selves, goaded our darker sides.

My reading of the new testatment indicates that Jesus preached tolerance and loving thy neighbor. And indeed, when I was a kid, I recall religous folks were always pretty nice people, even their kids couldn't play hockey on Sunday.

Tell you what, read the book of Matthew, look at some old Billy Graham sermons, and forget this mean-spirted blowhard.--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 20:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:So I guess an apology means nothing, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't think that an apology undoes the harm he did to a country that was trying to heal, when he tore the wounds open & rubbed salt in them again.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 21:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::will someone explain exactly what harm he did?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
Bohdan, here [http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/]

Speaker, Frankly, I'm certain Falwell spoke from the heart, and quickly realized America needed to be united in the coming war, and not fighting among ourselves. That's why he immediately issued the apology. Truth is, I'm also fairly certain Falwell gave voice to the sentiments a lot of other Americans were experiencing at the same time. And based upon the daily drumbeat of hatred we see from gays and neopagans directed at Bush, (and comments we've seen here), Falwell was right. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Daily drumbeat of hatred from homosexuals and neopagans? Can you give an... actual example? I'm thrilled to see it.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 21:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Polls say 60%+ nolonger wish to take the war to the terrorists. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I hate to say it, but that's 60% of the American people, right? So it's not like it's exclusively gays and pagans who don't particularly like Bush. I'm sure there are people in the 60% who are not gay or pagan who hate Bush, while not the majority. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 21:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Go to [[:Category:Anti-war movement]] and see who's been anti-war since Falwell made this statement. Incidentally, too bad the NAMBLA article got deleted, they've been leading the anti-war movement since March 2003. But for reference, you can visit NAMBLA advocate [[Harry Hay]]. Seems he's no stranger to anti-war activity and working with America's enemies since the Korean War. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::::That's ''Guilt By Association'', and it is most certainly a fallacy. NAMBLA most certainly has not been ''leading'' the anti-war movement. Have you seen any news reports about NAMBLA organizing anti-war protests? I sure haven't. Not on Fox or otherwise.
::::Then again, you might be implying that the reason why NAMBLA is anti-war is because Falwell accused them of being responsible. As he didn't even mention NAMBLA in the quote, I find this hard to believe. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 07:14, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Past tense ==

Someone who actually sees "edit" rather than "view source" on the article page should go around and change all the verbs to past tense so that instead of saying he does something they say he did something. The man is dead. He's not doing any of those things anymore. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 23:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Jerry Falwell

2007-05-16T01:59:43Z

GofG: /* History will judge him harshly */

Liberal quotient

2007-05-12T06:42:39Z

GofG: A source is necessary for this

'''Liberal quotient''' is a new term coined by Conservapedia to quantify how [[liberal]] a group is. It is useful in assessing political bias and in evaluating statements or positions by such a group.

The liberal quotient is defined simply as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. Thus the liberal quotient is zero when there are no liberals in the group.

Mathematically Expressed When X is the number of liberals and Y is the number of conservatives and Z is the the quotient:

X/Y=Z

Therefore a group with 2 liberals and 2 conservatives has a liberal quotient of 1 (2/2=1).

Likewise, [[Wikipedia]], which has an estimated Liberal Quotient of 3, meaning there are roughly 3 liberals on Wikipedia for every conservative (based on self-identification by some editors). The American public has a liberal quotient of 1/2 (based on polls).

Groups having a high liberal quotient would include university faculties, the National Education Association, the leadership of the [[Democratic Party]], the management of the ''Village Voice'' and ''New York Times'', and the leaders of the [[ACLU]]{{fact}}. Groups having a low liberal quotient would include a trade association of small business owners, an association of Christian athletes, and worshipers at church on an ordinary Sunday{{fact}}.

== Comparison to Other Metrics ==

While some liberals oppose any measurement of their influence, others have proposed different metrics. One alternative proposal of a liberal quotient is the percentage of liberals in a population or group:

X/(X+Y) = Z

This metric, however, limits itself to a range between 0 and 1. It also fails to distinguish between conservatives and moderates. For example, this metric yields the same result if there were 50 liberals and 50 moderates as if there were 50 liberals and 50 conservatives, even though the two groups have very different political biases.

The formulation LQ = L/(L+C) has also been proposed - the Liberal quotient is the ratio of self identified liberals to the sum of self identified liberals and conservatives. This yields a range from 0 to 1, and is not affected by moderates or the unidentified. But by constraining the quotient to a scale of 0 to 1, it understates a large increase in liberal control. A group having 9 liberals and just one conservative would have a liberal quotient of 0.9, while a group having 99 liberals and only one conservative would have a liberal quotient of only 0.99. Increasing the liberal control eleven-fold would result in only a 10% increase in this quotient, so it is easy to see why liberals would support this metric. The proponents of the LQ=L/(L+C) metric claim that it is "fair and balanced."

[[Category:Politics]]

Nicholas II

2007-05-05T11:43:48Z

GofG: Redirecting to Czar Nicholas II

#REDIReCT [[Czar Nicholas II]]

Naturalistic evolution

2007-05-05T11:38:52Z

GofG: This would be a perfect, perfect place for a citation. Why don't we have one?

'''Unguided evolution''' refers to the appearance of new species of life on the Earth without the intervention of God.

Opinion polls show that Americans make a distinction between evolution (1) not actually having happened at all, (2) having come about '''because of''' God's supernatural intervention, or (3) having come about purely by natural forces.

Polls have tended to show the same proportion of belief regardless of whether they are conducted by liberals or conservatives. About 15% of Americans believe in unguided evolution, while 80% reject it and 5% have no opinion{{fact}}.

*These numbers shows that skepticism that life developed via purely unguided evolutionary processes remains very high. [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/why_many_people_dont_care_that.html]

==Usage==

Many evolutionists object to the term ''unguided evolution'' on the ground that the [[Theory of Evolution]] is a scientific theory which is concerned only with naturalistic causes and makes no reference to "guidance" other than the guiding effect of [[Natural Selection]].

==Partisanship==

The concept of unguided evolution is important in the legal debates over evolution education in U.S. public schools. Evolutionists generally argue that evolution should be taught as a "fact" and without any discussion of whether it has been "guided" or not.

== Polls ==

Poll results vary.
* 9-12%: Humans developed, but God had no part in process. [http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm]
* 18%: evolution took place without God playing a role (just teens polled) [http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=20311]
"Human beings have evolved, but God had no part in the process." [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm]

*All: 12%
*Men: 17%
*Women: 8%

Romantic period (music)

2007-05-02T23:21:30Z

GofG:

The '''romantic period''' of [[classical music]] saw lusher scores, and more personal, human themes. Movement was made away from the heights and into the details of life, its ups and downs, its torments and delights.

Many well known composers are associated with this era:

*[[Franz Schubert|Schubert]]
*[[Frédéric Chopin|Chopin]]
*[[Franz Liszt|Liszt]]
*[[Giuseppe Verdi|Verdi]]
*[[Richard Wagner|Wagner]]
*[[Felix Mendelsohn|Mendelsohn]]
*[[Robert Schumann|Schumann]]
*[[Johannes Brahms|Brahms]]
*[[Antonin Dvorak|Dvorak]]
*[[Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky|Tchaikovsky]]
*[[Gustav Mahler|Mahler]]
*[[Claude Debussy|Debussy]]
*[[Richard Strauss|Strauss]]
*[[Maurice Ravel|Ravel]]
*[[Ludwig Von Beethoven|Beethoven]]
[[category:music]]

Spore

2007-05-02T23:20:21Z

GofG: Fragment

A '''spore''' is a [[reproduction|reproductive]] [[cell]] with a hard, protective coating. Many fungi, algae, ferns, and mosses reproduce via spores. <ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia
Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> Evolutionists believe spores are cells which have adapted for the special purpose of [[reproduction]].

{{stub}}

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Strata

2007-05-02T23:17:34Z

GofG:

In [[geology]], layers of [[rock]] that are distinct. Also a popular brunch dish in the [[Midwest]].

[[Category:Geology]]

Right-wing politics

2007-05-02T23:15:56Z

GofG: Changed wording to be more encyclopaedic

{{merge|political spectrum}}
The term '''Rightist''' refers to someone on the 'right' side of the [[political spectrum]]. Politics on the 'right' usually
imply taking positions in favor of the traditional system of a society, including its traditional values and its traditional ruling institutions. Compare: [[leftist]].

It is widely accepted, however, that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the [[political spectrum theory]] still has wide currency.

[[category:politics]]

Strategic Defense Initiative

2007-05-02T23:14:52Z

GofG: Added {{fact}}

[[Image:SDI.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Extended Range Interceptor (ERINT)]]
The Strategic Defense Initiative or SDI, which is also commonly called Star Wars{{fact}}, was a proposal by U.S. President [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1983 to build a ground based and space based system to protect the U.S. from nuclear ballistic missiles. The system was never fully set up, but the research from this paved the way for the anti-ballistic missile systems of today{{fact}}.

[[Category:Military]]

House, MD

2007-05-02T23:14:06Z

GofG:

{{stub}}
'''House MD''' is a television series on the [[Fox Network]]. It is also known as '''House''', without the MD.

Eternal death

2007-05-02T23:13:38Z

GofG:

{{stub}}
Eternal death is the tragic perpetual state of those who die estranged from God, the source of life for the soul{{fact}}.

United States Secretary of State

2007-05-02T23:13:08Z

GofG: typo

''This article refers to the '''United States Secretary of State'''. For the '''Secretary of State''' for the state governments, go to [[Secretary of State (U.S. state government)]]''

The '''United States Secretary of State''' is the head of the U.S. [[Department of State]]. The Secretary of State is the highest ranking member of the [[United States Cabinet|President's Cabinet]] in both line of succession and order of precedence. The first Secretary of State was John Jay, under President [[George Washington]]. The current Secretary of State is [[Condoleezza Rice]].

==History==
The [[Second Continental Congress]] created the office of Secretary of Foreign Affairs to head the [[Department of State|Department of Foreign Affairs]] on January 13, 1781. Later that year, on July 27, President George Washington signed a law authorizing the executive department. On September 15th of the same year, the Department and Secretary of Foreign Affairs were renamed the Department and Secretary of State.

The title Secretary of State is of British origin. This title was given to senior members of the King's cabinet.

==Original Domestic Duties==
*Receipt, publication, distribution and preservation of laws of the U.S.
*Custody of the [[Great Seal of the United States]]
*Authentication of copies and preparation of commossions of executive branch appointments
*Final custody of the books, papers, and records of the Contintental Congress including the Constitution itself and the [[Declaration of Independence]]

==Current Duties==
*Storage and use of the Great Seal of the United States
*Performance of protocol functions for the [[White House]]
*Drafting of certain proclamations
*Formally accepting notice of the president's resignation - this has only happened once, when President [[Richard Nixon]] resigned in August 1974.
*Replies to inquiries

[[category:United States]]

Uncle

2007-05-02T23:09:39Z

GofG: Stub

{{stub}}
The [[brother]] of one of a child's parents.

Pepsi

2007-05-02T22:54:29Z

GofG: Changed some wording

'''Pepsi''' is a [[carbonated]], caffeinated cola-based soft drink manufactured by Pepsi Co, Inc. It is made out of carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, caffeine, sugar, phosphoric acid, citric, coloring, artificial flavors, natural flavors and cola. It was invented by a pharmacist named Caleb Bradham in the early 1890s in New Bern, North Carolina. Bradham was operating a pharmacy and invented the drink as a refreshment for his customers. It was originally called "Brad's drink" but Bradham changed the name to Pepsi in 1898, after the enzyme pepsin. Bradham's original form of Pepsi was made of sugar, carbonated water, vanilla, kola nuts, and rare oils.

Even though pepsin was not in Pepsi, they both helped the stomach to digest hard-to-digest foods because of their acidity and could therefore help calm an upset or sick stomach, which was why Bradham named Pepsi after pepsin. Pepsi was trademarked in June 1903. Pepsi-Cola Company also owns some non-caffeinated and non-soft drink businesses. It owns Gatorade, Quaker Oatmeal, and Tropicana, an orange juice company. 

The Pepsi-Cola Company distributes the soft drink mountain dew, which is a lemon-lime cola free soft drink with a very high amount of [[sugar]] and [[caffeine]]. Mountain dew was originally invented and owned by the Tip Corporation of Marion, Virginia but was sold to Pepsi in 1964 for about 6 million dollars in Pepsi Company stock. It also produces the soft drink Sierra Mist, which is a [[lemon]]-[[lime]] [[cola]] free and caffeine free soft drink. Their is a version of Pepsi called Diet Pepsi which has zero carbohydrates, zero calories and zero sugar but still retains the caffeine. There is also a caffeine free version of Diet Pepsi. Pepsi used to market a soft drink called Pepsi Blue, which tasted like a mixture of Pepsi and a blueberry muffin and ended up being a commercial disaster. It used to market a drink called Pepsi AM which contained much more caffeine than regular Pepsi but is no longer produced, it was marketed as a morning drink.

It also currently markets a drink called Pepsi Cappacino, which is a mixture of Pepsi and coffee. Pepsi also markets a low calorie sugar free cola called Pepsi Max. The Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi-Cola war in the international economy has become famous. During the Cold War the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] [[Communism|communists]] chose Pepsi as their national soft drink franchise whereas the [[China|Chinese]] communists chose Coca-Cola as their national soft drink franchise. After the fall of the USSR in 1991 Pepsi sales declined in Russia because it was associated with the old hated Bolshevik regime so Coca-Cola rose to a dominant position in the Russian soft drink industry. The Islamic government in [[Iran]] has condemned Pepsi as a pro-Jewish organization and claims that Pepsi stands for "Pay every penny to save Israel"<ref>http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/05/8401292/index.htm</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://www.pepsi.com/home.php Pepsi Official Web Site]

[[Category:Soft drinks]]

Anadromous

2007-05-02T22:50:50Z

GofG: Fixed sentence fragment

An '''anadromous''' lifecycle is one in which creatures are hatched in fresh water, migrate to salt water as adults, and then to back to fresh water in order to [[reproduce]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

The [[salmon]] is a familiar example of an anadromous fish; everyone has seen dramatic images of salmon struggling as they swim upstream to [[spawn]]. Most salmon return to their "home stream," the stream where they were born, to spawn, even though may have traveled thousands of miles away from it as adults. In the 1960s and 70s scientists learned that they recognize their home stream by smell.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Fish]]

Vittorio Orlando

2007-05-02T22:49:09Z

GofG: Added stub template

{{stub}}
Vittorio Orlando was an Italian statesman and prime minister during the end of [[World War I]]. He lived from May 19, 1860 to December 1, 1952. Orlando represented his country at the [[Paris Peace Conference]].

Socialism

2007-05-02T22:47:03Z

GofG: I'd love to see some evidence of this

[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, ''Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!'']]
'''Socialism''' is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "progressive" social policy or directly via nationalisation and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accummulating income.

Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal healthcare, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years.

While socialism has often been atheistic in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian comunities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that coud be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,

:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian.

Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favour of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America.

== British socialism ==

British socialism alleges to maintain benefits and incentives that existed in a free economy while promoting reforms intended to provide better working and living conditions for workers. The British government of 1945-1951 under Clement Atlee were stringent socialists who implemented the "nationalisation" of several industries. Nationalising the health care industry made it more accesible to all in theory, however the system has been plagued by long waiting lists and lack of modernization and improvements. Subsequently, the introduction of the NHS led to a sharp rise in life expectancy and a dramatic fall in infant deaths.{{fact}} As a result of these socialist elements, Britain maintained a healthy mixed economy, ensuring that the economy grew substantially {{fact}} while supporting through the welfare state to protect the poor.

The supposedly socialist Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]], [[Tony Blair]], is an avowed Christian, who has responded to criticism of the UK's involvement in the [[Iraq war]] by claiming that only [[God]] could judge him for his actions. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm</ref>. In Britain, Catholics are [[discriminate]]d{{fact}} against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but Blair has never done so.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Mallard Fillmore

2007-05-02T21:50:07Z

GofG: Just because it's referenced doesn't mean it's necessary. Removed for conciseness. Also, added commas around "in fact".

'''Mallard Fillmore''' is a newspaper comic strip with a conservative point of view, by cartoonist Bruce Tinsley. It appears in about four hundred U. S. newspapers. The title character is, in fact, a mallard duck. It first appeared in the Charlottesville, Va ''Daily Progress,'' but was dropped when Tinsley refused to tone down its conservative politics; it was subsequently picked up by ''The [[Washington Times]].''<ref>[http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/mallard/aboutMaina.php Mallard Fillmore], King Features Syndicate site.</ref>

==Controversies==

The January 4, 2005 cartoon carried a picture of a television executive, which some readers felt was a [[Jewish]] caricature.<ref>Jewish World review http://jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/MFT50104.jpg </ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Millard Fillmore]], 13th President of the United States

Woodrow Wilson

2007-05-02T21:48:19Z

GofG: Fixed grammar

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Pppq.jpg|180px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|Woodrow Wilson;
Twenty-Eighth President of the United States
|-
|Born
|December 28, 1856
|-
|Died
|February 3, 1924
|-
|Term
|1913-1921
|-
|}

'''Woodrow Wilson''' was the 28th president of United States. He was president from 1913 to 1921. In 1917 he led the United States' entrance in to [[World War I]].

Woodrow Wilson was the son of a preacher who grew up in the south after the [[civil war]]. Because of this he knew a great deal about the humiliation, economic ruin and shame that the loser of a war experiences and the hatred that grows from this. This insight helped him make a forgiving plan for peace called the [[Fourteen Points]].

"Wilson, a liberal's liberal, was a Presbyterian elder who read the Bible daily; he felt 'sorry for the men who do not read the Bible every day.' The Bible, he argued, was 'the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life.' Wilson was prone to make explicitly Christian claims about his nation, even excluding the word ''Judeo'' from his characterization of the nation's religious heritage. 'America was born a Christian nation,' claimed the great liberal in 1913. 'America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.' "<ref>God and George W. Bush (New York: Regan Books, 2004), p. 175</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
Woodrow Wilson has come under scrutiny in recent years for his position on segregation, most notably within for federal jobs.

Aeneid

2007-05-02T21:47:17Z

GofG: Fixed wording

The ''Aeneid'' is a fictional poetic work by [[Virgil]], about the founding of Rome. It is the counterpart of the Greek ''[[Iliad]]'' and ''[[Odyssey]]''.

It opens with the famous words ''Arma virumque cano'' ("Of arms and the man I sing,") which is often alluded to in literature. For example, the title of [[George Bernard Shaw]]'s play is ''Arms and the Man.''

[[Category:Poetry]]

9/11 conspiracy theories

2007-05-02T21:46:10Z

GofG:

9/11 conspiracy theories are usually claims that the [[United States]] government attacked it's own country on [[9/11]], 2001. The "evidence" provided by the conspiracy theorists, also known as "[[9/11 truthers]]" is widely debunked. Some information is provided here.

==World trade Center #7==
There are claims that WTC #7 was brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11. Supporters of this theory show photographs of the building from a misleading angle (it omits the smoke that seemed to pour out of the building due to fires inside). Many more photos exist that show massive fires burned throughout the building.

Some quote an owner of WTC #7 as saying they demolished the building. These people say that when he said in an interview that they decided to "pull" the building, he meant demolish. However, in this instance, "pull" does not mean demolish; it means to pull-out.

[[Rosie O'Donnell]] recently said that she believes WTC #7 was brought down by the government.<ref>http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612184.shtml</ref>

==Black smoke==
Black smoke was seen coming out of WTC #7 and other places on 9/11. A common conspiracy theory says that black smoke means that a fire is starved of oxygen, and therefore can easily be put out. It is said that the firefighter's did not attempt to put out the fire, in this case. In the past, this might have been true, but petroleum burns very hot and is difficult to put out, and yet it also gives off black smoke. There was probably petroleum in the seventh tower.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:politics]]

Pocahontas

2007-05-02T21:40:38Z

GofG: Sounds better. The word "noble" is objective.

'''Pocahontas''' (1595 - 1617 A.D.) was an [[American Indian]] princess and a character in a [[Disney]] movie. She was married to Captain [[John Rolfe]], one of the colonists in [[Jamestown]]. Her father was part of the Powhatan Confederacy in Werowocomoco. Pocahontas was abducted to obtain release of prisoners held by her father in 1613.

Pocahontas bore a child by John Rolfe, one Thomas Rolfe. Many living today trace their ancestry to Pocahontas, including Pauline de Rothschild, Charles Joseph Cabell, Edith Wilson (the wife of [[Woodrow Wilson]]) and George Wythe Randolph.{{fact}} Some genealogists have claimed that the [[Bush]] family (including US presidents [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[George W. Bush]]) are descended from Pocahontas based on the assumption that Robert Bolling Jr. (a 10th generation ancestor) was the son of Robert Bolling and Jane Rolfe (the granddaughter of Pocahontas). However Jane Rolfe Bolling died in 1676, six years before the birth of Robert Bolling Jr. who was the son of Robert Bolling by his second wife, Anne Stithe.{{fact}}

[[Category:Women]]

American Civil War: 1864

2007-05-02T11:23:31Z

GofG: No sigs in articles...

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Cwlogo.png|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|The Civil War
1861 - 1865
|-
|Begun
|April 12, 1861
|-
|Ended
|April 9, 1865
|-
|Casualties
|970,000
|-
|Total dead
|620,000
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|United States of America
|-
|President
|[[Abraham Lincoln]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Simon Cameron, Edwin M. Stanton
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Gideon Welles
|-
|Secretary of State
|William Seward
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Confederate States of America
|-
|President
|[[Jefferson Davis]]
|-
|Secretary of War
|Leroy Pope Walker, Judah P. Benjamin, George W. Randolph, James Seddon, John C. Breckinridge
|-
|Secretary of the Navy
|Stephan Mallory
|-
|Secretary of State
|Robert Toombs, Robert M.T. Hunter, Judah P. Benjamin
|}
This article is being written after the completion of [[American Civil War: 1863]].
==Links==
====The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion====
*[http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.html Official Records, from Cornell University]
*[http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/records/default.cfm?CFID=2953054&CFTOKEN=64723065&jsessionid=de3014246f1a3c587075TR Official Records, from eHistory.com]
====General====
*[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/civil_war_maps Library of Congress Civil War map collection]
*[http://www.civil-war.net The Civil War Homepage]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar The PBS/Ken Burns documentary]
*[http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar The History Place]
*[http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/misc/civilwar/civilwar.htm Civil War at a Glance; US Interior Department]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com Shotgun's home of the American Civil War]
*[http://www.cwc.lsu.edu US Civil War Center, from Louisiana State University]
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/nhihtml/cwnyhshome.html Civil War Treasures, from New York Historical Society]

[[Category:American Civil War]]

Hess's Law

2007-05-02T11:21:01Z

GofG:

Hess's Law states that:

Energy is a state function and is therefore independent.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Submarine

2007-05-02T11:19:17Z

GofG:

[[Image:Typhoon3.jpg|right|thumb|250px|A typhoon class nuclear ballistic missile submarine.]]
A '''submarine''' is a vehicle that travels under water (i.e. an underwater boat). The submarine was invented in the 17th century. Though it was originally designed for the purpose of exploration, its military benefits soon became clear. The first military submarine was the Turtle used by the Colonists during the [[American Revolution]]. Submarines have been used in many other wars since, most notably World Wars I and II, and are still used for their original purpose of exploration to this day.

The first submarine to sink a ship was the [[CSS Hunley|CSS ''Hunley'']] which sank the USS ''Housatonic'' during the [[American Civil War]] on 17 February 1864 in Charleston Harbour. The ''Hunley'' never returned from the mission, sinking with the loss of all crew.

The first submarine commissioned into the United States Navy was the USS ''Holland''. She was commissioned on Columbus Day in 1900 and was subsequently designated SS 1. Today, the United States Navy operates 14 Ohio class SSBN's, 4 Ohio class SSGN's, 3 Seawolf class SSN's, approximately 40 Los Angeles Class SSN's, and 2 commissioned Virginia class SSN's.

*SSN is Submersible Ship Nuclear(powered)
*SSBN is Submersible Ship Ballistic Nuclear (ballistic missles)
*SSGN is Submersible Ship Guided Nuclear (guided cruise missles)

Although all US Navy submarines are capable of launching tomahawk missile's, the SSGN's are given there designation of SSGN because they are capable of carrying 154+ tomahawk cruise missiles, a massive loadout compared to that of a standard SSN.
Currently, the United States Navy maintains submarines bases in
Groton, CT
Norfolk, VA
Kingsbay, GA
Banger, WA
[[Image:submarine.jpg|left|250px|thumb]]
San Diego, CA
Pearl Harbor, HA
Guam, Guam
and at least for the meantime there is a submarine tender at the NSA(naval support activity) located in LaMadalena, Italy. An island off the coast of Sardinia.

[[Category:Military]]

Christian persecution

2007-05-02T11:15:56Z

GofG: When not refering to THE Crucifix, this shouldn't be capitalized, no more than the word "gunshot" in "murdered by gunshot" should be capitalized.

The most notable period regarding the persecution of [[Christian]]s is the Ancient [[Roman]] times. In Ancient Rome, Christians were most commonly murdered by [[crucifixion]] and being put in arenas with [[lion]]s. The emperor [[Nero]] was one of the most notorious persecutors. Christians continue to be persecuted around the world today in [[communist]] countries like [[China]], and [[Islamic]] countries.

This persecution continued up through the fourth century, when Constantine's [[Edict of Milan]] in 317 A.D. promulgated a doctrine of religious tolerance. In 393 A.D., Christianity became the state religion of Rome, gaining strength after Constantine's conquest of Rome from his fellow ''caesars'' of the time.<ref>"... in 391 AD, Christianity became the official, and only, state religion of the empire." [http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/Rome__Le.htm The Legacy of Rome] </ref>

Deep divisions remained within the Empire. Examples include:
# The [[Altar of Victory]] affair.
# The removal of avowed polytheists from office.

Persecution generally ended in 317, with the Edict of Milan.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Christianity]]

World War II

2007-04-30T20:08:04Z

GofG: I believe it is common grammar to, when listing items that in themselves have commas, put a semicolon inbetween the items.

'''World War II''' was a global conflict fought between the [[Allies|Allied]] powers including the [[United States]], the [[Soviet Union]], [[Britain]], [[France]], Australia, Canada and many other nations and the [[Axis (WWII)|Axis]] powers (mainly [[Nazism|Nazi]] [[Germany]], [[Fascism|Fascist]] [[Italy]], and Imperial [[Japan]]). The war is usually considered to have started on September 1, 1939 with the invasion of [[Poland]] by Nazi Germany. During the war, eight major world powers fought, along with several lesser states joining with one side or the other. On the side which lost were the Axis Powers Germany, [[Japan]], and [[Italy]]. Against them were the Allied Powers [[United States]], [[Great Britain]] and the Commonwealth, the [[Soviet Union]], [[France]], and [[China]] (which was friendly to the West at the time.) Russia entered the war after Germany launched an attack codenamed [[Operation_Barbarossa|Barbarossa]], while Britain declared war in reaction to Germany's aggression against [[Poland]].

==Causes==
The causes of World War II are complicated. The immediate causes of World War II are generally held to be the Japanese attacks on China, the United States, the British and Dutch colonies; and the German invasion of Poland on the 1st September 1939. Following the two day deadline for the withdrawl of German forces, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand declared war on Germany, followed quickly by France, South Africa, Canada and Nepal.

One major cause of German aggression may be the fervent [[Nationalism]] that became the norm in Germany post-[[World War I]]. Germans were eager to reaffirm their position as a major player on the world stage.{{fact}}

== German Tactics ==
The major tactical innovation of the war was the use of combined arms warfare, typified by the German doctrine of [[blitzkrieg]]. In this style of warfare armor, infantry, artillery and air power (see [[Luftwaffe]]) all coordinate to achieve overwhelming superiority at point on the enemy lines. Armor and fast-moving infantry units then exploit the gap and penetrate deep behind enemy lines. The objective is to cause a widespread collapse of the enemy's ability to fight. It was particularly effective during the early stages of the war, before the Allies developed effective countermeasures.

==War in Europe 1939-1941==
The French and British were initially reluctant to honour promises to the Polish government, avoiding serious consideration of an invasion of Germany. The British failed send land forces in time to support the Poles (see [[Western betrayal]]). The French mobilized slowly and then launched a token offensive in the Saar. The Meanwhile, on September 8, the Germans reached Warsaw, having slashed through the Polish defenses.

Following the completion of the invasion of Poland, German forces regrouped and Allied forces remained defensive, leading US commentators to dub it the [[Phoney War]]. This perception was not shared in [[Finland]], which fought a Soviet invasion start on 30 November 1939. Despite the overwhelming numbers of the [[Red Army]], the Finnish resistance was strong and the battle was hard fought before the Soviet army took control.

May 10 1940 marked the end of any accustion of a phoney war, with the invasion of France by Germany, via [[The Netherlands]], [[Luxembourg]] and [[Beligium]]. Resistance by the British armies and French armies proved weak and the occupation of France began. British troops were able to evacuate mainland Europe at Dunkirk. France was divided into the northern [[Occupied France]] and the collaborationist [[Vichy regime]] in the south of France, including [[Corsica]].

The collapse and occupation of France, together with Germany's alliance with the Soviet Union, fascist Italy, benevolent neutrality of fascist Spain and Portugal, with little of Europe outside of Axis hands led many to assume that the United Kingdom had been defeated. Indeed it would appear that the, seemingly foolish, decision of the relatively weak United Kingdom to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard. This decision ensured the remaining British Empire was still involved in the war, with Japan threatening many British possessions in Asia.

In 1940 [[Denmark]] and [[Norway]] were invaded by German forces, to preempt a British occupation of Norway. Norway also contained a source of [[Heavy water]], possibly crucial in the construction of an atomic weapon. This was soon followed by the British invasion of neutral [[Iceland]] (the invasion of [[Denmark]] by German forces marks the start of an independent Iceland).

With Britain the sole opposing European nation, the [[Battle of Britain]] commenced. The [[Luftwaffe]] attempted to achieve aerial dominance over the south of Britain, in order to allow a sea based invasion of Britain to proceed. For many months the [[Royal Air Force]] and Luftwaffe fought for dominance, with the resilience of the RAF, with British, Canadian and Polish pilots forced a rethink of [[German]] tactics. The period that followed is known as the [[Blitz]], where the RAF and Luftwaffe attempted to undermine the infrastructure of the opposing country. This was a period of great economic devastation, which took both countries a considerable period to recover from. More seriously it led to huge numbers of civilian deaths.

1941 marked the major turning point in the war in Europe, when the Germans put aside plans for an invasion of Britain and undertook [[Operation Barbarossa]] - the invasion of the Soviet Union. In a war of major turning points, this was the most significant in Europe. This miscalculation diminished the Germans armies capacity as they a war against the Soviet Union (known as the [[Great Patriotic War]] in the Soviet Union) demanded huge dedication of resources and later in the war permitted an invasion of mainland Europe by Allied Forces on [[D Day]].

==The end of World War II in Asia==
On August 6, 1945, a B-29 Superfortress, the Enola Gay, dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Then, on August 9, a B-29 dropped the second atomic bomb. On August 20 the Japanese government told the United States they were ready to accept the terms which the Allies proposed. The next day, the Allies replied, saying the authority of the emperor would be "subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers." On August 14 the Japanese government agreed to this.

Then, September 2, 1945, the Japanese government, along with all it's military forces, formally surrendered to the United States. This happened in a ceremony aboard an American battleship, the ''Missouri'', on [[Tokyo Bay]], where the [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender]] was signed. This was the ending of World War II, after six years almost to the day.

==Fall Out From World War II==

*[[Iron Curtain]]

*British Empire
The war effectively bankrupted Britain, which started the process of discarding its empire. It was not until 2007 Britain finished paying off the loans to the USA which it had taken to fight Nazi Germany.

*Supermecy of the USA in the Western World
Whilst most countries had seen their economies demolished by the war, the USA had industrialised heavily and gained financial gains from sales of arms to other Allied countries.

*Supremecy of the Soviet Union in the Eastern World.

==References==

<references/>
[[Category:World War II| ]]
[[Category:Wars]]

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-04-30T20:00:29Z

GofG: /* Sources and legality- clarifications and opinions */

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

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The Bible scientific? Where was I when this was decided? Also you can't use it as a historical information source as well as it has many conflictions within itself. For instance the see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Variations_between_the_genealogies Genealogy of Jesus]. Definately not historically accurate. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm not going to use as a source of Biblical information anything from Wikipedia. As for the Bible being a reliable source of info both historical and scientific, that was decided long before you were born. And we are going to use it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:26, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The only case I can see for Bible entrys in scientific articles is for historical accuracies. Otherwise, it has no point, the Bible is a religious text (somewhat of a historical text, but that's debatable), not scientific text. It'd be like having entries from the Koran in here about science. As to that point, which Bible would be used? Would entries from the Book of Maccabees count (In the Catholic Bible, but omitted in other versions, etc.)? I'm just saying you can't specify "The Bible" when there are numerous different versions and translations out there. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 04:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biased, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You know, basically doing what all of you could be doing at Wikipedia if you didn't prefer secession over improvement. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a source which must not be copied from, Wikipedia. But that probably wasn't your question. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You might want to '''bold''' text the line:
====Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.====
[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or you might go a step less and state it as:
*Do not copy from '''''Wikipedia''''' or other non-public domain sources. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Against Proposal:
How would this be of any use? If anyone wants to vandalize this wiki then they easily can. And if you start banning people with user names like mine (trekie9001) than people will just sign up as RichCheese or some other such "real" sounding names and it won't make a bit of difference. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Then there is the issue of foreign vandals; I noticed they could report vandals to their employer. As far as Canada goes, sharing such information with anyone other than the police would be a violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA for short). You see in the free world, we have the right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty. You would have to provide information to the police and allow them to conduct the investigation. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::While I agree that cites need to be done in a coherent manner, I'm not such a big fan of the MLA system. What's wrong with traditional foot- and end-notes? The Wiki software supports that kind of referencing already. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 18:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That is also a correct way to cite a source; foot and endnotes have been in use for years with no problem. What I said above is not written in stone, but there must be some sort of standard guide. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Furthermore - you would have to show it is vandalism. Imagine trying to prove that a non-creationist but factually correct post was 'vandalism' in a court of law. I think it may well cause a laugh or too but certainly no penalty.

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, yes. However, I think/hope that people don't REALLY get banned just for poking an Admin. That would have a very chilling effect on the overall mood (more than it has already). So I assumed that the real reason for Aschlafly's ban warnings is just a sign of stress in the face of a flooded Talk page. So if we fix that, we don't have to set up strict rules about what you aren't allowed to say on (User) Talk pages. Conservapedia already bans users over little things like content disputes, no need to make things even stricter.
:::But if the ban warning policy really stays like this, it should of course be reflected here. In particular, Rule 6 would have to be altered quite a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Un-American Spelling ==
I am wondering why conservapedia feels threatened by, say, british spelling of words vs american spellings. I like to use the british spellings because my computer says it is spelled incorrectly, yet i still love America. A paradox, isn't it? Still, perhaps we should choose the correct dialect in America to use on this cite. Otherwise, someone could point out the british spelling is used in some parts of America, and thus be considered "American," and therefore be able to use it. I personally am partial to the Mid-west.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 10:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia is rather unusual in allowing and supporting a mix of usage styles. Most U. S. print publishers would specify a style manual calling out U. S. spelling. Most U. K. publishers would specify a style manual calling out British spelling. When a U. S. work is republished in the U. K. or vice versa, one of the publication steps would be copyediting the work to conform to local usage. A good example of this would be the first Harry Potter book, in which even the ''title'' was changed for the U. S. market. Conversely, I don't know if they would do this any more but I remembering reading a British edition of ''The Grapes of Wrath'' in which the Okies were talking about the difficulty of buying "a gallon a petrol" for their car.

:99.9% of all print publications mandate that spelling conform to whichever side of the pond they're on, and nobody thinks twice about it. If Conservapedia wants to say "We're an American encyclopedia," this shouldn't in itself raise any eyebrows.

:Wikipedia's policy is, of course, a very pragmatic response to the problem of producing an ''international'' English-language encyclopedia that is edited completely by unpaid volunteers who can't be ordered to use a uniform style and can't be assigned the job of copy-editing everything to a uniform style.

:My guess, and ''it's just a guess,'' is that something like this could have happened. Suppose one day a student typed in something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record Phonograph record], misinterpreted what happened, thought that Wikipedia had '''corrected''' what he had typed in, and told a teacher "No, the right name is 'Gramophone record,' Wikipedia says so," and the teacher overreacted.

:Is there a legitimate concern about (say) U. S. high school students using Wikipedia as a learning resource and thereby acquiring incorrect spelling habits? Let me put it this way: Conservapedia's emphasis on this point seems grotesquely exaggerated, but I, at least, see the point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hate speech ==

Awhile back in [[Talk:Fred_Phelps]] the suggestion was made that hate speech should be prohibited on Conservapedia. I believe that it is time to present this as a suggestion for a commandment, especially when taken into context of [[Talk:Homosexuality]]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please Define Hate Speech. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:huey gunna getcha]] was blocked for implying the mass killing of homosexuals at [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]] --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Preaching God's word is not hate speech. Only homosexuals believe so. It's part of their agenda. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::RightWolf, you make the baby Jesus cry.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I believe the best definition would revolve around [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot bigotry]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No it is not. People committing sodomy are not in a protected class. Please don't try to hijack the righteous freedom train on a deadly detour from Selma to Sodom. being born Black is not a sin. Engaging in sexual perversion is. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, right. Because we all know that homosexuality is a choice<nowiki></sarcasm></nowiki>. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::In that case, many people on this site would be blocked. Most Christians regard homosexuality with extreme prejudice. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He went on a long rant about how creating a "cure" for homosexuality is an awesome idea. He then said "If genetic tinkering doesn't work, rifles rarely fail." Tell me how that is not hate speech. It's [[Nazi|Nazism]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am merely quoting from the bible. I realize that it's "vouge" and "sylish" to accept homosexuals. You can tell it to my baby brother, who was kidnapped and raped by a homosexual when he was 11. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Because if one individual in a group of tens of millions does something, then all of them must be bad. Hmmmm... brings to mind Eric Robert Rudolph, doesn't it? Does this mean that because one Christian did it, they all must be bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Also, in regards to RightWolf, aside from the fact that he makes the baby Jesus cry with his bigoted, homophobic, hatemongering remarks, homosexuals are in a protected class, as a "discrete and insular minority" according to the term defined in ''Korematsu'' carried forward in ''Lawrence'' and ''Loving''. The law is not on your side, and thankfully, neither is most of America. I'm with Hojimachong. Hate speech will further drag this site through the mud.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not entirely true. In the state I am in, sodomy is a Class A misdemeanor and inducing acceptance of sodomy to a minor is a class 3 felony. Lawrence vs. Kansas has not been accepted here where minors are concerned. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You also should remove the references in the homosexual agenda about "supressing biblical teachings which condemn homosexuality" if this is the view of the majority. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does a law regarding minors have to do at all? Regardless, I'd like to see you cite this alleged "law" that classifies sodomy as illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, he's probably right about his "state" having a law on the books banning sodomy. Georgia didn't repeal its immediately after ''Lawrence v TEXAS'' either. However, the sodomy law in his "state" will never be prosecuted again because any conviction is now ''per se'' unconstitutional. I don't know where you come from, RightWolf, but Supreme Court precedent is binding on all lower courts and states. It's not optional.
: That said, I am deeply sorry for your brother, who was raped by a homosexual. No doubt there are gay men who are bad men. However, there are straight men who are bad men too. Being gay doesn't make you a rapist anymore than being straight makes you a rapist.
: And finally, sodomy laws protecting minors are still in place, just like statutory rape laws still exist...-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe in the First Ammendment, so any rule should be calefully thought out and clearly defined. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Does the first amendment apply to the administration of a website? I'm no lawyer, But I don't think it would. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech. It is perfectly acceptable to censor anything on private property. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== 4th C, (use of AD). ==

I've noticed an excessive use of 'AD' in contexts where it is rarely used, and in most instances, it's also being used wrongly. See my comments in [[Talk:Democratic Party]]. BC is used consistently to indicate pre-AD 1 dates, and not quite so often for early AD era dates, e.g., "3rd century AD", "AD 314". For uses with just the year, "AD 2007" is the usual and correct form (with AD in front and not at the end), and is never used with the month and day. I have rarely encountered the form "March 21, 2007 AD", and using it over and over again in the same article calls negative attention to the article. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 18:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*You are correct. Maybe some are using it constantly to (re)make a point over and over. That would be disruptive. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I see the article [[Democratic Party]] has been expunged of the attention-grabbing '''AD'''s. As for the 4th C., it occurs to me this is merely a demand to follow a uniform style. Every publishing house has its own manual of style. Fine: we use BC/AD instead of the johnny-come-lately BCE/CE. I'm used to the MLA style manual; interestingly, Wikipedia and Conservapedia follows it, particularly in the presentation of the names of people, which makes for difficulties in alphabetizing biographical articles. My modest suggestion is that C. IV be rewritten to indicate everyone is expected to follow a standard style. As it stands, it seems Conservapedia has knee-jerking objections to BCE/CE a la ''letters to the editor'' in [[Biblical Archaeology Review]]. As for style, I have no objections to a breezy, mid-register style, provided the grammar, spelling and content/sourcing are sound (1st rule of writing: one always writes to the expected audience, and speaking above them, or worse, to a third party behind them, is an automatic turnoff to all readers). --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem with using BCE/CE, it is used all the time in academics (and not just by "liberals"). But to expressively forbid them seems like a knee-jerk reaction in itself. Why not just use the two terms (BCE/CE and BC/AD) interchangeably? [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 04:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== A good wiki rule - no personal attacks ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks No personal attacks]. As this site grows and more people with different interpretations of source material join, it would be proper to put down a rule regarding personal attacks. As has recently been seen, this can can be very disruptive to the communication between editors, makes people who have positive contributions less likely to join and presents a poor image of conservapedia to the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think this is a no-brainer, as Argumentum ad Hominem provides absolutely no value to any discussion. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== rule # 6==
why is this rule not enforced? 20:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Etiquette==
Shouldn't you guys have a page detailing what etiquette is standard? I know you guys prefer rules you can get your knickers (or panties? I guess knickers is a British word) in a twist over, but it might be a good idea to talk about how exactly people are supposed to use talk pages and the like. For example, it doesn't say anywhere to sign your posts with three tildes, and it doesn't say exactly how to respond to comments on talk pages-- I'm never sure if I should respond directly after the post I'm replying to or after the replies to the post I'm replying to. This is just if you're interested in having people who didn't learn already this stuff at Wikipedia already, though. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Your RH, one might want to check here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Contents]] at the "Help" pages, clearly marked in the menu bar on the left. Thanks for your concerns, and I promise you, my knickers don't have wrinkle one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==American spelling==
We have decided to remove Conservapedia Commandment 5. (American Spellings must be used) We decided that it wasn't enirely fair to and created too much trouble for our users who are not from America. However we would like Conservapedia to be as consistant as possible so we will continue to include american spellings as a style guideline. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 21:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

CPAdmin, but then why have the American Flag in the Logo of Conservapedia if you're trying to be "fair" to non-Americans? Let's have a standard here! [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 04:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== This does not add up ==

''7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.'' http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia

Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Rules

But if I publish my Original research on my own site, I can include it... --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:It also potentially clashes with the "must be true" and "always cite" commandments (see Talk page of the Differences article). But who cares? We also forbid gossip and at the same time call it "factual information": [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 See here]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That's exactly right. Both Wikipedia and here would allow an author to present his personal opinion on his site and cite it here. This is why it would be better if we did not allow personal websites to be used for information in articles. If it is worthy information, it will appear elsewhere. It might mean a little more editor work, but it will save countless editor discussions. And it will greatly improve how the public sees us, too. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

em.. no .... wikipedia does not allow an author to do that - people try it, but it's removed where found. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

1) Wikipedia ''definitely'' does not allow an author to do that.

2) The key point here is "properly labelled." Andrew Schlafly is experimenting with this idea. I don't know how well formed it is. I haven't been following closely but he posted an example: [[Adultress Story - Original Work]]. Perhaps others will make similar contributions and a body of practice and policy will evolve. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== grammar ==

I believe this sentence is grammatically incorrect:

'''"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of [[Jesus]], give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis."'''

:Deny the historical basis of what? It is a incomplete sentence. I don't want to fix the sentence because I don't know what the author intended. Is it "deny the historical basis" of the birth of Christ? If so, I think a citation is warranted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

*"[[CE]]" and "[[BCE]]" should not be used on Conservapedia because that is exactly what the intent is; to deny historical basis.

"CE" stands for "Common Era." It is a relatively new term that is experiencing increased usage and secular progressives think it will eventually replace AD. The latter is an abbreviation for "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English. The latter refers to the approximate birth year of [[Jesus Christ]]. CE and AD have the same and value. 2004 CE = AD 2004.

"BCE" stands for "Before the common era." It might eventually replace BC, which means "Before Christ," or "Before the Messiah." BC and BCE are also identical in value. Most theologians and religious historians believe that the approximate birth date of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) was in the fall, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE, although there are estimates as late as 4 CE and as early as the second century BCE.

At its year 2000 convention at Orlando FL, the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] approved their Resolution #9: ''"On retaining the traditional method of calendar dating (B.C./A.D.)." With reference to the popularity of the CE/BCE nomenclature, it stated, in part: "...This practice is the result of the secularization, antisupernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society." ''The traditional method of dating is a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel in world history.''"'' The resolution recommended that Southern Baptist "individuals, churches, entities, and institutions....retain the traditional method of dating and avoid this revisionism.

Those secularists and Liberal progressives adopting the new appellation's, often explain that the [[Ethic of Reciprocity]] ([[The Golden Rule]]) suggests that one should not intentionally cause unnecessary pain to other humans. We should treat others as we would wish to be treated. Since one out of every three humans on earth is a Christian, some very theologians and authors felt that non-religious, neutral terms like CE and BCE would be less "offensive" to the non-Christian majority on the planet. Forcing a [[Hindu]], for example, to use AD and BC are seen by the [[Liberal]] progressives as coercing them to acknowledge the supremacy of the [[Christian God]] and of [[Jesus Christ]]. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Regardless of my previous comment about BCE/CE and BC/AD, if we're going to stick with AD, please use it correctly! AD should be placed before the date, not after (e.g. AD 1999), while BC goes after (50 BC). Think about what the words mean (In the year of our Lord, 1999, 50 before Christ). I edited your comment TerryK to conform to the AD dating standard. I agree with what Conservative said, the split in "Common Era, Before Common Era" is based on the birth of Jesus, and that it lacks the historical context of that should be referenced. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 04:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Search Engine Exemption ==

Why the note exempting search engine spiders from "Commandment" 6. The "commandment" itself even specifies "wiki-bots" and it's not like a search engine spider would even obey anything like this. I propose the note be removed from the page because it is just dumb, useless, clutter. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== sourcing ==

There is a conservapedia commandment stating: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't think this is enough. There are many articles at Conservapedia which do not have any sourcing via footnotes. I think this undercuts our credibility and helps encourage people to put mere opinion that is not sourced. I think over the long run if we are to compete with Wikipedia we must have sourcing. Sourcing should be a requirement and not merely implied.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: What counts as a reliable source? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Like I said at [[Talk:Main_Page#sourcing]]: We already have a sourcing rule. It's, like, right under the one you quote. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Credentials ==

Many times on this site, if someone does not like and edit, they question the person's credentials. This is a bit of an unfair attack, however, I have presented mine. Perhaps if someone wants to challenge someone else's credentials, they should consider revealing their own? --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

*Doctor, you know what a red herring is, certainly. Pay no mind. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I do think that if someone feels that they are more of an expert on a topic then a particular editor, they should be able to prove it. It is illigitimate to question someone's creds without showing yours.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::Such credentials should be on their user page, correct? Having yours in your name "MD" does no good. Besides, if someone has no credentials but can provide good verifiable sources that counter your claim, it should also be valid as well. Some people like me (tooting my own horn?) are very well read, but have only credentials in a certain area (some have none!). [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 04:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information==
Commandment number 3 clearly rules out “gossip” the manual of style for political figures clearly says that “non-gossip scandals” are appropriate information to include in a political figure’s entry. Recently some information I (and others) had added to the entry on [[Rush Limbaugh]] was removed as gossip—I had included the part I added (and I assume this is true for the other contributors) under the belief that I was adding non-gossip scandal. I say that as background for my question: what is the dividing line between gossip and non-gossip scandal? I also asked this at [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians]], but it was suggested that I ask here. I am trying to make a contribution here and am trying to edit in line with the rules, but apparently despite my best efforts I may have inadvertently crossed a line, can someone please clarify what exactly is acceptable scandal information and what is unacceptable gossip?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Looking at the edit history, I take it you're referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=75691&oldid=75577 this]? The assertion that he's "repeatedly" been the subject of "scandal and controversy," and the examples being (I'm taking them at their unflattering face value) a) comparing the Clinton's daughter to a dog (but in a way allowing him to pretend he was "just kidding"); b) the revelation that he was addicted to and illegally using oxycontin; c) remarks about Michael J. Fox implying that he was exaggerating his symptoms to gain sympathy.

:Without trying to formulate policy, it seems to me that the essence of gossip is ''schadenfreude,'' delight in seeing some, particularly someone you dislike, humiliated, taken down a notch, exposed in a lie, etc.

:One possible test of whether something should be in an article is this: would it be in someone's newspaper obituary? If you believe it would be in their obituary, than it's not just gossip. If you're not sure whether it would be in someone's obituary, you need to think about it carefully (and make an explicit case as to why it's ''not'' just gossip. I'm about to do a test; I don't know yet how it will come out. I'm going to look up Warren G. Harding's obituary in The New York Times (why the Times? because it's the one I have online access to). I'm ''guessing'' that it will say something about his administration being "marred by scandal" or something of that sort. I'm ''guessing'' it will mention Teapot Dome. What I don't know is whether it will mention Nan Britton. Almost certainly not, since she didn't publish her book until 1927. Let's go see... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go, August 3, 1923, p 3. "HARDING A FARM BOY WHO ROSE BY WORK; Became a Newspaper Publisher, a Party Leader and Held Ohio Offices. PRESIDENT BY SUDDEN TURN His Wife Had a Premonition of His Death if Elevated to White House. WORK FOR ARMS REDUCTION His Efforts in Behalf of American Participation in the World Court." Nope, that article doesn't discuss his Presidency at all, to speak of... Interesting... as nearly as I can tell in a quick search, the Times mentioned Teapot Dome numerous times but did not conspicuously associate ''Harding'' with the scandal. Let's try a standard short-biography source (also courtesy of my public library); Dictionary of American Biography. Teapot Dome, check. Nan Britton, check. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are quite right, that is most of what I was referring to (though my addition was his illegal use of Viagra which seemed relevant in light of the painkiller charges and only in light of them)—though I’ve asked this question a few different times in some other places as well [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Rudy_Guiliani here for example].
::The standard you propose is an interesting one, but I see a few problems with it—
::First, that is clearly not the standard that is followed on many pages: see [[Rudy Giuliani]] (His affairs will not be part of his obituary nor will the fact that his first marriage was to a cousin.), [[John McCain]] (I doubt that the S&L scandal will make his obituary—but I think it is a very relevant and non-gossip scandal), and [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] (Whitewater—another non-gossip scandal—will not make her obituary). Second, the rule you propose is speculative—I don’t think those things will make the obituary, but you might—it provides very little in the way of actual guidance. Third, I think that several important scandals would be left out based on this rule (as I note above) and I find that troublesome. Finally, the rule provides different answers at different times—had McCain died during the S&L scandal it would be part of his obituary and if he dies during another S&L type scandal it might make it, but if he dies today, or during the campaign, it will not.
::Mostly though, I am asking for a clear and official statement on what exactly gossip is so that when I am asking myself “is this gossip?” I can look to something other than my own gut felling (which apparently conflicts with the gut feeling of others) about the nature of gossip.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's "Gossip" if it's about a Conservative. It's a "Legitimate Scandal" if it's about a Liberal. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 22:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== New Rule ==

I suggest a new rule:
:Don't let [[fact]]s get in the way of a good article.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rule against templates ==

Since there have been 2.5 bans ([[User:BDobbs]], [[User:AmesG]], and my own temporary ban and the ensuing discussion) about templates (all three given out by TK), I suggest a new rule so that people don't just get banned for breaking a non-existent rule TK simply invented and enforces on the fly:
{{QuoteBox|All article templates have to be authorized by a [[Special:Listusers/bureaucrat|bureaucrat]] or by a consensus of a group of [[Special:Listusers/sysop|sysops]]. Users who create and/or use such templates without authorization will be banned.}}
Either implement the rule or stop TK from making up rules. There was no word in an official place that making and using templates is now subject to bureaucrat-approval (it's NOT enough that even two sysops make a template together), and people get banned for it. Hardly sounds fair to me. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sid, your post is inappropriate because you haven't been appointed their advocate. It would be appropriate for them to post here, when back, protesting. You deciding, on your own, to say the act isn't vandalism, won't change the fact that it was. '''Vandalism is against our rules.''' Quit taking up causes to merely stir the pot. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::You forget that you also banned me for allegedly placing an unauthorized template. Besides, I don't ''have'' to be "appointed" to be the "advocate" of anybody. This isn't a court or a republic, it's a freaking WIKI. You just assert that people break rules, you assert that I am not authorized to speak for anybody else, you assert that this is a republic. I honestly don't want this to turn into another lengthy discussion. My request was sincere. The end. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*I understand what you have said, and your sticking up for them. The parties knew full well what they were doing when the made and/or stuck it on articles, I think we can agree on that. Being the thinking people they are, I know they at least considered the ramifications of their actions...at least I would like to hope they would. I am not even saying if I agree or not that some articles actually need a sign that says: "This is pure idiocy, and reading it might actually destroy your Brain!". What I am saying, however, is that without consultation, allowing anyone to slap a text box on article pages labeling it, essentially as "BS", can be very disruptive, tantamount to spray painting a wall, the equivalent of typed graffiti, ergo, Vandalism. There isn't any intellectual squabble between me and the parties, no vendetta. Those with power, in the exercising of it, always risk being mistaken. I honestly don't think I am, and if the powers that be disagree, they can and will reverse my actions. Won't be the first time that has happened here, nor I suspect the last. Just understand there wasn't anything personal in my actions, nor on the part of the other Sysop who agreed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::(Since you copied the thing from your Talk page, here is a copy of the reply)
::TK, the powers that be (=Andy) won't do anything, no matter what you do (with the exception of going against Andy's view of conservatism). You know this, I know this. Just look at the various complaints about Conservative or you on Andy's pages. The only times when Andy actually bothered to reply was in order to say "I don't see anything wrong." or even "Great job, [accused sysop]! You have my full support!"
::Heck, look at the Morality copright thing that got partially revived after the archive-creation. "Hey, what about the morality copyright gig?" - "I thought that was resolved because TK got permission." - "No, it wasn't since that wasn't the only source he copied from." - *no reply*
::Or even more extreme, look at the CWilson/Karajou issue that resulted with the ''complaining'' user being banned.
::So don't worry. Any complaint about you or any other sysop won't put you in any danger of any sort. You won't even have to worry about a slap on the wrist or a scolding "Nuh-uh! Bad sysop!". You are under Andy's shield. If anything, Andy will tell ''me'' to stop bothering him. *shrugs* You don't even have to answer in my complaint threads - just ignore me, the result will be the same.
::If you want to reply, do so, but don't expect me to answer. I have better things to do than discussing about why you think your actions are justified or not. I only try to bring the written rules more in line with what's actually being enforced.
::Just think about this: What is the difference between the template and the various edits that were reverted by Conservative in Theory of Evolution? Arguably, the attempts to remove the extreme anti-evolution bias could be seen as vandalism in your broad sense. We have rules, but they're ''extremely'' fuzzy. I'm only trying to trace the borders of these fuzzy areas. The Bible gave people ten laws, and nowadays, there are a few hundred/thousand or so of them. Me trying to refine the existing rules is the same mechanism - the realization that just six rules are not enough to properly cover such a complex place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I like your suggested rule, but I think that it should specify how many sysops you need to agree on your template (e.g. 5). --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Somewhere between 5 or 8, I would think more than fair, Benjamin. Now, Sid, part of the problem in discussing anything with you is your hyperbole. Could you at least make an attempt to tone down the flamboyant language? It brings a real anger and false urgency to anything you post about. Blocking for a short duration is more in tune with suspension than "banning" which traditionally means never to return. Arguing nit-picks about if this or that is "vandalism" isn't going to garner you support or replies from Andy and the others. Spend less of your posting on complaining and elevating all issues to VERY IMPORTANT status, and more can get done. I notice lots of people with good ideas for this place, and looking at their talk or user pages, also notice really nasty and vile remarks about Andy, and even his family. Surely you realize crap like that isn't going to get them to be willing to take people who do that seriously..... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*The stub template seems entirely unnecessary to me. Why do we need a notice telling us an article is short? Anyone can see when an article needs expansion. A category for short articles is beneficial, because it will allow people to find short articles easily, but the stub template is superfluous and distracting. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's a boot in the tail. If random visitor X see short articles over and over they'll wander off of the site...If they see stub after stub they MAY think "Hey, I could do something on this article!" And register (if it's open) and expand the article. That's my take on that template anyways. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Sharon. Rob and Sharon, the template in question, the newest one, in essence it said "This Article Is Moronic", in the original version, it threatened "banning" for the contributor. They revised it to read other, later, but kept the snide tone. Then, as MoutainDew posted on my talk page, it was slapped on several articles by a couple of people. Something about doing that, and something about others here thinking that kind of behavior is acceptable, is whacked. Here are the three templates, the original and the "revised" editions:
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: #FFCCCC;"
|-
|align="center"|[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|50px|Warning]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' Be advised that editing with a factual bias grounded in reality is counter to the principles of Conservapedia, and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing for a period of time, or banned.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' You are editing against the consensus of other users, and to promote your own bias in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. You are requested to cease and desist.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' This article has been identified as containing biased, unsourced statements.
|}

and its location is here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit]] That earned the guys slapping it up a day or two off, just FYI. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Three things. Sharon, you can also search for stubs as a category (articles needing improvement) and see all the articles that need improvement. Convenient. Sid, would this rule apply to templates created by sysops? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it also applies to templates created by sysops. Case in point: The "Protected" template had been created and used by sysops, and due to a <s>hilarious</s> sad mix-up, I ended up in a fairly heated debate about it (after being temp-banned and unbanned). The template had even been temporarily blanked and had then been reworded by Ed and TK to form a sort of "consensus" version. In fact, it had been that template that triggered the whole "Don't insert templates without consulting the other sysops and/or Andy!!!" issue. So just being a sysop does not place you above this rule (hence the careful wording about one bureaucrat or a consensus of a few sysops). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*There wasn't any "consensus" version of the "Protected" template. Ed and I both agreed, from the outset of the convo, what it should contain. Quit trying to drive wedges, or make it a matter of two "sides". That's careful wording to subtly change history, to make it seem there was an issue, when there was not. Sysops should have to obtain the okay from a minimum of five of their peers before making/including system-wide templates. It is silly thinking that as part of the sites administration, that rules regarding housekeeping would apply to them the same as any casual user, someone who signed up 24 hours earlier. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Easy there. The key phrase right now is "Assume Good Faith". When I wrote "consensus" in quotation marks, I was referring to "consensus formed by two sysops, as opposed to the consensus described in my initial suggestion since the latter has more than just two sysops in mind".
::I'm not trying to "change history". That is kinda hard in a place where "history" is an easily accessible tab on virtually all pages. Additionally, I believe that I don't ''have'' to change history. It pretty much speaks for itself. If anybody wants to, I can construct a rough timeline of the events, complete with links to the pages in question. All the information is out there, it's just a question of knowing where to look. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:06, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I am glad you clarified what you meant. As to the number of Sysops, am I reading you correctly, you would prefer agreement of two as opposed to 5 or more? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I chose the "group of sysops" wording because I didn't really have a value in mind. But the "Protected" thing sorta showed that "two" is not enough (Ed and David are both sysops and formed the "consensus" to use it). Besides, I don't think that two sysops alone have the same "decision-making power level" as one sysop in critical cases.
::I still have no fixed value in mind, and ''I don't think there should be one''. Some cases will obviously require more input than others (the higher the impact on pages, the more sysops should be consulted - I'd rank the Protected template relatively low, but a radical template like "This article misrepresents facts and should be rewritten immediately by a more competent editor" should have some serious discussion before usage), so it should be evaluated on the fly by the editor who gets the idea and by the sysops who engage in the discussion.
::(And no, I do not suggest that anybody actually creates such a template - it was an extreme example.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Follow-up note: The "Protected" template in the end only required 3-4 sysops (if I remember correctly), and only 2-3 at a time. Things worked out. That's what I mean with "ranking relatively low" - it was apparent that there was no need for a full poll of 5+ sysops, just a few sysops communicating with each other about goals and implementation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Fair enough. BTW, the problem with the protected template, and consensus is, while Ed agreed to it, he expressly said it shouldn't be added to users own pages. So even with "consensus" unless communication is clear, and people actually abide by the intentions of the makers, it all falls apart. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why don't we have Ten Commandments? ==

Seems like it would be meaningful to have a full set of 10 commandments, showing that our inspiration comes from the Bible. Surely we can come up with 4 more.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 19:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I hate to be derivative, but I can think of a couple... Assume Good Faith, Be Civil, and Be Bold (as in, create articles, make articles bigger and better, write, Write, WRITE!) [[User:Human|Human]] 21:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==But some are more equal than others==

<s>1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]

<s>2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aesthetics] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]

<s>3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality]

4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.

<s>5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account. Advertisements are prohibited.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Breast_cancer]

6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.

So we are left with BC and AD and no wiki-bots. But there is no problem adding a ton of capricious rules to randomly block contributors. So THIS is what America would be like if it was run completely by the right wing Christian fundamentalist. Theocratic dictatorship at its best. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Would you like me to hold the door for you, Etaroced? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That kind of proves his point, you know. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:55, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== rule 3 ==

I would like to point out that "family-friendly" and "clean" are fairly vague (clean is figurative, and probably not the best terminology) and probably "obscenity" is a better term than "foul language." Perhaps a rewording would be appropriate. Although, perhaps the language is intentional. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:We use the term "family-friendly" as just that. When we edit here, we have to imagine what we write and how we write it can be seen by families with children. I'm aware of the fact that some children grow up in broken households, but we don't need to contribute to the problem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

You're missing my point; the term is very vague and figurative. How does an encyclopedia entry become a friend to a family. It's just poor wording. "Prohibits sexually explicity material" or whatever specifically is to be avoided would be more exacting. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 10:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps a list of what is to be avoided should be drawn up and posted. How would that do? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:47, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::I for one think that would be a fantastic idea. A lot of the rules here strike me as fairly vague—if while the list is being drawn up you could give attention to my question above about defining gossip, I’d greatly appreciate that. If it would help, I’ve been recording, for personal use, what sysops have said about the rules (as a sort of collection of Conservapedia dicta if you will) and I’d be more than happy to post that to an appropriate page (it takes up something like 5 pages in Word so I don’t want to post it here).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 19:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is exactly why the rules are not too detailed. A wise Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote, when they were deliberating a pornography case, that he couldn't define it with words, but knew it when he saw it. Much the same in administering a website, Reginod. Gossip, btw, is unsubstantiated, unverified, talk or conversation that the spreader of has no real first-hand facts or information about. This includes spreading information, let's say, about a marital break-up, where the gossip spreader might or might not have first-hand knowledge, but not from both sides. Without all facts and information, trying to draw a conclusion as to who's fault it was, is senseless. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:I appreciate the clarification TK—in fact you’ve defined gossip roughly how I was defining it. The problem with the “I know it when I see it approach” (which I have to admit I often find myself advocating in real life) is that it leads to very murky rules. So, I may think I’m posting a scandal which belongs on a page, and a sysop reading my addition may think I’ve simply posted gossip. Don’t get me wrong, I‘d be hard pressed to come up with a precise definition for most (if not all) of the important words in the Commandments and I usually agree with the gut instincts of those enforcing the rules here. But I don’t always agree and from reading the comments of others here I gather there are some who agree far less often than I. I think things would run more smoothly if there were some attempt at a rough explication of the rules, some sort of rough guidelines to let those of us trying to help the site know what is in and what is out and to give people a better idea of how the rules will be enforced. That’s just my two cents and I’m not sure what they are worth, but, that’s what I think.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Yes, well some of what you wrote I do agree with. However, hard and fast rules, like mandatory sentencing guidelines imposed on Federal Judges, to use a well-known example, also can lead, far more often, to justice being denied or perverted. With a divergent group of Administrators, I have found on other sites that their own good judgement (either before or after meting out punishment, is usually enough to protect users. Absent that, peer pressure and ultimately, perhaps, the site owner(s) (Bureaucrats here) are sufficient brakes on abuse. I do recognize the validity in the scenario you paint above, and have lived it on other sites, and even here. No amount of specificity will protect all of the people, all of the time. There will always be dissension as to punishment, and there will always be what some consider abuse, no matter the precautions, but I would rather have some leeway, than be forced to block someone for a minor offense or mistake. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*Let's look at some definitions of family:[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family:
:::"8. the staff, or body of assistants, of an official: the office family.
:::9. a group of related things or people: the family of romantic poets; the halogen family of elements.
:::10. a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live together: Many hippie communes of the sixties regarded themselves as families."
:::I guess I can use whatever "family-friendly" terminology that a hippie commune would use. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 22:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is certainly your right, Sterile. However, I would avise you that since this isn't a judical body, the defense wouldn't be recognized....;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== The 90/10 rule ==

The 90% 10% edit rule is wrong and should be removed. It just doesn't make sense. To suggest that entries of talk pages are bad is utterly muddleheaded.

The rule encourages people to edit without discussion beforehand, which is highly undesirable.

What is worse, I have seen Aschlafly use it to intimidate people who he is ideologically opposed to or who have asked difficult questions. He, of course, likes the rule because it is the criticism of his behaviour and the behaviour of those he protects that is the real target of the rule.

Under the rule this very post is a black mark against my name. I had better go and do a quick edit to make up for it. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not even to mention that it's nearly impossible to calculate a halfway exact ratio. Either it's fast ("mainspace edits / total edits") or precise ("Check all edits and decide what is good"), but it can't be both.
:The additional problem is: What is a "quality edit"? Is copyediting an article a "quality edit"? What about fixing a dead-end page by inserting links? What about reverting vandalism? If I revert fifty articles that had been replaced with "CONSERVAPEDIA SUCKS!", does that count for or against my ratio? Is discussing policy (or even ''writing'' policy) a quality edit? What about helping editors or even sysops with technical problems?
:These things will change the way some people act. And I doubt it will be for the better. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I believe it's intended more as a reminder/guideline that productive work is more important than endless arugments than a specific, mathematically calculated rule. I don't think anybody's going to go down the list and count anybody's edits and figure out from there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not so Dan. Here is an example:
::"Folks, this is an educational project, not a place to bicker and argue. Horace, I've reviewed your edits and found that they are, what, about 90% talk and complaints and less than 10% substantive edits??? More to say but I have run an errand now. Will be back on a bit later.--Aschlafly 20:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)".
:Here's another example:
::"OK, Nematocyte, I've reviewed your edits. I estimate that 90% or more of your edits have been talk, talk, talk, and less than 10% substance. And what is an example of one of your edits? I think you called CreationWiki a "peculiar brand of paganism"! My view is that your account should be blocked and I defer to any Sysop who agrees and decides to block your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)".
:Then there's this:
::"I don't understand your question, "Flippin", but I invite any Sysop to do a similar review of your edits as I just did for Nematocyte, and act appropriately with respect to your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)".
:The intent is to have a tool that can be used to intimidate editors who irritate Aschlafly. Simple as that. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'll grant there there is truth in your remark, Horace, except that the rule applies for the benefit of all our major editors. I don't want Conservapedia to lose a productive editor because he's being constantly irritated by an unproductive one. If you were in my shoes and wanted to do what is best for Conservapedia, then I'd expect you to impose a similar "enough is enough" rule to stop irritation. Wikipedia rules, which are far more complex and manipulable, are also used to stop the heckling at some point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I understand your position. There is a job to be done here and it can be distracting to have too many arguments. You will understand that from my perspective, however, the rule looks somewhat different. Where I perceive a wrong or unjust decision I seek to stand up and make my views heard. If I am met with the proposition that I have made too many edits on talk pages that appears to me to be an unfair criticism and a way of attempting to silence my dissent. Of course I edit on talk pages a lot. Firstly, as you know, I am interested in the theory of evolution. That page has been locked pretty much permanently. I have made a large number of edits on the talk page (and other talk pages) in relation to the locking issue. I regard that decision as just plain wrong. What about James Maxwell? I made a number of edits on the talk page which you didn't even respond to. I was trying to avoid an edit war. Should I have just gone ahead and edited the article? Secondly, I am interested in the processes here. As an editor who appears to have a number of views that are contrary to the views of those in charge, I am concerned (more than those in the majority I suspect), to see that the processes are fair. That leads to a large number of talk page posts. Those posts, in my view, are quality posts because they relate to a very important issue. They should not be used against me. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Horace, you have valid points. But we do have to build an encyclopedia here, and talk is not advancing that goal. I spent far more time today talking than building, and that needs to change. You can talk all you want, provided you help build the encyclopedia too. And that means far more than the evolution entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::From my own (short) personal experience on wikis, I have observed that much of the productive work is done on talk pages. Talk pages are used to discuss article content, resolve disputes, and other important things. I also don't think that there is a need for this rule. Are articles are steadily improving in number and in content. I see this rule as an excuse to block users that disagree. I personally think that users that disagree are very imortant to this site. They keep us honest. It might be somewhat annoying, if someone who disagrees with you is constantly saying "Prove it" but it makes you find citations and back up you reasoning and the like, which makes Conservapedia a better and more credible site. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Also, if one looks at how "normal" encyclopedias are produced, or for that matter just about any other kind of publishing project, the dicussions about the project usually heavily outweigh the actual finished product. I'd guess that for something like the Encyclopedia Britannica, the paperwork and correspondence would probably account for something like 90% of the final output, rather than the opposite. And there's a reason for that. What we're doing here is collaborative editing and publishing, and whenever something is done collaboratively, by a team, good and frequent communications between the participants is absolutely essential. This 10/90 rule may seem like a good idea on the surface, but in the end, it will only result in articles of much lower quality. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Agreed with CP Admin. Due to the nature of my work I tend to contribute almost solely to talk pages (as in I don't have as much time to devote to producing a coherent article from the ground up, etc..). Besides, I'd rather see the information hashed out in the talk pages than an all out "edit war" happen. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 04:46, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== "No Unlawful Activity?" ==

'''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.'''

Whoops--ok, no quotes from [[Harriet Tubman]] (Helped slaves to escape to [[Canada]]), [[Martin Luther King Jr]] (Broke racial segregation laws), [[Oliver North]] (Iran-Contra Scandal), [[Mohandas Gandhi]] (rebellion against the British Empire), or the [[Declaration of Independence]] (Treason against His Royal Highness, King George the Third), then? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe change it to:

:'''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting (as of 2007) unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.'''

:--[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Does that include The Law in countries like Saudi Arabia? I mean, we wouldn't want to suggest that women should drive cars, or appear in public without a male family member to escort them, or anything. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::OH--or smuggle Bibles into Communist North Korea. Can't have any of that subversive activity, nosirree! It's '''the law'''!

The intent of the rule should be clear to anybody who is taking this project seriously. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I believe he has a point, nonetheless. The law is going to be different depending on where the lawbreaking editor lives. While his suggestion is rather silly, more detail could be added. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The original reason for this rule was because somebody was linking to a site that supported abortion clinic violence. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, so, what about if we write an article ABOUT a terroristic organization. Can we cite their website, even though it repesents an illegal organization? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I hope you can see my point. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I do see what you're saying. If a situation like that came up, I think it would probably be safest to ask Aschlafly. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: The above change is good, clarifying that the rule applies to currently unlawful activity. But honestly I think that's obvious.

: I don't I like links to terrorist organizations, even though well-intentioned to expose them. But I defer to the Sysop wisdom on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree, Andy. This Sysop, for one, was not consulted about adding links to terrorist organizations. I suspect not many were consulted, and I will remove any I find. Perhaps non-active URL's could be added to the documentation? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources and legality- clarifications and opinions ==

Currently the commandments state "No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed"- does this mean groups advocating unlawful activity while it is unlawful or does it also include groups that are advocating that a law be changed to let a currently illegal act be legal? {{unsigned|JoshuaZ}}

Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?

2007-04-21T18:04:16Z

GofG: /* The Poem Criticism on the Main Page... */

''Moved from [[talk:Main Page]]''

==The Poem Criticism on the Main Page...==

Really isn't needed. We shouldn't be pushing an agenda when 32 innocent lives were just taken. Wouldn't the space be better spent with prayers, and links to sites which will help students grieve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to go to great lengths to read something into the poem that isn't there. It also seems a bit tasteless under the circumstances. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 03:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pathetic ... I would have thought caring christians as the admins claim to be would be above this sort of trash. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 03:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The "Poem" is an ode to secularism and minimizes their demise by equating their tragic deaths with other causes and tragedies, involving one thousand times the number of people. Such tactics are often used by Holocaust denial groups, and is certainly not worthy of a supposedly great University. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus Christ, now you compare them to holocaust deniers! You and Andy sicken me. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's a crappy poem, but using it score cheap points is not in good taste.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 07:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::{{remove personal remark|You little fanatics.}} You use a poem - admittedly poor, but written from the viewpoint of those writing it - in a feeble attempt to push your own agenda. It's appalling. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 07:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

In the notes in brackets
Andy seems to be critiquing the [[politics]] of the "poem".
The poem is a feeble attempt
on the part of VTech's English Department
to use the tragedy as a [[hook]]
to hang their liberal agenda on.
Andy's just calling them out on this.
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::*{{remove personal remark|Nematocyte, take a few days to wash your mouth out with soap. On me.}} This is a site on the Web, not a life and death situation. {{remove personal remark|If you are sick, try some Pepto.}} --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The poem is a political, self-serving rant by a University that should have taken meaningful steps to prevent this massacre. The English Department that educated this killer should be scrutinized and this poem is the best place to start. Ideas do matter, and unless the mistakes are identified here than the sacrifice of innocent lives will inevitably and needlessly occur again. We owe to the victims and to future students to look critically at the University's role in allowing this massacre to happen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::And this site's response (plastered all over the front page) isn't also political and self-serving? This smacks of '''hypocrisy''' somewhat. The lack of compassion that you're showing here is also rather distasteful. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

So, there is an student at VT english department who mourns his fellow students and decides to write a poem for them. Rest of the department honors the victims by publishing it on their web page. Then there is Conservapedia, which instead of mourning or respecting the feelings of the survivors starts to bash the poem as too liberal and not christian enough. This kinda sickens me. Im not even going to say anything more about the critisism itself, exept what does it matter, even if the writer was an liberal atheist, arent they allowed to mourn and write about their feelings? Do you really think she wrote it to be an political statement? What if others would act the same? If you where one of the survivors, would you like to read some atheist bashing your poem written to the wictims to be too christian or mayby pushing concervative agenda? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:The "poem" expressed many political opinions and very few feelings. I do not see how it could even be considered [[poetry]], other than the fact that it was formatted as [[blank verse]].

:Moreover, not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. The incident was the "expression" of feelings of rage by a very disturbed individual. Must we "approve" of his expression as an [[art]]istic act? <s>Get real, mister.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please tell me you just didnt try to say that we should criticise the people who don't mourn the way we want, as we would criticise the killers homicidal rampage? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't say that. I said that not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. Suppose someone hates you. Would you feel obliged to "validate" their feelings? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is an poem, written by an student who might have been there at the time of the shootings, very least she knew some of the people killed. You take her poem, try to find hidden liberal agenda from it, for example the mentioning of elephants and ivory... Give me a break, you really think she wrote the poem to help the wildlife?, and then without even knowing her religios views you bash her for not mentioning God or including a prayer. And then you justify it by saying that her attempt to show her grief isn't an opinnion worth respecting? That is just outrageous. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, re an earlier post on this, you're not entitled to degrade the quality of this site either... but anyways. This is not about how "good" the poem is. This is not about whether or not its "political." What this '''''is''''' about is how it's tacky & tasteless to start bashing VT for what they clearly see as an attempt to express their mourning! I don't care if it's political, or good poetry, but they deserve respect & compassion, not politicization. Criticizing them is another of Andy's attempts to score points off of a tragedy. I'll close by saying that making fun of grieving children is a new low, even for the Schlafly family.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this ''Trustworthy Encylopedia'' sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Shame on Liberals for politicizing the VTech incident. Can they sink much lower than to exploit a senseless tragedy to score [[partisan]] points? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, the "liberals" aren't politicizing this! We're explicitly ''protesting'' the politicization! Now, Andy, either you pull this poem criticism from the main page, or I'll e-mail Virginia Tech's English department to tell them about your gross insensitivity, ignorance, and baseless hatred.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Kind of strange that the very ones who whine and complain about demanding free speech here would attempt to stifle it by protesting a self-serving poem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It's obviously legal to be a hateful bigot. I'm not saying it's illegal for Andy to put things like that on the front page. I'm saying that he should exercise his discretion as a compassionate (we hope) human being and limit his legal rights according to general rules of decency. There's a difference that many people misunderstand and apparently, Karajou, you're one of them. Andy, please pull the poem critique, or I will alert VT, and I bet they won't be happy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong answer, AmesG, and I've never been a bigot. From the continued posts I've seen from you over the past few months I cannot tell whether you're a highly educated man or a whining child who refuses to act like one...and now this "pull the poem or I'm going to tell" garbage. Go ahead and notify them. They're already in hot water for giving a lunatic a pass to kill. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, you say that they express political points in their poem? I didn't know it was now overly liberal to mention that millions have died from AIDS, which is easily preventable. Or that those without fresh water could perhaps be given some. -{{unsigned|Hojimachong}}-12:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Karajou, I think? It's the educated one. I'll give Andy a chance to reply first. I never called you a bigot, I called Andy a bigot.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, we don't allow baseless namecalling here. Calling anyone a "bigot" here, particularly when it is baseless, results in blocking of the account. In your case, I've warned you repeatedly about wasting the time of productive editors.

: Ideas do matter, and Conservapedia will continue to criticize liberal notions here. The poem on the main page is an example of that. The liberals here protest too much the valid criticism of that political, self-serving poem that is officially posted on the front page of the Virginia Tech website. Virginia Tech officials should hear criticism, and it is not just Conservapedia's main page that is criticism them.

: People who threaten to stifle Conservapedia's free speech by threatening it will obviously also find their accounts blocked. Wikipedia will welcome your political correctness with open arms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, AmesG, I'm going to call you a four-letter word, and that word is '''GONE''', as in I want you to pack up and leave this site. I'm fed up with your self-serving rants, your attitude, your high-and-mighty self righteousness, your repeated attempts to force an alien ideology down our throats, and the babyish name-calling when you don't get your way. '''LEAVE'''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This is disgusting. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This is the most disgusting thing I've seen printed on this site, and that is saying something. The fact that Andy could print something like that is understandable... he has his agenda to push and doesn't care who gets pushed with it. But the fact that "Christians" like Ed Poor, TK, and Karajou would so quickly jump to his defense is nauseating. Have fun with your little hate spewing toy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This may be news to you, but AmesG, Myk, WhatsGoingOn, and many others have spewed their own brand of hatred, and THAT is wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:And how are your responses here (and your threats of blocking, and erasure of their edits) not hatred? They post something that you disagree with, so you reply with personal attacks and slanders. Or don't you realise that it's '''wrong''' for you too? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 13:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::First and foremost, I have neither slandered nor attacked anyone. Second, I blocked users who deliberately and willfully harmed or threatened to harn Conservapedia, and I have blocked users who refused to let a debate be a debate and instead allowed it to become hostile. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Namecalling against editors and/or Conservapedia is not allowed here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please cite the examples of my ''own brand of hatred'', explain what was hateful about it and, if justified, I will try to mend my ways.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::fair enough...the above line, mocking the "trustworthy encyclopedia". Your own mockery of this site is on about every posting you have made since you got here, and you could very well be taking steps to help make this a better encyclopedia, but you're not, are you? I would call that hatred. If you do not like this site, you are free to edit elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Others would call my contributions [[constructive criticism]] and welcome them as part of a drive to improve overall encyclopedic quality. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Simply phrasing something as a question does not mean it is respectful of free speech here. I'm not inclined to block your account like the others, yet, but it's a close call. Name-calling against editors or Conservapedia in an attempt to stifle something will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I thought you were for free speech, against censorship, and against 'stifling something.'
:::#13:12, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "AmesG (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (namecalling ("bigot"), also an attempt to stifle free speech by making a threat)
:::#13:07, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "Myk (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (for comment "hate spewing toy"; also may violate 90% talk/10% edit rule)
:::There is no commandment prohibiting 'namecalling' or 'hate spewing toy comments'. I dont know how your rules are more concise than wikipedia's when you have like five unwritten rules. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 13:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Free speech contains responsibility. Just as you don't claim a right to free speech when you walk into that theater and scream "FIRE" when there is no fire, you don't claim it by name-calling here (or worse) anytime you please. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Dear [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], have I somehow not been ''respectful of free speech''?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not going to say you've been disrespectful of free speech, but you have been disrespectful of this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In addition to Karajou's observation, the following statement (copied from above) by WhatIsGOingOn was an apparent attempt to censor Conservapedia's criticism of the official Virginia Tech poem: "Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this Trustworthy Encylopedia sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?" WhatIsGOingOn, if you want to censor conservative criticism, then please go to Wikipedia for that. Don't try to censor such speech here. And don't distract productive editors further here. Build some good entries before more talk, talk, talk. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to ''censor'' anything'' - I was exercising ''free speech''. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's please not get off-topic.
#First of all, on the main page, it is listed as the "official reponse" of the English department. This is plainly not true. This is a poem that Nikki Giovani, an extremely famous poet, said. The English Department just printed it on their webpage, that's all. Take that down.
#"Denies accountability" Are you suggesting that the English department might be accountable for the events that transpired? Are you seriously suggesting that?
#"Environmentalism" Of course, not wanting Elephants killed for their ivory is indeed environmentalism, but come on, she's not trying to push that killing elephants is bad. I'm not completely sure what she's doing, but it's definitely not pushing liberalism.
#"anti-Bush" No. It's not anti-Bush. It's just anti-war. That's all it is, and if it's indirectly criticising Bush because he invaded Iraq, then that's fine, put "anti-war", but don't put "anti-Bush."
#"environmentalism" Okay, this is really stretching. Destabalized land is bad, that's fairly standard. I don't think that anyone here is for destabalizing land.
I honestly don't see anything that's agenda-pushing for anything majorly liberal, and they definitely aren't hijacking the shootings like they might have Coretta King's funeral.
Not only that, but you have to remember: '''this is one person'''. Just one poet. She doesn't represent every liberal in the world, and therefore, if she does something bad (which she hasn't), you can't look at it and say "oh, look what the liberals are doing now." K, i'm done. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 14:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Poem, as it is placed on the front page ==

Read for yourself the official response by Virginia Tech's English Department. '''No mention of God or prayer, but many invocations of unrelated liberal causes:'''

...
 We are Virginia Tech
 We do not understand this tragedy
 We know we did nothing to deserve it [denies accountability]

But neither does a child in Africa
 Dying of AIDS
 Neither do the Invisible Children
 Walking the night away to avoid being captured by a rogue army [globalism]

Neither does the baby elephant watching his community
 Be devastated for ivory [environmentalism]
 Neither does the Mexican child looking
 For fresh water

Neither does the Iraqi teenager dodging bombs [anti-Bush]
 Neither does the Appalachian infant killed
 By a boulder
 Dislodged
 Because the land was destabilized [environmentalism]
 ...
 Full poem [http://www.english.vt.edu/ here].

'''Our prayers continue to go out to the victims' families of the Virginia Tech massacre.'''

Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?

2007-04-21T17:53:19Z

GofG: Added poem to bottom. Please, leave it there, so that we don't have to have two windows open at all times to look at it.

''Moved from [[talk:Main Page]]''

==The Poem Criticism on the Main Page...==

Really isn't needed. We shouldn't be pushing an agenda when 32 innocent lives were just taken. Wouldn't the space be better spent with prayers, and links to sites which will help students grieve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to go to great lengths to read something into the poem that isn't there. It also seems a bit tasteless under the circumstances. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 03:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pathetic ... I would have thought caring christians as the admins claim to be would be above this sort of trash. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 03:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The "Poem" is an ode to secularism and minimizes their demise by equating their tragic deaths with other causes and tragedies, involving one thousand times the number of people. Such tactics are often used by Holocaust denial groups, and is certainly not worthy of a supposedly great University. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus Christ, now you compare them to holocaust deniers! You and Andy sicken me. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's a crappy poem, but using it score cheap points is not in good taste.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 07:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::{{remove personal remark|You little fanatics.}} You use a poem - admittedly poor, but written from the viewpoint of those writing it - in a feeble attempt to push your own agenda. It's appalling. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 07:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

In the notes in brackets
Andy seems to be critiquing the [[politics]] of the "poem".
The poem is a feeble attempt
on the part of VTech's English Department
to use the tragedy as a [[hook]]
to hang their liberal agenda on.
Andy's just calling them out on this.
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::*{{remove personal remark|Nematocyte, take a few days to wash your mouth out with soap. On me.}} This is a site on the Web, not a life and death situation. {{remove personal remark|If you are sick, try some Pepto.}} --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The poem is a political, self-serving rant by a University that should have taken meaningful steps to prevent this massacre. The English Department that educated this killer should be scrutinized and this poem is the best place to start. Ideas do matter, and unless the mistakes are identified here than the sacrifice of innocent lives will inevitably and needlessly occur again. We owe to the victims and to future students to look critically at the University's role in allowing this massacre to happen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::And this site's response (plastered all over the front page) isn't also political and self-serving? This smacks of '''hypocrisy''' somewhat. The lack of compassion that you're showing here is also rather distasteful. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

So, there is an student at VT english department who mourns his fellow students and decides to write a poem for them. Rest of the department honors the victims by publishing it on their web page. Then there is Conservapedia, which instead of mourning or respecting the feelings of the survivors starts to bash the poem as too liberal and not christian enough. This kinda sickens me. Im not even going to say anything more about the critisism itself, exept what does it matter, even if the writer was an liberal atheist, arent they allowed to mourn and write about their feelings? Do you really think she wrote it to be an political statement? What if others would act the same? If you where one of the survivors, would you like to read some atheist bashing your poem written to the wictims to be too christian or mayby pushing concervative agenda? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:The "poem" expressed many political opinions and very few feelings. I do not see how it could even be considered [[poetry]], other than the fact that it was formatted as [[blank verse]].

:Moreover, not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. The incident was the "expression" of feelings of rage by a very disturbed individual. Must we "approve" of his expression as an [[art]]istic act? <s>Get real, mister.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please tell me you just didnt try to say that we should criticise the people who don't mourn the way we want, as we would criticise the killers homicidal rampage? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't say that. I said that not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. Suppose someone hates you. Would you feel obliged to "validate" their feelings? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is an poem, written by an student who might have been there at the time of the shootings, very least she knew some of the people killed. You take her poem, try to find hidden liberal agenda from it, for example the mentioning of elephants and ivory... Give me a break, you really think she wrote the poem to help the wildlife?, and then without even knowing her religios views you bash her for not mentioning God or including a prayer. And then you justify it by saying that her attempt to show her grief isn't an opinnion worth respecting? That is just outrageous. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, re an earlier post on this, you're not entitled to degrade the quality of this site either... but anyways. This is not about how "good" the poem is. This is not about whether or not its "political." What this '''''is''''' about is how it's tacky & tasteless to start bashing VT for what they clearly see as an attempt to express their mourning! I don't care if it's political, or good poetry, but they deserve respect & compassion, not politicization. Criticizing them is another of Andy's attempts to score points off of a tragedy. I'll close by saying that making fun of grieving children is a new low, even for the Schlafly family.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this ''Trustworthy Encylopedia'' sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Shame on Liberals for politicizing the VTech incident. Can they sink much lower than to exploit a senseless tragedy to score [[partisan]] points? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, the "liberals" aren't politicizing this! We're explicitly ''protesting'' the politicization! Now, Andy, either you pull this poem criticism from the main page, or I'll e-mail Virginia Tech's English department to tell them about your gross insensitivity, ignorance, and baseless hatred.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Kind of strange that the very ones who whine and complain about demanding free speech here would attempt to stifle it by protesting a self-serving poem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It's obviously legal to be a hateful bigot. I'm not saying it's illegal for Andy to put things like that on the front page. I'm saying that he should exercise his discretion as a compassionate (we hope) human being and limit his legal rights according to general rules of decency. There's a difference that many people misunderstand and apparently, Karajou, you're one of them. Andy, please pull the poem critique, or I will alert VT, and I bet they won't be happy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong answer, AmesG, and I've never been a bigot. From the continued posts I've seen from you over the past few months I cannot tell whether you're a highly educated man or a whining child who refuses to act like one...and now this "pull the poem or I'm going to tell" garbage. Go ahead and notify them. They're already in hot water for giving a lunatic a pass to kill. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, you say that they express political points in their poem? I didn't know it was now overly liberal to mention that millions have died from AIDS, which is easily preventable. Or that those without fresh water could perhaps be given some. -{{unsigned|Hojimachong}}-12:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Karajou, I think? It's the educated one. I'll give Andy a chance to reply first. I never called you a bigot, I called Andy a bigot.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, we don't allow baseless namecalling here. Calling anyone a "bigot" here, particularly when it is baseless, results in blocking of the account. In your case, I've warned you repeatedly about wasting the time of productive editors.

: Ideas do matter, and Conservapedia will continue to criticize liberal notions here. The poem on the main page is an example of that. The liberals here protest too much the valid criticism of that political, self-serving poem that is officially posted on the front page of the Virginia Tech website. Virginia Tech officials should hear criticism, and it is not just Conservapedia's main page that is criticism them.

: People who threaten to stifle Conservapedia's free speech by threatening it will obviously also find their accounts blocked. Wikipedia will welcome your political correctness with open arms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, AmesG, I'm going to call you a four-letter word, and that word is '''GONE''', as in I want you to pack up and leave this site. I'm fed up with your self-serving rants, your attitude, your high-and-mighty self righteousness, your repeated attempts to force an alien ideology down our throats, and the babyish name-calling when you don't get your way. '''LEAVE'''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This is disgusting. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This is the most disgusting thing I've seen printed on this site, and that is saying something. The fact that Andy could print something like that is understandable... he has his agenda to push and doesn't care who gets pushed with it. But the fact that "Christians" like Ed Poor, TK, and Karajou would so quickly jump to his defense is nauseating. Have fun with your little hate spewing toy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This may be news to you, but AmesG, Myk, WhatsGoingOn, and many others have spewed their own brand of hatred, and THAT is wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:And how are your responses here (and your threats of blocking, and erasure of their edits) not hatred? They post something that you disagree with, so you reply with personal attacks and slanders. Or don't you realise that it's '''wrong''' for you too? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 13:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::First and foremost, I have neither slandered nor attacked anyone. Second, I blocked users who deliberately and willfully harmed or threatened to harn Conservapedia, and I have blocked users who refused to let a debate be a debate and instead allowed it to become hostile. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Namecalling against editors and/or Conservapedia is not allowed here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please cite the examples of my ''own brand of hatred'', explain what was hateful about it and, if justified, I will try to mend my ways.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::fair enough...the above line, mocking the "trustworthy encyclopedia". Your own mockery of this site is on about every posting you have made since you got here, and you could very well be taking steps to help make this a better encyclopedia, but you're not, are you? I would call that hatred. If you do not like this site, you are free to edit elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Others would call my contributions [[constructive criticism]] and welcome them as part of a drive to improve overall encyclopedic quality. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Simply phrasing something as a question does not mean it is respectful of free speech here. I'm not inclined to block your account like the others, yet, but it's a close call. Name-calling against editors or Conservapedia in an attempt to stifle something will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I thought you were for free speech, against censorship, and against 'stifling something.'
:::#13:12, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "AmesG (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (namecalling ("bigot"), also an attempt to stifle free speech by making a threat)
:::#13:07, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "Myk (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (for comment "hate spewing toy"; also may violate 90% talk/10% edit rule)
:::There is no commandment prohibiting 'namecalling' or 'hate spewing toy comments'. I dont know how your rules are more concise than wikipedia's when you have like five unwritten rules. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 13:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Free speech contains responsibility. Just as you don't claim a right to free speech when you walk into that theater and scream "FIRE" when there is no fire, you don't claim it by name-calling here (or worse) anytime you please. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Dear [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], have I somehow not been ''respectful of free speech''?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not going to say you've been disrespectful of free speech, but you have been disrespectful of this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Poem, as it is placed on the front page ==

Read for yourself the official response by Virginia Tech's English Department. '''No mention of God or prayer, but many invocations of unrelated liberal causes:'''

...
 We are Virginia Tech
 We do not understand this tragedy
 We know we did nothing to deserve it [denies accountability]

But neither does a child in Africa
 Dying of AIDS
 Neither do the Invisible Children
 Walking the night away to avoid being captured by a rogue army [globalism]

Neither does the baby elephant watching his community
 Be devastated for ivory [environmentalism]
 Neither does the Mexican child looking
 For fresh water

Neither does the Iraqi teenager dodging bombs [anti-Bush]
 Neither does the Appalachian infant killed
 By a boulder
 Dislodged
 Because the land was destabilized [environmentalism]
 ...
 Full poem [http://www.english.vt.edu/ here].

'''Our prayers continue to go out to the victims' families of the Virginia Tech massacre.'''

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-04-16T02:13:31Z

GofG: /* "No Unlawful Activity?" */

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

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The Bible scientific? Where was I when this was decided? Also you can't use it as a historical information source as well as it has many conflictions within itself. For instance the see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Variations_between_the_genealogies Genealogy of Jesus]. Definately not historically accurate. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm not going to use as a source of Biblical information anything from Wikipedia. As for the Bible being a reliable source of info both historical and scientific, that was decided long before you were born. And we are going to use it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:26, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biased, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You know, basically doing what all of you could be doing at Wikipedia if you didn't prefer secession over improvement. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a source which must not be copied from, Wikipedia. But that probably wasn't your question. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You might want to '''bold''' text the line:
====Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.====
[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or you might go a step less and state it as:
*Do not copy from '''''Wikipedia''''' or other non-public domain sources. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Against Proposal:
How would this be of any use? If anyone wants to vandalize this wiki then they easily can. And if you start banning people with user names like mine (trekie9001) than people will just sign up as RichCheese or some other such "real" sounding names and it won't make a bit of difference. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Then there is the issue of foreign vandals; I noticed they could report vandals to their employer. As far as Canada goes, sharing such information with anyone other than the police would be a violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA for short). You see in the free world, we have the right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty. You would have to provide information to the police and allow them to conduct the investigation. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::While I agree that cites need to be done in a coherent manner, I'm not such a big fan of the MLA system. What's wrong with traditional foot- and end-notes? The Wiki software supports that kind of referencing already. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 18:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That is also a correct way to cite a source; foot and endnotes have been in use for years with no problem. What I said above is not written in stone, but there must be some sort of standard guide. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Furthermore - you would have to show it is vandalism. Imagine trying to prove that a non-creationist but factually correct post was 'vandalism' in a court of law. I think it may well cause a laugh or too but certainly no penalty.

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, yes. However, I think/hope that people don't REALLY get banned just for poking an Admin. That would have a very chilling effect on the overall mood (more than it has already). So I assumed that the real reason for Aschlafly's ban warnings is just a sign of stress in the face of a flooded Talk page. So if we fix that, we don't have to set up strict rules about what you aren't allowed to say on (User) Talk pages. Conservapedia already bans users over little things like content disputes, no need to make things even stricter.
:::But if the ban warning policy really stays like this, it should of course be reflected here. In particular, Rule 6 would have to be altered quite a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Un-American Spelling ==
I am wondering why conservapedia feels threatened by, say, british spelling of words vs american spellings. I like to use the british spellings because my computer says it is spelled incorrectly, yet i still love America. A paradox, isn't it? Still, perhaps we should choose the correct dialect in America to use on this cite. Otherwise, someone could point out the british spelling is used in some parts of America, and thus be considered "American," and therefore be able to use it. I personally am partial to the Mid-west.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 10:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia is rather unusual in allowing and supporting a mix of usage styles. Most U. S. print publishers would specify a style manual calling out U. S. spelling. Most U. K. publishers would specify a style manual calling out British spelling. When a U. S. work is republished in the U. K. or vice versa, one of the publication steps would be copyediting the work to conform to local usage. A good example of this would be the first Harry Potter book, in which even the ''title'' was changed for the U. S. market. Conversely, I don't know if they would do this any more but I remembering reading a British edition of ''The Grapes of Wrath'' in which the Okies were talking about the difficulty of buying "a gallon a petrol" for their car.

:99.9% of all print publications mandate that spelling conform to whichever side of the pond they're on, and nobody thinks twice about it. If Conservapedia wants to say "We're an American encyclopedia," this shouldn't in itself raise any eyebrows.

:Wikipedia's policy is, of course, a very pragmatic response to the problem of producing an ''international'' English-language encyclopedia that is edited completely by unpaid volunteers who can't be ordered to use a uniform style and can't be assigned the job of copy-editing everything to a uniform style.

:My guess, and ''it's just a guess,'' is that something like this could have happened. Suppose one day a student typed in something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record Phonograph record], misinterpreted what happened, thought that Wikipedia had '''corrected''' what he had typed in, and told a teacher "No, the right name is 'Gramophone record,' Wikipedia says so," and the teacher overreacted.

:Is there a legitimate concern about (say) U. S. high school students using Wikipedia as a learning resource and thereby acquiring incorrect spelling habits? Let me put it this way: Conservapedia's emphasis on this point seems grotesquely exaggerated, but I, at least, see the point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hate speech ==

Awhile back in [[Talk:Fred_Phelps]] the suggestion was made that hate speech should be prohibited on Conservapedia. I believe that it is time to present this as a suggestion for a commandment, especially when taken into context of [[Talk:Homosexuality]]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please Define Hate Speech. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:huey gunna getcha]] was blocked for implying the mass killing of homosexuals at [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]] --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Preaching God's word is not hate speech. Only homosexuals believe so. It's part of their agenda. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::RightWolf, you make the baby Jesus cry.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I believe the best definition would revolve around [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot bigotry]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No it is not. People committing sodomy are not in a protected class. Please don't try to hijack the righteous freedom train on a deadly detour from Selma to Sodom. being born Black is not a sin. Engaging in sexual perversion is. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, right. Because we all know that homosexuality is a choice<nowiki></sarcasm></nowiki>. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::In that case, many people on this site would be blocked. Most Christians regard homosexuality with extreme prejudice. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He went on a long rant about how creating a "cure" for homosexuality is an awesome idea. He then said "If genetic tinkering doesn't work, rifles rarely fail." Tell me how that is not hate speech. It's [[Nazi|Nazism]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am merely quoting from the bible. I realize that it's "vouge" and "sylish" to accept homosexuals. You can tell it to my baby brother, who was kidnapped and raped by a homosexual when he was 11. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Because if one individual in a group of tens of millions does something, then all of them must be bad. Hmmmm... brings to mind Eric Robert Rudolph, doesn't it? Does this mean that because one Christian did it, they all must be bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Also, in regards to RightWolf, aside from the fact that he makes the baby Jesus cry with his bigoted, homophobic, hatemongering remarks, homosexuals are in a protected class, as a "discrete and insular minority" according to the term defined in ''Korematsu'' carried forward in ''Lawrence'' and ''Loving''. The law is not on your side, and thankfully, neither is most of America. I'm with Hojimachong. Hate speech will further drag this site through the mud.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not entirely true. In the state I am in, sodomy is a Class A misdemeanor and inducing acceptance of sodomy to a minor is a class 3 felony. Lawrence vs. Kansas has not been accepted here where minors are concerned. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You also should remove the references in the homosexual agenda about "supressing biblical teachings which condemn homosexuality" if this is the view of the majority. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does a law regarding minors have to do at all? Regardless, I'd like to see you cite this alleged "law" that classifies sodomy as illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, he's probably right about his "state" having a law on the books banning sodomy. Georgia didn't repeal its immediately after ''Lawrence v TEXAS'' either. However, the sodomy law in his "state" will never be prosecuted again because any conviction is now ''per se'' unconstitutional. I don't know where you come from, RightWolf, but Supreme Court precedent is binding on all lower courts and states. It's not optional.
: That said, I am deeply sorry for your brother, who was raped by a homosexual. No doubt there are gay men who are bad men. However, there are straight men who are bad men too. Being gay doesn't make you a rapist anymore than being straight makes you a rapist.
: And finally, sodomy laws protecting minors are still in place, just like statutory rape laws still exist...-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe in the First Ammendment, so any rule should be calefully thought out and clearly defined. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Does the first amendment apply to the administration of a website? I'm no lawyer, But I don't think it would. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech. It is perfectly acceptable to censor anything on private property. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== 4th C, (use of AD). ==

I've noticed an excessive use of 'AD' in contexts where it is rarely used, and in most instances, it's also being used wrongly. See my comments in [[Talk:Democratic Party]]. BC is used consistently to indicate pre-AD 1 dates, and not quite so often for early AD era dates, e.g., "3rd century AD", "AD 314". For uses with just the year, "AD 2007" is the usual and correct form (with AD in front and not at the end), and is never used with the month and day. I have rarely encountered the form "March 21, 2007 AD", and using it over and over again in the same article calls negative attention to the article. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 18:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*You are correct. Maybe some are using it constantly to (re)make a point over and over. That would be disruptive. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I see the article [[Democratic Party]] has been expunged of the attention-grabbing '''AD'''s. As for the 4th C., it occurs to me this is merely a demand to follow a uniform style. Every publishing house has its own manual of style. Fine: we use BC/AD instead of the johnny-come-lately BCE/CE. I'm used to the MLA style manual; interestingly, Wikipedia and Conservapedia follows it, particularly in the presentation of the names of people, which makes for difficulties in alphabetizing biographical articles. My modest suggestion is that C. IV be rewritten to indicate everyone is expected to follow a standard style. As it stands, it seems Conservapedia has knee-jerking objections to BCE/CE a la ''letters to the editor'' in [[Biblical Archaeology Review]]. As for style, I have no objections to a breezy, mid-register style, provided the grammar, spelling and content/sourcing are sound (1st rule of writing: one always writes to the expected audience, and speaking above them, or worse, to a third party behind them, is an automatic turnoff to all readers). --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== A good wiki rule - no personal attacks ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks No personal attacks]. As this site grows and more people with different interpretations of source material join, it would be proper to put down a rule regarding personal attacks. As has recently been seen, this can can be very disruptive to the communication between editors, makes people who have positive contributions less likely to join and presents a poor image of conservapedia to the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think this is a no-brainer, as Argumentum ad Hominem provides absolutely no value to any discussion. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== rule # 6==
why is this rule not enforced? 20:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Etiquette==
Shouldn't you guys have a page detailing what etiquette is standard? I know you guys prefer rules you can get your knickers (or panties? I guess knickers is a British word) in a twist over, but it might be a good idea to talk about how exactly people are supposed to use talk pages and the like. For example, it doesn't say anywhere to sign your posts with three tildes, and it doesn't say exactly how to respond to comments on talk pages-- I'm never sure if I should respond directly after the post I'm replying to or after the replies to the post I'm replying to. This is just if you're interested in having people who didn't learn already this stuff at Wikipedia already, though. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Your RH, one might want to check here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Contents]] at the "Help" pages, clearly marked in the menu bar on the left. Thanks for your concerns, and I promise you, my knickers don't have wrinkle one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==American spelling==
We have decided to remove Conservapedia Commandment 5. (American Spellings must be used) We decided that it wasn't enirely fair to and created too much trouble for our users who are not from America. However we would like Conservapedia to be as consistant as possible so we will continue to include american spellings as a style guideline. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 21:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== This does not add up ==

''7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.'' http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia

Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Rules

But if I publish my Original research on my own site, I can include it... --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:It also potentially clashes with the "must be true" and "always cite" commandments (see Talk page of the Differences article). But who cares? We also forbid gossip and at the same time call it "factual information": [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 See here]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That's exactly right. Both Wikipedia and here would allow an author to present his personal opinion on his site and cite it here. This is why it would be better if we did not allow personal websites to be used for information in articles. If it is worthy information, it will appear elsewhere. It might mean a little more editor work, but it will save countless editor discussions. And it will greatly improve how the public sees us, too. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

em.. no .... wikipedia does not allow an author to do that - people try it, but it's removed where found. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

1) Wikipedia ''definitely'' does not allow an author to do that.

2) The key point here is "properly labelled." Andrew Schlafly is experimenting with this idea. I don't know how well formed it is. I haven't been following closely but he posted an example: [[Adultress Story - Original Work]]. Perhaps others will make similar contributions and a body of practice and policy will evolve. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== grammar ==

I believe this sentence is grammatically incorrect:

'''"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of [[Jesus]], give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis."'''

:Deny the historical basis of what? It is a incomplete sentence. I don't want to fix the sentence because I don't know what the author intended. Is it "deny the historical basis" of the birth of Christ? If so, I think a citation is warranted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

*"[[CE]]" and "[[BCE]]" should not be used on Conservapedia because that is exactly what the intent is; to deny historical basis.

"CE" stands for "Common Era." It is a relatively new term that is experiencing increased usage and secular progressives think it will eventually replace AD. The latter is an abbreviation for "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English. The latter refers to the approximate birth year of [[Jesus Christ]]. CE and AD have the same and value. 2004 CE = 2004 AD.

"BCE" stands for "Before the common era." It might eventually replace BC, which means "Before Christ," or "Before the Messiah." BC and BCE are also identical in value. Most theologians and religious historians believe that the approximate birth date of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) was in the fall, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE, although there are estimates as late as 4 CE and as early as the second century BCE.

At its year 2000 convention at Orlando FL, the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] approved their Resolution #9: ''"On retaining the traditional method of calendar dating (B.C./A.D.)." With reference to the popularity of the CE/BCE nomenclature, it stated, in part: "...This practice is the result of the secularization, antisupernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society." ''The traditional method of dating is a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel in world history.''"'' The resolution recommended that Southern Baptist "individuals, churches, entities, and institutions....retain the traditional method of dating and avoid this revisionism.

Those secularists and Liberal progressives adopting the new appellation's, often explain that the [[Ethic of Reciprocity]] ([[The Golden Rule]]) suggests that one should not intentionally cause unnecessary pain to other humans. We should treat others as we would wish to be treated. Since one out of every three humans on earth is a Christian, some very theologians and authors felt that non-religious, neutral terms like CE and BCE would be less "offensive" to the non-Christian majority on the planet. Forcing a [[Hindu]], for example, to use AD and BC are seen by the [[Liberal]] progressives as coercing them to acknowledge the supremacy of the [[Christian God]] and of [[Jesus Christ]]. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Search Engine Exemption ==

Why the note exempting search engine spiders from "Commandment" 6. The "commandment" itself even specifies "wiki-bots" and it's not like a search engine spider would even obey anything like this. I propose the note be removed from the page because it is just dumb, useless, clutter. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== sourcing ==

There is a conservapedia commandment stating: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't think this is enough. There are many articles at Conservapedia which do not have any sourcing via footnotes. I think this undercuts our credibility and helps encourage people to put mere opinion that is not sourced. I think over the long run if we are to compete with Wikipedia we must have sourcing. Sourcing should be a requirement and not merely implied.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: What counts as a reliable source? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Like I said at [[Talk:Main_Page#sourcing]]: We already have a sourcing rule. It's, like, right under the one you quote. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Credentials ==

Many times on this site, if someone does not like and edit, they question the person's credentials. This is a bit of an unfair attack, however, I have presented mine. Perhaps if someone wants to challenge someone else's credentials, they should consider revealing their own? --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

*Doctor, you know what a red herring is, certainly. Pay no mind. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I do think that if someone feels that they are more of an expert on a topic then a particular editor, they should be able to prove it. It is illigitimate to question someone's creds without showing yours.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information==
Commandment number 3 clearly rules out “gossip” the manual of style for political figures clearly says that “non-gossip scandals” are appropriate information to include in a political figure’s entry. Recently some information I (and others) had added to the entry on [[Rush Limbaugh]] was removed as gossip—I had included the part I added (and I assume this is true for the other contributors) under the belief that I was adding non-gossip scandal. I say that as background for my question: what is the dividing line between gossip and non-gossip scandal? I also asked this at [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians]], but it was suggested that I ask here. I am trying to make a contribution here and am trying to edit in line with the rules, but apparently despite my best efforts I may have inadvertently crossed a line, can someone please clarify what exactly is acceptable scandal information and what is unacceptable gossip?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Looking at the edit history, I take it you're referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=75691&oldid=75577 this]? The assertion that he's "repeatedly" been the subject of "scandal and controversy," and the examples being (I'm taking them at their unflattering face value) a) comparing the Clinton's daughter to a dog (but in a way allowing him to pretend he was "just kidding"); b) the revelation that he was addicted to and illegally using oxycontin; c) remarks about Michael J. Fox implying that he was exaggerating his symptoms to gain sympathy.

:Without trying to formulate policy, it seems to me that the essence of gossip is ''schadenfreude,'' delight in seeing some, particularly someone you dislike, humiliated, taken down a notch, exposed in a lie, etc.

:One possible test of whether something should be in an article is this: would it be in someone's newspaper obituary? If you believe it would be in their obituary, than it's not just gossip. If you're not sure whether it would be in someone's obituary, you need to think about it carefully (and make an explicit case as to why it's ''not'' just gossip. I'm about to do a test; I don't know yet how it will come out. I'm going to look up Warren G. Harding's obituary in The New York Times (why the Times? because it's the one I have online access to). I'm ''guessing'' that it will say something about his administration being "marred by scandal" or something of that sort. I'm ''guessing'' it will mention Teapot Dome. What I don't know is whether it will mention Nan Britton. Almost certainly not, since she didn't publish her book until 1927. Let's go see... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go, August 3, 1923, p 3. "HARDING A FARM BOY WHO ROSE BY WORK; Became a Newspaper Publisher, a Party Leader and Held Ohio Offices. PRESIDENT BY SUDDEN TURN His Wife Had a Premonition of His Death if Elevated to White House. WORK FOR ARMS REDUCTION His Efforts in Behalf of American Participation in the World Court." Nope, that article doesn't discuss his Presidency at all, to speak of... Interesting... as nearly as I can tell in a quick search, the Times mentioned Teapot Dome numerous times but did not conspicuously associate ''Harding'' with the scandal. Let's try a standard short-biography source (also courtesy of my public library); Dictionary of American Biography. Teapot Dome, check. Nan Britton, check. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are quite right, that is most of what I was referring to (though my addition was his illegal use of Viagra which seemed relevant in light of the painkiller charges and only in light of them)—though I’ve asked this question a few different times in some other places as well [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Rudy_Guiliani here for example].
::The standard you propose is an interesting one, but I see a few problems with it—
::First, that is clearly not the standard that is followed on many pages: see [[Rudy Giuliani]] (His affairs will not be part of his obituary nor will the fact that his first marriage was to a cousin.), [[John McCain]] (I doubt that the S&L scandal will make his obituary—but I think it is a very relevant and non-gossip scandal), and [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] (Whitewater—another non-gossip scandal—will not make her obituary). Second, the rule you propose is speculative—I don’t think those things will make the obituary, but you might—it provides very little in the way of actual guidance. Third, I think that several important scandals would be left out based on this rule (as I note above) and I find that troublesome. Finally, the rule provides different answers at different times—had McCain died during the S&L scandal it would be part of his obituary and if he dies during another S&L type scandal it might make it, but if he dies today, or during the campaign, it will not.
::Mostly though, I am asking for a clear and official statement on what exactly gossip is so that when I am asking myself “is this gossip?” I can look to something other than my own gut felling (which apparently conflicts with the gut feeling of others) about the nature of gossip.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's "Gossip" if it's about a Conservative. It's a "Legitimate Scandal" if it's about a Liberal. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 22:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== New Rule ==

I suggest a new rule:
:Don't let [[fact]]s get in the way of a good article.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rule against templates ==

Since there have been 2.5 bans ([[User:BDobbs]], [[User:AmesG]], and my own temporary ban and the ensuing discussion) about templates (all three given out by TK), I suggest a new rule so that people don't just get banned for breaking a non-existent rule TK simply invented and enforces on the fly:
{{QuoteBox|All article templates have to be authorized by a [[Special:Listusers/bureaucrat|bureaucrat]] or by a consensus of a group of [[Special:Listusers/sysop|sysops]]. Users who create and/or use such templates without authorization will be banned.}}
Either implement the rule or stop TK from making up rules. There was no word in an official place that making and using templates is now subject to bureaucrat-approval (it's NOT enough that even two sysops make a template together), and people get banned for it. Hardly sounds fair to me. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sid, your post is inappropriate because you haven't been appointed their advocate. It would be appropriate for them to post here, when back, protesting. You deciding, on your own, to say the act isn't vandalism, won't change the fact that it was. '''Vandalism is against our rules.''' Quit taking up causes to merely stir the pot. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::You forget that you also banned me for allegedly placing an unauthorized template. Besides, I don't ''have'' to be "appointed" to be the "advocate" of anybody. This isn't a court or a republic, it's a freaking WIKI. You just assert that people break rules, you assert that I am not authorized to speak for anybody else, you assert that this is a republic. I honestly don't want this to turn into another lengthy discussion. My request was sincere. The end. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*I understand what you have said, and your sticking up for them. The parties knew full well what they were doing when the made and/or stuck it on articles, I think we can agree on that. Being the thinking people they are, I know they at least considered the ramifications of their actions...at least I would like to hope they would. I am not even saying if I agree or not that some articles actually need a sign that says: "This is pure idiocy, and reading it might actually destroy your Brain!". What I am saying, however, is that without consultation, allowing anyone to slap a text box on article pages labeling it, essentially as "BS", can be very disruptive, tantamount to spray painting a wall, the equivalent of typed graffiti, ergo, Vandalism. There isn't any intellectual squabble between me and the parties, no vendetta. Those with power, in the exercising of it, always risk being mistaken. I honestly don't think I am, and if the powers that be disagree, they can and will reverse my actions. Won't be the first time that has happened here, nor I suspect the last. Just understand there wasn't anything personal in my actions, nor on the part of the other Sysop who agreed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::(Since you copied the thing from your Talk page, here is a copy of the reply)
::TK, the powers that be (=Andy) won't do anything, no matter what you do (with the exception of going against Andy's view of conservatism). You know this, I know this. Just look at the various complaints about Conservative or you on Andy's pages. The only times when Andy actually bothered to reply was in order to say "I don't see anything wrong." or even "Great job, [accused sysop]! You have my full support!"
::Heck, look at the Morality copright thing that got partially revived after the archive-creation. "Hey, what about the morality copyright gig?" - "I thought that was resolved because TK got permission." - "No, it wasn't since that wasn't the only source he copied from." - *no reply*
::Or even more extreme, look at the CWilson/Karajou issue that resulted with the ''complaining'' user being banned.
::So don't worry. Any complaint about you or any other sysop won't put you in any danger of any sort. You won't even have to worry about a slap on the wrist or a scolding "Nuh-uh! Bad sysop!". You are under Andy's shield. If anything, Andy will tell ''me'' to stop bothering him. *shrugs* You don't even have to answer in my complaint threads - just ignore me, the result will be the same.
::If you want to reply, do so, but don't expect me to answer. I have better things to do than discussing about why you think your actions are justified or not. I only try to bring the written rules more in line with what's actually being enforced.
::Just think about this: What is the difference between the template and the various edits that were reverted by Conservative in Theory of Evolution? Arguably, the attempts to remove the extreme anti-evolution bias could be seen as vandalism in your broad sense. We have rules, but they're ''extremely'' fuzzy. I'm only trying to trace the borders of these fuzzy areas. The Bible gave people ten laws, and nowadays, there are a few hundred/thousand or so of them. Me trying to refine the existing rules is the same mechanism - the realization that just six rules are not enough to properly cover such a complex place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I like your suggested rule, but I think that it should specify how many sysops you need to agree on your template (e.g. 5). --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Somewhere between 5 or 8, I would think more than fair, Benjamin. Now, Sid, part of the problem in discussing anything with you is your hyperbole. Could you at least make an attempt to tone down the flamboyant language? It brings a real anger and false urgency to anything you post about. Blocking for a short duration is more in tune with suspension than "banning" which traditionally means never to return. Arguing nit-picks about if this or that is "vandalism" isn't going to garner you support or replies from Andy and the others. Spend less of your posting on complaining and elevating all issues to VERY IMPORTANT status, and more can get done. I notice lots of people with good ideas for this place, and looking at their talk or user pages, also notice really nasty and vile remarks about Andy, and even his family. Surely you realize crap like that isn't going to get them to be willing to take people who do that seriously..... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*The stub template seems entirely unnecessary to me. Why do we need a notice telling us an article is short? Anyone can see when an article needs expansion. A category for short articles is beneficial, because it will allow people to find short articles easily, but the stub template is superfluous and distracting. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's a boot in the tail. If random visitor X see short articles over and over they'll wander off of the site...If they see stub after stub they MAY think "Hey, I could do something on this article!" And register (if it's open) and expand the article. That's my take on that template anyways. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Sharon. Rob and Sharon, the template in question, the newest one, in essence it said "This Article Is Moronic", in the original version, it threatened "banning" for the contributor. They revised it to read other, later, but kept the snide tone. Then, as MoutainDew posted on my talk page, it was slapped on several articles by a couple of people. Something about doing that, and something about others here thinking that kind of behavior is acceptable, is whacked. Here are the three templates, the original and the "revised" editions:
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: #FFCCCC;"
|-
|align="center"|[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|50px|Warning]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' Be advised that editing with a factual bias grounded in reality is counter to the principles of Conservapedia, and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing for a period of time, or banned.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' You are editing against the consensus of other users, and to promote your own bias in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. You are requested to cease and desist.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' This article has been identified as containing biased, unsourced statements.
|}

and its location is here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit]] That earned the guys slapping it up a day or two off, just FYI. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Three things. Sharon, you can also search for stubs as a category (articles needing improvement) and see all the articles that need improvement. Convenient. Sid, would this rule apply to templates created by sysops? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it also applies to templates created by sysops. Case in point: The "Protected" template had been created and used by sysops, and due to a <s>hilarious</s> sad mix-up, I ended up in a fairly heated debate about it (after being temp-banned and unbanned). The template had even been temporarily blanked and had then been reworded by Ed and TK to form a sort of "consensus" version. In fact, it had been that template that triggered the whole "Don't insert templates without consulting the other sysops and/or Andy!!!" issue. So just being a sysop does not place you above this rule (hence the careful wording about one bureaucrat or a consensus of a few sysops). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*There wasn't any "consensus" version of the "Protected" template. Ed and I both agreed, from the outset of the convo, what it should contain. Quit trying to drive wedges, or make it a matter of two "sides". That's careful wording to subtly change history, to make it seem there was an issue, when there was not. Sysops should have to obtain the okay from a minimum of five of their peers before making/including system-wide templates. It is silly thinking that as part of the sites administration, that rules regarding housekeeping would apply to them the same as any casual user, someone who signed up 24 hours earlier. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Easy there. The key phrase right now is "Assume Good Faith". When I wrote "consensus" in quotation marks, I was referring to "consensus formed by two sysops, as opposed to the consensus described in my initial suggestion since the latter has more than just two sysops in mind".
::I'm not trying to "change history". That is kinda hard in a place where "history" is an easily accessible tab on virtually all pages. Additionally, I believe that I don't ''have'' to change history. It pretty much speaks for itself. If anybody wants to, I can construct a rough timeline of the events, complete with links to the pages in question. All the information is out there, it's just a question of knowing where to look. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:06, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I am glad you clarified what you meant. As to the number of Sysops, am I reading you correctly, you would prefer agreement of two as opposed to 5 or more? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I chose the "group of sysops" wording because I didn't really have a value in mind. But the "Protected" thing sorta showed that "two" is not enough (Ed and David are both sysops and formed the "consensus" to use it). Besides, I don't think that two sysops alone have the same "decision-making power level" as one sysop in critical cases.
::I still have no fixed value in mind, and ''I don't think there should be one''. Some cases will obviously require more input than others (the higher the impact on pages, the more sysops should be consulted - I'd rank the Protected template relatively low, but a radical template like "This article misrepresents facts and should be rewritten immediately by a more competent editor" should have some serious discussion before usage), so it should be evaluated on the fly by the editor who gets the idea and by the sysops who engage in the discussion.
::(And no, I do not suggest that anybody actually creates such a template - it was an extreme example.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Follow-up note: The "Protected" template in the end only required 3-4 sysops (if I remember correctly), and only 2-3 at a time. Things worked out. That's what I mean with "ranking relatively low" - it was apparent that there was no need for a full poll of 5+ sysops, just a few sysops communicating with each other about goals and implementation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Fair enough. BTW, the problem with the protected template, and consensus is, while Ed agreed to it, he expressly said it shouldn't be added to users own pages. So even with "consensus" unless communication is clear, and people actually abide by the intentions of the makers, it all falls apart. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why don't we have Ten Commandments? ==

Seems like it would be meaningful to have a full set of 10 commandments, showing that our inspiration comes from the Bible. Surely we can come up with 4 more.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 19:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I hate to be derivative, but I can think of a couple... Assume Good Faith, Be Civil, and Be Bold (as in, create articles, make articles bigger and better, write, Write, WRITE!) [[User:Human|Human]] 21:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==But some are more equal than others==

<s>1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]

<s>2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aesthetics] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]

<s>3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality]

4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.

<s>5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account. Advertisements are prohibited.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Breast_cancer]

6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.

So we are left with BC and AD and no wiki-bots. But there is no problem adding a ton of capricious rules to randomly block contributors. So THIS is what America would be like if it was run completely by the right wing Christian fundamentalist. Theocratic dictatorship at its best. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Would you like me to hold the door for you, Etaroced? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That kind of proves his point, you know. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:55, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== rule 3 ==

I would like to point out that "family-friendly" and "clean" are fairly vague (clean is figurative, and probably not the best terminology) and probably "obscenity" is a better term than "foul language." Perhaps a rewording would be appropriate. Although, perhaps the language is intentional. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:We use the term "family-friendly" as just that. When we edit here, we have to imagine what we write and how we write it can be seen by families with children. I'm aware of the fact that some children grow up in broken households, but we don't need to contribute to the problem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

You're missing my point; the term is very vague and figurative. How does an encyclopedia entry become a friend to a family. It's just poor wording. "Prohibits sexually explicity material" or whatever specifically is to be avoided would be more exacting. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 10:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps a list of what is to be avoided should be drawn up and posted. How would that do? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:47, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::I for one think that would be a fantastic idea. A lot of the rules here strike me as fairly vague—if while the list is being drawn up you could give attention to my question above about defining gossip, I’d greatly appreciate that. If it would help, I’ve been recording, for personal use, what sysops have said about the rules (as a sort of collection of Conservapedia dicta if you will) and I’d be more than happy to post that to an appropriate page (it takes up something like 5 pages in Word so I don’t want to post it here).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 19:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is exactly why the rules are not too detailed. A wise Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote, when they were deliberating a pornography case, that he couldn't define it with words, but knew it when he saw it. Much the same in administering a website, Reginod. Gossip, btw, is unsubstantiated, unverified, talk or conversation that the spreader of has no real first-hand facts or information about. This includes spreading information, let's say, about a marital break-up, where the gossip spreader might or might not have first-hand knowledge, but not from both sides. Without all facts and information, trying to draw a conclusion as to who's fault it was, is senseless. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:I appreciate the clarification TK—in fact you’ve defined gossip roughly how I was defining it. The problem with the “I know it when I see it approach” (which I have to admit I often find myself advocating in real life) is that it leads to very murky rules. So, I may think I’m posting a scandal which belongs on a page, and a sysop reading my addition may think I’ve simply posted gossip. Don’t get me wrong, I‘d be hard pressed to come up with a precise definition for most (if not all) of the important words in the Commandments and I usually agree with the gut instincts of those enforcing the rules here. But I don’t always agree and from reading the comments of others here I gather there are some who agree far less often than I. I think things would run more smoothly if there were some attempt at a rough explication of the rules, some sort of rough guidelines to let those of us trying to help the site know what is in and what is out and to give people a better idea of how the rules will be enforced. That’s just my two cents and I’m not sure what they are worth, but, that’s what I think.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Yes, well some of what you wrote I do agree with. However, hard and fast rules, like mandatory sentencing guidelines imposed on Federal Judges, to use a well-known example, also can lead, far more often, to justice being denied or perverted. With a divergent group of Administrators, I have found on other sites that their own good judgement (either before or after meting out punishment, is usually enough to protect users. Absent that, peer pressure and ultimately, perhaps, the site owner(s) (Bureaucrats here) are sufficient brakes on abuse. I do recognize the validity in the scenario you paint above, and have lived it on other sites, and even here. No amount of specificity will protect all of the people, all of the time. There will always be dissension as to punishment, and there will always be what some consider abuse, no matter the precautions, but I would rather have some leeway, than be forced to block someone for a minor offense or mistake. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*Let's look at some definitions of family:[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family:
:::"8. the staff, or body of assistants, of an official: the office family.
:::9. a group of related things or people: the family of romantic poets; the halogen family of elements.
:::10. a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live together: Many hippie communes of the sixties regarded themselves as families."
:::I guess I can use whatever "family-friendly" terminology that a hippie commune would use. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 22:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is certainly your right, Sterile. However, I would avise you that since this isn't a judical body, the defense wouldn't be recognized....;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== The 90/10 rule ==

The 90% 10% edit rule is wrong and should be removed. It just doesn't make sense. To suggest that entries of talk pages are bad is utterly muddleheaded.

The rule encourages people to edit without discussion beforehand, which is highly undesirable.

What is worse, I have seen Aschlafly use it to intimidate people who he is ideologically opposed to or who have asked difficult questions. He, of course, likes the rule because it is the criticism of his behaviour and the behaviour of those he protects that is the real target of the rule.

Under the rule this very post is a black mark against my name. I had better go and do a quick edit to make up for it. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not even to mention that it's nearly impossible to calculate a halfway exact ratio. Either it's fast ("mainspace edits / total edits") or precise ("Check all edits and decide what is good"), but it can't be both.
:The additional problem is: What is a "quality edit"? Is copyediting an article a "quality edit"? What about fixing a dead-end page by inserting links? What about reverting vandalism? If I revert fifty articles that had been replaced with "CONSERVAPEDIA SUCKS!", does that count for or against my ratio? Is discussing policy (or even ''writing'' policy) a quality edit? What about helping editors or even sysops with technical problems?
:These things will change the way some people act. And I doubt it will be for the better. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I believe it's intended more as a reminder/guideline that productive work is more important than endless arugments than a specific, mathematically calculated rule. I don't think anybody's going to go down the list and count anybody's edits and figure out from there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not so Dan. Here is an example:
::"Folks, this is an educational project, not a place to bicker and argue. Horace, I've reviewed your edits and found that they are, what, about 90% talk and complaints and less than 10% substantive edits??? More to say but I have run an errand now. Will be back on a bit later.--Aschlafly 20:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)".
:Here's another example:
::"OK, Nematocyte, I've reviewed your edits. I estimate that 90% or more of your edits have been talk, talk, talk, and less than 10% substance. And what is an example of one of your edits? I think you called CreationWiki a "peculiar brand of paganism"! My view is that your account should be blocked and I defer to any Sysop who agrees and decides to block your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)".
:Then there's this:
::"I don't understand your question, "Flippin", but I invite any Sysop to do a similar review of your edits as I just did for Nematocyte, and act appropriately with respect to your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)".
:The intent is to have a tool that can be used to intimidate editors who irritate Aschlafly. Simple as that. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'll grant there there is truth in your remark, Horace, except that the rule applies for the benefit of all our major editors. I don't want Conservapedia to lose a productive editor because he's being constantly irritated by an unproductive one. If you were in my shoes and wanted to do what is best for Conservapedia, then I'd expect you to impose a similar "enough is enough" rule to stop irritation. Wikipedia rules, which are far more complex and manipulable, are also used to stop the heckling at some point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I understand your position. There is a job to be done here and it can be distracting to have too many arguments. You will understand that from my perspective, however, the rule looks somewhat different. Where I perceive a wrong or unjust decision I seek to stand up and make my views heard. If I am met with the proposition that I have made too many edits on talk pages that appears to me to be an unfair criticism and a way of attempting to silence my dissent. Of course I edit on talk pages a lot. Firstly, as you know, I am interested in the theory of evolution. That page has been locked pretty much permanently. I have made a large number of edits on the talk page (and other talk pages) in relation to the locking issue. I regard that decision as just plain wrong. What about James Maxwell? I made a number of edits on the talk page which you didn't even respond to. I was trying to avoid an edit war. Should I have just gone ahead and edited the article? Secondly, I am interested in the processes here. As an editor who appears to have a number of views that are contrary to the views of those in charge, I am concerned (more than those in the majority I suspect), to see that the processes are fair. That leads to a large number of talk page posts. Those posts, in my view, are quality posts because they relate to a very important issue. They should not be used against me. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== "No Unlawful Activity?" ==

'''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.'''

Whoops--ok, no quotes from [[Harriet Tubman]] (Helped slaves to escape to [[Canada]]), [[Martin Luther King Jr]] (Broke racial segregation laws), [[Oliver North]] (Iran-Contra Scandal), [[Mohandas Gandhi]] (rebellion against the British Empire), or the [[Declaration of Independence]] (Treason against His Royal Highness, King George the Third), then? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe change it to:

:'''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting (as of 2007) unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.'''

:--[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Does that include The Law in countries like Saudi Arabia? I mean, we wouldn't want to suggest that women should drive cars, or appear in public without a male family member to escort them, or anything. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::OH--or smuggle Bibles into Communist North Korea. Can't have any of that subversive activity, nosirree! It's '''the law'''!

The intent of the rule should be clear to anybody who is taking this project seriously. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I believe he has a point, nonetheless. The law is going to be different depending on where the lawbreaking editor lives. While his suggestion is rather silly, more detail could be added. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The original reason for this rule was because somebody was linking to a site that supported abortion clinic violence. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, so, what about if we write an article ABOUT a terroristic organization. Can we cite their website, even though it repesents an illegal organization? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I hope you can see my point. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-04-16T02:13:07Z

GofG: /* "No Unlawful Activity?" */

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

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The Bible scientific? Where was I when this was decided? Also you can't use it as a historical information source as well as it has many conflictions within itself. For instance the see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Variations_between_the_genealogies Genealogy of Jesus]. Definately not historically accurate. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm not going to use as a source of Biblical information anything from Wikipedia. As for the Bible being a reliable source of info both historical and scientific, that was decided long before you were born. And we are going to use it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:26, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biased, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You know, basically doing what all of you could be doing at Wikipedia if you didn't prefer secession over improvement. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a source which must not be copied from, Wikipedia. But that probably wasn't your question. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You might want to '''bold''' text the line:
====Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.====
[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or you might go a step less and state it as:
*Do not copy from '''''Wikipedia''''' or other non-public domain sources. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Against Proposal:
How would this be of any use? If anyone wants to vandalize this wiki then they easily can. And if you start banning people with user names like mine (trekie9001) than people will just sign up as RichCheese or some other such "real" sounding names and it won't make a bit of difference. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Then there is the issue of foreign vandals; I noticed they could report vandals to their employer. As far as Canada goes, sharing such information with anyone other than the police would be a violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA for short). You see in the free world, we have the right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty. You would have to provide information to the police and allow them to conduct the investigation. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::While I agree that cites need to be done in a coherent manner, I'm not such a big fan of the MLA system. What's wrong with traditional foot- and end-notes? The Wiki software supports that kind of referencing already. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 18:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That is also a correct way to cite a source; foot and endnotes have been in use for years with no problem. What I said above is not written in stone, but there must be some sort of standard guide. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Furthermore - you would have to show it is vandalism. Imagine trying to prove that a non-creationist but factually correct post was 'vandalism' in a court of law. I think it may well cause a laugh or too but certainly no penalty.

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, yes. However, I think/hope that people don't REALLY get banned just for poking an Admin. That would have a very chilling effect on the overall mood (more than it has already). So I assumed that the real reason for Aschlafly's ban warnings is just a sign of stress in the face of a flooded Talk page. So if we fix that, we don't have to set up strict rules about what you aren't allowed to say on (User) Talk pages. Conservapedia already bans users over little things like content disputes, no need to make things even stricter.
:::But if the ban warning policy really stays like this, it should of course be reflected here. In particular, Rule 6 would have to be altered quite a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Un-American Spelling ==
I am wondering why conservapedia feels threatened by, say, british spelling of words vs american spellings. I like to use the british spellings because my computer says it is spelled incorrectly, yet i still love America. A paradox, isn't it? Still, perhaps we should choose the correct dialect in America to use on this cite. Otherwise, someone could point out the british spelling is used in some parts of America, and thus be considered "American," and therefore be able to use it. I personally am partial to the Mid-west.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 10:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia is rather unusual in allowing and supporting a mix of usage styles. Most U. S. print publishers would specify a style manual calling out U. S. spelling. Most U. K. publishers would specify a style manual calling out British spelling. When a U. S. work is republished in the U. K. or vice versa, one of the publication steps would be copyediting the work to conform to local usage. A good example of this would be the first Harry Potter book, in which even the ''title'' was changed for the U. S. market. Conversely, I don't know if they would do this any more but I remembering reading a British edition of ''The Grapes of Wrath'' in which the Okies were talking about the difficulty of buying "a gallon a petrol" for their car.

:99.9% of all print publications mandate that spelling conform to whichever side of the pond they're on, and nobody thinks twice about it. If Conservapedia wants to say "We're an American encyclopedia," this shouldn't in itself raise any eyebrows.

:Wikipedia's policy is, of course, a very pragmatic response to the problem of producing an ''international'' English-language encyclopedia that is edited completely by unpaid volunteers who can't be ordered to use a uniform style and can't be assigned the job of copy-editing everything to a uniform style.

:My guess, and ''it's just a guess,'' is that something like this could have happened. Suppose one day a student typed in something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record Phonograph record], misinterpreted what happened, thought that Wikipedia had '''corrected''' what he had typed in, and told a teacher "No, the right name is 'Gramophone record,' Wikipedia says so," and the teacher overreacted.

:Is there a legitimate concern about (say) U. S. high school students using Wikipedia as a learning resource and thereby acquiring incorrect spelling habits? Let me put it this way: Conservapedia's emphasis on this point seems grotesquely exaggerated, but I, at least, see the point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hate speech ==

Awhile back in [[Talk:Fred_Phelps]] the suggestion was made that hate speech should be prohibited on Conservapedia. I believe that it is time to present this as a suggestion for a commandment, especially when taken into context of [[Talk:Homosexuality]]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please Define Hate Speech. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:huey gunna getcha]] was blocked for implying the mass killing of homosexuals at [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]] --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Preaching God's word is not hate speech. Only homosexuals believe so. It's part of their agenda. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::RightWolf, you make the baby Jesus cry.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I believe the best definition would revolve around [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot bigotry]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No it is not. People committing sodomy are not in a protected class. Please don't try to hijack the righteous freedom train on a deadly detour from Selma to Sodom. being born Black is not a sin. Engaging in sexual perversion is. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, right. Because we all know that homosexuality is a choice<nowiki></sarcasm></nowiki>. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::In that case, many people on this site would be blocked. Most Christians regard homosexuality with extreme prejudice. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He went on a long rant about how creating a "cure" for homosexuality is an awesome idea. He then said "If genetic tinkering doesn't work, rifles rarely fail." Tell me how that is not hate speech. It's [[Nazi|Nazism]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am merely quoting from the bible. I realize that it's "vouge" and "sylish" to accept homosexuals. You can tell it to my baby brother, who was kidnapped and raped by a homosexual when he was 11. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Because if one individual in a group of tens of millions does something, then all of them must be bad. Hmmmm... brings to mind Eric Robert Rudolph, doesn't it? Does this mean that because one Christian did it, they all must be bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Also, in regards to RightWolf, aside from the fact that he makes the baby Jesus cry with his bigoted, homophobic, hatemongering remarks, homosexuals are in a protected class, as a "discrete and insular minority" according to the term defined in ''Korematsu'' carried forward in ''Lawrence'' and ''Loving''. The law is not on your side, and thankfully, neither is most of America. I'm with Hojimachong. Hate speech will further drag this site through the mud.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not entirely true. In the state I am in, sodomy is a Class A misdemeanor and inducing acceptance of sodomy to a minor is a class 3 felony. Lawrence vs. Kansas has not been accepted here where minors are concerned. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You also should remove the references in the homosexual agenda about "supressing biblical teachings which condemn homosexuality" if this is the view of the majority. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does a law regarding minors have to do at all? Regardless, I'd like to see you cite this alleged "law" that classifies sodomy as illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, he's probably right about his "state" having a law on the books banning sodomy. Georgia didn't repeal its immediately after ''Lawrence v TEXAS'' either. However, the sodomy law in his "state" will never be prosecuted again because any conviction is now ''per se'' unconstitutional. I don't know where you come from, RightWolf, but Supreme Court precedent is binding on all lower courts and states. It's not optional.
: That said, I am deeply sorry for your brother, who was raped by a homosexual. No doubt there are gay men who are bad men. However, there are straight men who are bad men too. Being gay doesn't make you a rapist anymore than being straight makes you a rapist.
: And finally, sodomy laws protecting minors are still in place, just like statutory rape laws still exist...-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe in the First Ammendment, so any rule should be calefully thought out and clearly defined. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Does the first amendment apply to the administration of a website? I'm no lawyer, But I don't think it would. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech. It is perfectly acceptable to censor anything on private property. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== 4th C, (use of AD). ==

I've noticed an excessive use of 'AD' in contexts where it is rarely used, and in most instances, it's also being used wrongly. See my comments in [[Talk:Democratic Party]]. BC is used consistently to indicate pre-AD 1 dates, and not quite so often for early AD era dates, e.g., "3rd century AD", "AD 314". For uses with just the year, "AD 2007" is the usual and correct form (with AD in front and not at the end), and is never used with the month and day. I have rarely encountered the form "March 21, 2007 AD", and using it over and over again in the same article calls negative attention to the article. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 18:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*You are correct. Maybe some are using it constantly to (re)make a point over and over. That would be disruptive. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I see the article [[Democratic Party]] has been expunged of the attention-grabbing '''AD'''s. As for the 4th C., it occurs to me this is merely a demand to follow a uniform style. Every publishing house has its own manual of style. Fine: we use BC/AD instead of the johnny-come-lately BCE/CE. I'm used to the MLA style manual; interestingly, Wikipedia and Conservapedia follows it, particularly in the presentation of the names of people, which makes for difficulties in alphabetizing biographical articles. My modest suggestion is that C. IV be rewritten to indicate everyone is expected to follow a standard style. As it stands, it seems Conservapedia has knee-jerking objections to BCE/CE a la ''letters to the editor'' in [[Biblical Archaeology Review]]. As for style, I have no objections to a breezy, mid-register style, provided the grammar, spelling and content/sourcing are sound (1st rule of writing: one always writes to the expected audience, and speaking above them, or worse, to a third party behind them, is an automatic turnoff to all readers). --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== A good wiki rule - no personal attacks ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks No personal attacks]. As this site grows and more people with different interpretations of source material join, it would be proper to put down a rule regarding personal attacks. As has recently been seen, this can can be very disruptive to the communication between editors, makes people who have positive contributions less likely to join and presents a poor image of conservapedia to the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think this is a no-brainer, as Argumentum ad Hominem provides absolutely no value to any discussion. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== rule # 6==
why is this rule not enforced? 20:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Etiquette==
Shouldn't you guys have a page detailing what etiquette is standard? I know you guys prefer rules you can get your knickers (or panties? I guess knickers is a British word) in a twist over, but it might be a good idea to talk about how exactly people are supposed to use talk pages and the like. For example, it doesn't say anywhere to sign your posts with three tildes, and it doesn't say exactly how to respond to comments on talk pages-- I'm never sure if I should respond directly after the post I'm replying to or after the replies to the post I'm replying to. This is just if you're interested in having people who didn't learn already this stuff at Wikipedia already, though. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Your RH, one might want to check here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Contents]] at the "Help" pages, clearly marked in the menu bar on the left. Thanks for your concerns, and I promise you, my knickers don't have wrinkle one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==American spelling==
We have decided to remove Conservapedia Commandment 5. (American Spellings must be used) We decided that it wasn't enirely fair to and created too much trouble for our users who are not from America. However we would like Conservapedia to be as consistant as possible so we will continue to include american spellings as a style guideline. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 21:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== This does not add up ==

''7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.'' http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia

Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Rules

But if I publish my Original research on my own site, I can include it... --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:It also potentially clashes with the "must be true" and "always cite" commandments (see Talk page of the Differences article). But who cares? We also forbid gossip and at the same time call it "factual information": [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 See here]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That's exactly right. Both Wikipedia and here would allow an author to present his personal opinion on his site and cite it here. This is why it would be better if we did not allow personal websites to be used for information in articles. If it is worthy information, it will appear elsewhere. It might mean a little more editor work, but it will save countless editor discussions. And it will greatly improve how the public sees us, too. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

em.. no .... wikipedia does not allow an author to do that - people try it, but it's removed where found. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

1) Wikipedia ''definitely'' does not allow an author to do that.

2) The key point here is "properly labelled." Andrew Schlafly is experimenting with this idea. I don't know how well formed it is. I haven't been following closely but he posted an example: [[Adultress Story - Original Work]]. Perhaps others will make similar contributions and a body of practice and policy will evolve. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== grammar ==

I believe this sentence is grammatically incorrect:

'''"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of [[Jesus]], give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis."'''

:Deny the historical basis of what? It is a incomplete sentence. I don't want to fix the sentence because I don't know what the author intended. Is it "deny the historical basis" of the birth of Christ? If so, I think a citation is warranted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

*"[[CE]]" and "[[BCE]]" should not be used on Conservapedia because that is exactly what the intent is; to deny historical basis.

"CE" stands for "Common Era." It is a relatively new term that is experiencing increased usage and secular progressives think it will eventually replace AD. The latter is an abbreviation for "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English. The latter refers to the approximate birth year of [[Jesus Christ]]. CE and AD have the same and value. 2004 CE = 2004 AD.

"BCE" stands for "Before the common era." It might eventually replace BC, which means "Before Christ," or "Before the Messiah." BC and BCE are also identical in value. Most theologians and religious historians believe that the approximate birth date of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) was in the fall, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE, although there are estimates as late as 4 CE and as early as the second century BCE.

At its year 2000 convention at Orlando FL, the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] approved their Resolution #9: ''"On retaining the traditional method of calendar dating (B.C./A.D.)." With reference to the popularity of the CE/BCE nomenclature, it stated, in part: "...This practice is the result of the secularization, antisupernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society." ''The traditional method of dating is a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel in world history.''"'' The resolution recommended that Southern Baptist "individuals, churches, entities, and institutions....retain the traditional method of dating and avoid this revisionism.

Those secularists and Liberal progressives adopting the new appellation's, often explain that the [[Ethic of Reciprocity]] ([[The Golden Rule]]) suggests that one should not intentionally cause unnecessary pain to other humans. We should treat others as we would wish to be treated. Since one out of every three humans on earth is a Christian, some very theologians and authors felt that non-religious, neutral terms like CE and BCE would be less "offensive" to the non-Christian majority on the planet. Forcing a [[Hindu]], for example, to use AD and BC are seen by the [[Liberal]] progressives as coercing them to acknowledge the supremacy of the [[Christian God]] and of [[Jesus Christ]]. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Search Engine Exemption ==

Why the note exempting search engine spiders from "Commandment" 6. The "commandment" itself even specifies "wiki-bots" and it's not like a search engine spider would even obey anything like this. I propose the note be removed from the page because it is just dumb, useless, clutter. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== sourcing ==

There is a conservapedia commandment stating: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't think this is enough. There are many articles at Conservapedia which do not have any sourcing via footnotes. I think this undercuts our credibility and helps encourage people to put mere opinion that is not sourced. I think over the long run if we are to compete with Wikipedia we must have sourcing. Sourcing should be a requirement and not merely implied.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: What counts as a reliable source? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Like I said at [[Talk:Main_Page#sourcing]]: We already have a sourcing rule. It's, like, right under the one you quote. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Credentials ==

Many times on this site, if someone does not like and edit, they question the person's credentials. This is a bit of an unfair attack, however, I have presented mine. Perhaps if someone wants to challenge someone else's credentials, they should consider revealing their own? --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

*Doctor, you know what a red herring is, certainly. Pay no mind. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I do think that if someone feels that they are more of an expert on a topic then a particular editor, they should be able to prove it. It is illigitimate to question someone's creds without showing yours.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information==
Commandment number 3 clearly rules out “gossip” the manual of style for political figures clearly says that “non-gossip scandals” are appropriate information to include in a political figure’s entry. Recently some information I (and others) had added to the entry on [[Rush Limbaugh]] was removed as gossip—I had included the part I added (and I assume this is true for the other contributors) under the belief that I was adding non-gossip scandal. I say that as background for my question: what is the dividing line between gossip and non-gossip scandal? I also asked this at [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians]], but it was suggested that I ask here. I am trying to make a contribution here and am trying to edit in line with the rules, but apparently despite my best efforts I may have inadvertently crossed a line, can someone please clarify what exactly is acceptable scandal information and what is unacceptable gossip?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Looking at the edit history, I take it you're referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=75691&oldid=75577 this]? The assertion that he's "repeatedly" been the subject of "scandal and controversy," and the examples being (I'm taking them at their unflattering face value) a) comparing the Clinton's daughter to a dog (but in a way allowing him to pretend he was "just kidding"); b) the revelation that he was addicted to and illegally using oxycontin; c) remarks about Michael J. Fox implying that he was exaggerating his symptoms to gain sympathy.

:Without trying to formulate policy, it seems to me that the essence of gossip is ''schadenfreude,'' delight in seeing some, particularly someone you dislike, humiliated, taken down a notch, exposed in a lie, etc.

:One possible test of whether something should be in an article is this: would it be in someone's newspaper obituary? If you believe it would be in their obituary, than it's not just gossip. If you're not sure whether it would be in someone's obituary, you need to think about it carefully (and make an explicit case as to why it's ''not'' just gossip. I'm about to do a test; I don't know yet how it will come out. I'm going to look up Warren G. Harding's obituary in The New York Times (why the Times? because it's the one I have online access to). I'm ''guessing'' that it will say something about his administration being "marred by scandal" or something of that sort. I'm ''guessing'' it will mention Teapot Dome. What I don't know is whether it will mention Nan Britton. Almost certainly not, since she didn't publish her book until 1927. Let's go see... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go, August 3, 1923, p 3. "HARDING A FARM BOY WHO ROSE BY WORK; Became a Newspaper Publisher, a Party Leader and Held Ohio Offices. PRESIDENT BY SUDDEN TURN His Wife Had a Premonition of His Death if Elevated to White House. WORK FOR ARMS REDUCTION His Efforts in Behalf of American Participation in the World Court." Nope, that article doesn't discuss his Presidency at all, to speak of... Interesting... as nearly as I can tell in a quick search, the Times mentioned Teapot Dome numerous times but did not conspicuously associate ''Harding'' with the scandal. Let's try a standard short-biography source (also courtesy of my public library); Dictionary of American Biography. Teapot Dome, check. Nan Britton, check. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are quite right, that is most of what I was referring to (though my addition was his illegal use of Viagra which seemed relevant in light of the painkiller charges and only in light of them)—though I’ve asked this question a few different times in some other places as well [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Rudy_Guiliani here for example].
::The standard you propose is an interesting one, but I see a few problems with it—
::First, that is clearly not the standard that is followed on many pages: see [[Rudy Giuliani]] (His affairs will not be part of his obituary nor will the fact that his first marriage was to a cousin.), [[John McCain]] (I doubt that the S&L scandal will make his obituary—but I think it is a very relevant and non-gossip scandal), and [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] (Whitewater—another non-gossip scandal—will not make her obituary). Second, the rule you propose is speculative—I don’t think those things will make the obituary, but you might—it provides very little in the way of actual guidance. Third, I think that several important scandals would be left out based on this rule (as I note above) and I find that troublesome. Finally, the rule provides different answers at different times—had McCain died during the S&L scandal it would be part of his obituary and if he dies during another S&L type scandal it might make it, but if he dies today, or during the campaign, it will not.
::Mostly though, I am asking for a clear and official statement on what exactly gossip is so that when I am asking myself “is this gossip?” I can look to something other than my own gut felling (which apparently conflicts with the gut feeling of others) about the nature of gossip.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's "Gossip" if it's about a Conservative. It's a "Legitimate Scandal" if it's about a Liberal. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 22:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== New Rule ==

I suggest a new rule:
:Don't let [[fact]]s get in the way of a good article.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rule against templates ==

Since there have been 2.5 bans ([[User:BDobbs]], [[User:AmesG]], and my own temporary ban and the ensuing discussion) about templates (all three given out by TK), I suggest a new rule so that people don't just get banned for breaking a non-existent rule TK simply invented and enforces on the fly:
{{QuoteBox|All article templates have to be authorized by a [[Special:Listusers/bureaucrat|bureaucrat]] or by a consensus of a group of [[Special:Listusers/sysop|sysops]]. Users who create and/or use such templates without authorization will be banned.}}
Either implement the rule or stop TK from making up rules. There was no word in an official place that making and using templates is now subject to bureaucrat-approval (it's NOT enough that even two sysops make a template together), and people get banned for it. Hardly sounds fair to me. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sid, your post is inappropriate because you haven't been appointed their advocate. It would be appropriate for them to post here, when back, protesting. You deciding, on your own, to say the act isn't vandalism, won't change the fact that it was. '''Vandalism is against our rules.''' Quit taking up causes to merely stir the pot. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::You forget that you also banned me for allegedly placing an unauthorized template. Besides, I don't ''have'' to be "appointed" to be the "advocate" of anybody. This isn't a court or a republic, it's a freaking WIKI. You just assert that people break rules, you assert that I am not authorized to speak for anybody else, you assert that this is a republic. I honestly don't want this to turn into another lengthy discussion. My request was sincere. The end. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*I understand what you have said, and your sticking up for them. The parties knew full well what they were doing when the made and/or stuck it on articles, I think we can agree on that. Being the thinking people they are, I know they at least considered the ramifications of their actions...at least I would like to hope they would. I am not even saying if I agree or not that some articles actually need a sign that says: "This is pure idiocy, and reading it might actually destroy your Brain!". What I am saying, however, is that without consultation, allowing anyone to slap a text box on article pages labeling it, essentially as "BS", can be very disruptive, tantamount to spray painting a wall, the equivalent of typed graffiti, ergo, Vandalism. There isn't any intellectual squabble between me and the parties, no vendetta. Those with power, in the exercising of it, always risk being mistaken. I honestly don't think I am, and if the powers that be disagree, they can and will reverse my actions. Won't be the first time that has happened here, nor I suspect the last. Just understand there wasn't anything personal in my actions, nor on the part of the other Sysop who agreed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::(Since you copied the thing from your Talk page, here is a copy of the reply)
::TK, the powers that be (=Andy) won't do anything, no matter what you do (with the exception of going against Andy's view of conservatism). You know this, I know this. Just look at the various complaints about Conservative or you on Andy's pages. The only times when Andy actually bothered to reply was in order to say "I don't see anything wrong." or even "Great job, [accused sysop]! You have my full support!"
::Heck, look at the Morality copright thing that got partially revived after the archive-creation. "Hey, what about the morality copyright gig?" - "I thought that was resolved because TK got permission." - "No, it wasn't since that wasn't the only source he copied from." - *no reply*
::Or even more extreme, look at the CWilson/Karajou issue that resulted with the ''complaining'' user being banned.
::So don't worry. Any complaint about you or any other sysop won't put you in any danger of any sort. You won't even have to worry about a slap on the wrist or a scolding "Nuh-uh! Bad sysop!". You are under Andy's shield. If anything, Andy will tell ''me'' to stop bothering him. *shrugs* You don't even have to answer in my complaint threads - just ignore me, the result will be the same.
::If you want to reply, do so, but don't expect me to answer. I have better things to do than discussing about why you think your actions are justified or not. I only try to bring the written rules more in line with what's actually being enforced.
::Just think about this: What is the difference between the template and the various edits that were reverted by Conservative in Theory of Evolution? Arguably, the attempts to remove the extreme anti-evolution bias could be seen as vandalism in your broad sense. We have rules, but they're ''extremely'' fuzzy. I'm only trying to trace the borders of these fuzzy areas. The Bible gave people ten laws, and nowadays, there are a few hundred/thousand or so of them. Me trying to refine the existing rules is the same mechanism - the realization that just six rules are not enough to properly cover such a complex place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I like your suggested rule, but I think that it should specify how many sysops you need to agree on your template (e.g. 5). --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Somewhere between 5 or 8, I would think more than fair, Benjamin. Now, Sid, part of the problem in discussing anything with you is your hyperbole. Could you at least make an attempt to tone down the flamboyant language? It brings a real anger and false urgency to anything you post about. Blocking for a short duration is more in tune with suspension than "banning" which traditionally means never to return. Arguing nit-picks about if this or that is "vandalism" isn't going to garner you support or replies from Andy and the others. Spend less of your posting on complaining and elevating all issues to VERY IMPORTANT status, and more can get done. I notice lots of people with good ideas for this place, and looking at their talk or user pages, also notice really nasty and vile remarks about Andy, and even his family. Surely you realize crap like that isn't going to get them to be willing to take people who do that seriously..... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*The stub template seems entirely unnecessary to me. Why do we need a notice telling us an article is short? Anyone can see when an article needs expansion. A category for short articles is beneficial, because it will allow people to find short articles easily, but the stub template is superfluous and distracting. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's a boot in the tail. If random visitor X see short articles over and over they'll wander off of the site...If they see stub after stub they MAY think "Hey, I could do something on this article!" And register (if it's open) and expand the article. That's my take on that template anyways. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Sharon. Rob and Sharon, the template in question, the newest one, in essence it said "This Article Is Moronic", in the original version, it threatened "banning" for the contributor. They revised it to read other, later, but kept the snide tone. Then, as MoutainDew posted on my talk page, it was slapped on several articles by a couple of people. Something about doing that, and something about others here thinking that kind of behavior is acceptable, is whacked. Here are the three templates, the original and the "revised" editions:
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: #FFCCCC;"
|-
|align="center"|[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|50px|Warning]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' Be advised that editing with a factual bias grounded in reality is counter to the principles of Conservapedia, and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing for a period of time, or banned.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' You are editing against the consensus of other users, and to promote your own bias in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. You are requested to cease and desist.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' This article has been identified as containing biased, unsourced statements.
|}

and its location is here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit]] That earned the guys slapping it up a day or two off, just FYI. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Three things. Sharon, you can also search for stubs as a category (articles needing improvement) and see all the articles that need improvement. Convenient. Sid, would this rule apply to templates created by sysops? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it also applies to templates created by sysops. Case in point: The "Protected" template had been created and used by sysops, and due to a <s>hilarious</s> sad mix-up, I ended up in a fairly heated debate about it (after being temp-banned and unbanned). The template had even been temporarily blanked and had then been reworded by Ed and TK to form a sort of "consensus" version. In fact, it had been that template that triggered the whole "Don't insert templates without consulting the other sysops and/or Andy!!!" issue. So just being a sysop does not place you above this rule (hence the careful wording about one bureaucrat or a consensus of a few sysops). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*There wasn't any "consensus" version of the "Protected" template. Ed and I both agreed, from the outset of the convo, what it should contain. Quit trying to drive wedges, or make it a matter of two "sides". That's careful wording to subtly change history, to make it seem there was an issue, when there was not. Sysops should have to obtain the okay from a minimum of five of their peers before making/including system-wide templates. It is silly thinking that as part of the sites administration, that rules regarding housekeeping would apply to them the same as any casual user, someone who signed up 24 hours earlier. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Easy there. The key phrase right now is "Assume Good Faith". When I wrote "consensus" in quotation marks, I was referring to "consensus formed by two sysops, as opposed to the consensus described in my initial suggestion since the latter has more than just two sysops in mind".
::I'm not trying to "change history". That is kinda hard in a place where "history" is an easily accessible tab on virtually all pages. Additionally, I believe that I don't ''have'' to change history. It pretty much speaks for itself. If anybody wants to, I can construct a rough timeline of the events, complete with links to the pages in question. All the information is out there, it's just a question of knowing where to look. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:06, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I am glad you clarified what you meant. As to the number of Sysops, am I reading you correctly, you would prefer agreement of two as opposed to 5 or more? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I chose the "group of sysops" wording because I didn't really have a value in mind. But the "Protected" thing sorta showed that "two" is not enough (Ed and David are both sysops and formed the "consensus" to use it). Besides, I don't think that two sysops alone have the same "decision-making power level" as one sysop in critical cases.
::I still have no fixed value in mind, and ''I don't think there should be one''. Some cases will obviously require more input than others (the higher the impact on pages, the more sysops should be consulted - I'd rank the Protected template relatively low, but a radical template like "This article misrepresents facts and should be rewritten immediately by a more competent editor" should have some serious discussion before usage), so it should be evaluated on the fly by the editor who gets the idea and by the sysops who engage in the discussion.
::(And no, I do not suggest that anybody actually creates such a template - it was an extreme example.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Follow-up note: The "Protected" template in the end only required 3-4 sysops (if I remember correctly), and only 2-3 at a time. Things worked out. That's what I mean with "ranking relatively low" - it was apparent that there was no need for a full poll of 5+ sysops, just a few sysops communicating with each other about goals and implementation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Fair enough. BTW, the problem with the protected template, and consensus is, while Ed agreed to it, he expressly said it shouldn't be added to users own pages. So even with "consensus" unless communication is clear, and people actually abide by the intentions of the makers, it all falls apart. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why don't we have Ten Commandments? ==

Seems like it would be meaningful to have a full set of 10 commandments, showing that our inspiration comes from the Bible. Surely we can come up with 4 more.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 19:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I hate to be derivative, but I can think of a couple... Assume Good Faith, Be Civil, and Be Bold (as in, create articles, make articles bigger and better, write, Write, WRITE!) [[User:Human|Human]] 21:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==But some are more equal than others==

<s>1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]

<s>2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aesthetics] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]

<s>3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality]

4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.

<s>5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account. Advertisements are prohibited.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Breast_cancer]

6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.

So we are left with BC and AD and no wiki-bots. But there is no problem adding a ton of capricious rules to randomly block contributors. So THIS is what America would be like if it was run completely by the right wing Christian fundamentalist. Theocratic dictatorship at its best. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Would you like me to hold the door for you, Etaroced? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That kind of proves his point, you know. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:55, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== rule 3 ==

I would like to point out that "family-friendly" and "clean" are fairly vague (clean is figurative, and probably not the best terminology) and probably "obscenity" is a better term than "foul language." Perhaps a rewording would be appropriate. Although, perhaps the language is intentional. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:We use the term "family-friendly" as just that. When we edit here, we have to imagine what we write and how we write it can be seen by families with children. I'm aware of the fact that some children grow up in broken households, but we don't need to contribute to the problem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

You're missing my point; the term is very vague and figurative. How does an encyclopedia entry become a friend to a family. It's just poor wording. "Prohibits sexually explicity material" or whatever specifically is to be avoided would be more exacting. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 10:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps a list of what is to be avoided should be drawn up and posted. How would that do? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:47, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::I for one think that would be a fantastic idea. A lot of the rules here strike me as fairly vague—if while the list is being drawn up you could give attention to my question above about defining gossip, I’d greatly appreciate that. If it would help, I’ve been recording, for personal use, what sysops have said about the rules (as a sort of collection of Conservapedia dicta if you will) and I’d be more than happy to post that to an appropriate page (it takes up something like 5 pages in Word so I don’t want to post it here).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 19:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is exactly why the rules are not too detailed. A wise Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote, when they were deliberating a pornography case, that he couldn't define it with words, but knew it when he saw it. Much the same in administering a website, Reginod. Gossip, btw, is unsubstantiated, unverified, talk or conversation that the spreader of has no real first-hand facts or information about. This includes spreading information, let's say, about a marital break-up, where the gossip spreader might or might not have first-hand knowledge, but not from both sides. Without all facts and information, trying to draw a conclusion as to who's fault it was, is senseless. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:I appreciate the clarification TK—in fact you’ve defined gossip roughly how I was defining it. The problem with the “I know it when I see it approach” (which I have to admit I often find myself advocating in real life) is that it leads to very murky rules. So, I may think I’m posting a scandal which belongs on a page, and a sysop reading my addition may think I’ve simply posted gossip. Don’t get me wrong, I‘d be hard pressed to come up with a precise definition for most (if not all) of the important words in the Commandments and I usually agree with the gut instincts of those enforcing the rules here. But I don’t always agree and from reading the comments of others here I gather there are some who agree far less often than I. I think things would run more smoothly if there were some attempt at a rough explication of the rules, some sort of rough guidelines to let those of us trying to help the site know what is in and what is out and to give people a better idea of how the rules will be enforced. That’s just my two cents and I’m not sure what they are worth, but, that’s what I think.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Yes, well some of what you wrote I do agree with. However, hard and fast rules, like mandatory sentencing guidelines imposed on Federal Judges, to use a well-known example, also can lead, far more often, to justice being denied or perverted. With a divergent group of Administrators, I have found on other sites that their own good judgement (either before or after meting out punishment, is usually enough to protect users. Absent that, peer pressure and ultimately, perhaps, the site owner(s) (Bureaucrats here) are sufficient brakes on abuse. I do recognize the validity in the scenario you paint above, and have lived it on other sites, and even here. No amount of specificity will protect all of the people, all of the time. There will always be dissension as to punishment, and there will always be what some consider abuse, no matter the precautions, but I would rather have some leeway, than be forced to block someone for a minor offense or mistake. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*Let's look at some definitions of family:[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family:
:::"8. the staff, or body of assistants, of an official: the office family.
:::9. a group of related things or people: the family of romantic poets; the halogen family of elements.
:::10. a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live together: Many hippie communes of the sixties regarded themselves as families."
:::I guess I can use whatever "family-friendly" terminology that a hippie commune would use. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 22:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is certainly your right, Sterile. However, I would avise you that since this isn't a judical body, the defense wouldn't be recognized....;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== The 90/10 rule ==

The 90% 10% edit rule is wrong and should be removed. It just doesn't make sense. To suggest that entries of talk pages are bad is utterly muddleheaded.

The rule encourages people to edit without discussion beforehand, which is highly undesirable.

What is worse, I have seen Aschlafly use it to intimidate people who he is ideologically opposed to or who have asked difficult questions. He, of course, likes the rule because it is the criticism of his behaviour and the behaviour of those he protects that is the real target of the rule.

Under the rule this very post is a black mark against my name. I had better go and do a quick edit to make up for it. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not even to mention that it's nearly impossible to calculate a halfway exact ratio. Either it's fast ("mainspace edits / total edits") or precise ("Check all edits and decide what is good"), but it can't be both.
:The additional problem is: What is a "quality edit"? Is copyediting an article a "quality edit"? What about fixing a dead-end page by inserting links? What about reverting vandalism? If I revert fifty articles that had been replaced with "CONSERVAPEDIA SUCKS!", does that count for or against my ratio? Is discussing policy (or even ''writing'' policy) a quality edit? What about helping editors or even sysops with technical problems?
:These things will change the way some people act. And I doubt it will be for the better. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I believe it's intended more as a reminder/guideline that productive work is more important than endless arugments than a specific, mathematically calculated rule. I don't think anybody's going to go down the list and count anybody's edits and figure out from there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not so Dan. Here is an example:
::"Folks, this is an educational project, not a place to bicker and argue. Horace, I've reviewed your edits and found that they are, what, about 90% talk and complaints and less than 10% substantive edits??? More to say but I have run an errand now. Will be back on a bit later.--Aschlafly 20:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)".
:Here's another example:
::"OK, Nematocyte, I've reviewed your edits. I estimate that 90% or more of your edits have been talk, talk, talk, and less than 10% substance. And what is an example of one of your edits? I think you called CreationWiki a "peculiar brand of paganism"! My view is that your account should be blocked and I defer to any Sysop who agrees and decides to block your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)".
:Then there's this:
::"I don't understand your question, "Flippin", but I invite any Sysop to do a similar review of your edits as I just did for Nematocyte, and act appropriately with respect to your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)".
:The intent is to have a tool that can be used to intimidate editors who irritate Aschlafly. Simple as that. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'll grant there there is truth in your remark, Horace, except that the rule applies for the benefit of all our major editors. I don't want Conservapedia to lose a productive editor because he's being constantly irritated by an unproductive one. If you were in my shoes and wanted to do what is best for Conservapedia, then I'd expect you to impose a similar "enough is enough" rule to stop irritation. Wikipedia rules, which are far more complex and manipulable, are also used to stop the heckling at some point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I understand your position. There is a job to be done here and it can be distracting to have too many arguments. You will understand that from my perspective, however, the rule looks somewhat different. Where I perceive a wrong or unjust decision I seek to stand up and make my views heard. If I am met with the proposition that I have made too many edits on talk pages that appears to me to be an unfair criticism and a way of attempting to silence my dissent. Of course I edit on talk pages a lot. Firstly, as you know, I am interested in the theory of evolution. That page has been locked pretty much permanently. I have made a large number of edits on the talk page (and other talk pages) in relation to the locking issue. I regard that decision as just plain wrong. What about James Maxwell? I made a number of edits on the talk page which you didn't even respond to. I was trying to avoid an edit war. Should I have just gone ahead and edited the article? Secondly, I am interested in the processes here. As an editor who appears to have a number of views that are contrary to the views of those in charge, I am concerned (more than those in the majority I suspect), to see that the processes are fair. That leads to a large number of talk page posts. Those posts, in my view, are quality posts because they relate to a very important issue. They should not be used against me. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== "No Unlawful Activity?" ==

'''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.'''

Whoops--ok, no quotes from [[Harriet Tubman]] (Helped slaves to escape to [[Canada]]), [[Martin Luther King Jr]] (Broke racial segregation laws), [[Oliver North]] (Iran-Contra Scandal), [[Mohandas Gandhi]] (rebellion against the British Empire), or the [[Declaration of Independence]] (Treason against His Royal Highness, King George the Third), then? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe change it to:

:'''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting (as of 2007) unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.'''

:--[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Does that include The Law in countries like Saudi Arabia? I mean, we wouldn't want to suggest that women should drive cars, or appear in public without a male family member to escort them, or anything. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::OH--or smuggle Bibles into Communist North Korea. Can't have any of that subversive activity, nosirree! It's '''the law'''!

The intent of the rule should be clear to anybody who is taking this project seriously. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I believe he has a point, nonetheless. The law is going to be different depending on where the lawbreaking editor lives. While his suggestion is rather silly, more detail could be added. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The original reason for this rule was because somebody was linking to a site that supported abortion clinic violence. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, so, what about if we write an article ABOUT a terroristic organization. Can we cite their website, even though it repesents an illegal organization? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-04-16T02:11:06Z

GofG: /* "No Unlawful Activity?" */

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

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

::::The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The Bible scientific? Where was I when this was decided? Also you can't use it as a historical information source as well as it has many conflictions within itself. For instance the see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus#Variations_between_the_genealogies Genealogy of Jesus]. Definately not historically accurate. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm not going to use as a source of Biblical information anything from Wikipedia. As for the Bible being a reliable source of info both historical and scientific, that was decided long before you were born. And we are going to use it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:26, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biased, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You know, basically doing what all of you could be doing at Wikipedia if you didn't prefer secession over improvement. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 05:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: ''Cite a source'', ''Must be verifiable'' and ''No personal opinion'' can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain '''what appears to be''' a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a source which must not be copied from, Wikipedia. But that probably wasn't your question. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:
:Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
So that would seem to settle it for the time being. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

* I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You might want to '''bold''' text the line:
====Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.====
[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or you might go a step less and state it as:
*Do not copy from '''''Wikipedia''''' or other non-public domain sources. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 11:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be '''Heavily edited''' by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying]. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.[[User:Xsophos|Xsophos]] 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong, wrong, wrong.
:Unfortunately, what you're proposing '''most definitely does''' violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in '''two ways.'''
:First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content ''unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL.'' Since Conservapedia does '''not''' license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia '''cannot''' use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.
:Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed ''only with restrictions.'' You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:
::*"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.
:However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.
:P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's ''not'' going to be on the Registration page soon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Against Proposal:
How would this be of any use? If anyone wants to vandalize this wiki then they easily can. And if you start banning people with user names like mine (trekie9001) than people will just sign up as RichCheese or some other such "real" sounding names and it won't make a bit of difference. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p [[ USC § 1470]] I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying ''no one'' will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. ('''Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page)'''. If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--[[User:GodAsMyWitness|GodAsMyWitness]] 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works ''surprisingly'' well and is ''surprisingly'' good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well ''anybody'' understands them. Wikipedia articles are ''much'' better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say [[Homosexuality]] here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Then there is the issue of foreign vandals; I noticed they could report vandals to their employer. As far as Canada goes, sharing such information with anyone other than the police would be a violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA for short). You see in the free world, we have the right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty. You would have to provide information to the police and allow them to conduct the investigation. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::While I agree that cites need to be done in a coherent manner, I'm not such a big fan of the MLA system. What's wrong with traditional foot- and end-notes? The Wiki software supports that kind of referencing already. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 18:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That is also a correct way to cite a source; foot and endnotes have been in use for years with no problem. What I said above is not written in stone, but there must be some sort of standard guide. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Trollish Language ==

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Prosecutor ==
Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.
:this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article. ==

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] article.

Here is commandment #1:

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a [[Scopes trial]] article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Furthermore - you would have to show it is vandalism. Imagine trying to prove that a non-creationist but factually correct post was 'vandalism' in a court of law. I think it may well cause a laugh or too but certainly no penalty.

== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==

As written on [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]].
===For===
#[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

===Against===

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT) see my note on the comments page. http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

== Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power ==

[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly [[Special:Contributions/Alloco1|two edits]]. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of [[Hillary Clinton]] on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandment Proposal ==

Checking over Aschlafly's [[User_talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.
:I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.
:Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:
{{QuoteBox|This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.}}
:Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, yes. However, I think/hope that people don't REALLY get banned just for poking an Admin. That would have a very chilling effect on the overall mood (more than it has already). So I assumed that the real reason for Aschlafly's ban warnings is just a sign of stress in the face of a flooded Talk page. So if we fix that, we don't have to set up strict rules about what you aren't allowed to say on (User) Talk pages. Conservapedia already bans users over little things like content disputes, no need to make things even stricter.
:::But if the ban warning policy really stays like this, it should of course be reflected here. In particular, Rule 6 would have to be altered quite a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Un-American Spelling ==
I am wondering why conservapedia feels threatened by, say, british spelling of words vs american spellings. I like to use the british spellings because my computer says it is spelled incorrectly, yet i still love America. A paradox, isn't it? Still, perhaps we should choose the correct dialect in America to use on this cite. Otherwise, someone could point out the british spelling is used in some parts of America, and thus be considered "American," and therefore be able to use it. I personally am partial to the Mid-west.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 10:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia is rather unusual in allowing and supporting a mix of usage styles. Most U. S. print publishers would specify a style manual calling out U. S. spelling. Most U. K. publishers would specify a style manual calling out British spelling. When a U. S. work is republished in the U. K. or vice versa, one of the publication steps would be copyediting the work to conform to local usage. A good example of this would be the first Harry Potter book, in which even the ''title'' was changed for the U. S. market. Conversely, I don't know if they would do this any more but I remembering reading a British edition of ''The Grapes of Wrath'' in which the Okies were talking about the difficulty of buying "a gallon a petrol" for their car.

:99.9% of all print publications mandate that spelling conform to whichever side of the pond they're on, and nobody thinks twice about it. If Conservapedia wants to say "We're an American encyclopedia," this shouldn't in itself raise any eyebrows.

:Wikipedia's policy is, of course, a very pragmatic response to the problem of producing an ''international'' English-language encyclopedia that is edited completely by unpaid volunteers who can't be ordered to use a uniform style and can't be assigned the job of copy-editing everything to a uniform style.

:My guess, and ''it's just a guess,'' is that something like this could have happened. Suppose one day a student typed in something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record Phonograph record], misinterpreted what happened, thought that Wikipedia had '''corrected''' what he had typed in, and told a teacher "No, the right name is 'Gramophone record,' Wikipedia says so," and the teacher overreacted.

:Is there a legitimate concern about (say) U. S. high school students using Wikipedia as a learning resource and thereby acquiring incorrect spelling habits? Let me put it this way: Conservapedia's emphasis on this point seems grotesquely exaggerated, but I, at least, see the point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hate speech ==

Awhile back in [[Talk:Fred_Phelps]] the suggestion was made that hate speech should be prohibited on Conservapedia. I believe that it is time to present this as a suggestion for a commandment, especially when taken into context of [[Talk:Homosexuality]]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please Define Hate Speech. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:huey gunna getcha]] was blocked for implying the mass killing of homosexuals at [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]] --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Preaching God's word is not hate speech. Only homosexuals believe so. It's part of their agenda. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::RightWolf, you make the baby Jesus cry.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I believe the best definition would revolve around [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot bigotry]. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No it is not. People committing sodomy are not in a protected class. Please don't try to hijack the righteous freedom train on a deadly detour from Selma to Sodom. being born Black is not a sin. Engaging in sexual perversion is. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, right. Because we all know that homosexuality is a choice<nowiki></sarcasm></nowiki>. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::In that case, many people on this site would be blocked. Most Christians regard homosexuality with extreme prejudice. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He went on a long rant about how creating a "cure" for homosexuality is an awesome idea. He then said "If genetic tinkering doesn't work, rifles rarely fail." Tell me how that is not hate speech. It's [[Nazi|Nazism]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am merely quoting from the bible. I realize that it's "vouge" and "sylish" to accept homosexuals. You can tell it to my baby brother, who was kidnapped and raped by a homosexual when he was 11. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Because if one individual in a group of tens of millions does something, then all of them must be bad. Hmmmm... brings to mind Eric Robert Rudolph, doesn't it? Does this mean that because one Christian did it, they all must be bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Also, in regards to RightWolf, aside from the fact that he makes the baby Jesus cry with his bigoted, homophobic, hatemongering remarks, homosexuals are in a protected class, as a "discrete and insular minority" according to the term defined in ''Korematsu'' carried forward in ''Lawrence'' and ''Loving''. The law is not on your side, and thankfully, neither is most of America. I'm with Hojimachong. Hate speech will further drag this site through the mud.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not entirely true. In the state I am in, sodomy is a Class A misdemeanor and inducing acceptance of sodomy to a minor is a class 3 felony. Lawrence vs. Kansas has not been accepted here where minors are concerned. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You also should remove the references in the homosexual agenda about "supressing biblical teachings which condemn homosexuality" if this is the view of the majority. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 16:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does a law regarding minors have to do at all? Regardless, I'd like to see you cite this alleged "law" that classifies sodomy as illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, he's probably right about his "state" having a law on the books banning sodomy. Georgia didn't repeal its immediately after ''Lawrence v TEXAS'' either. However, the sodomy law in his "state" will never be prosecuted again because any conviction is now ''per se'' unconstitutional. I don't know where you come from, RightWolf, but Supreme Court precedent is binding on all lower courts and states. It's not optional.
: That said, I am deeply sorry for your brother, who was raped by a homosexual. No doubt there are gay men who are bad men. However, there are straight men who are bad men too. Being gay doesn't make you a rapist anymore than being straight makes you a rapist.
: And finally, sodomy laws protecting minors are still in place, just like statutory rape laws still exist...-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe in the First Ammendment, so any rule should be calefully thought out and clearly defined. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Does the first amendment apply to the administration of a website? I'm no lawyer, But I don't think it would. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech. It is perfectly acceptable to censor anything on private property. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== 4th C, (use of AD). ==

I've noticed an excessive use of 'AD' in contexts where it is rarely used, and in most instances, it's also being used wrongly. See my comments in [[Talk:Democratic Party]]. BC is used consistently to indicate pre-AD 1 dates, and not quite so often for early AD era dates, e.g., "3rd century AD", "AD 314". For uses with just the year, "AD 2007" is the usual and correct form (with AD in front and not at the end), and is never used with the month and day. I have rarely encountered the form "March 21, 2007 AD", and using it over and over again in the same article calls negative attention to the article. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 18:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*You are correct. Maybe some are using it constantly to (re)make a point over and over. That would be disruptive. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I see the article [[Democratic Party]] has been expunged of the attention-grabbing '''AD'''s. As for the 4th C., it occurs to me this is merely a demand to follow a uniform style. Every publishing house has its own manual of style. Fine: we use BC/AD instead of the johnny-come-lately BCE/CE. I'm used to the MLA style manual; interestingly, Wikipedia and Conservapedia follows it, particularly in the presentation of the names of people, which makes for difficulties in alphabetizing biographical articles. My modest suggestion is that C. IV be rewritten to indicate everyone is expected to follow a standard style. As it stands, it seems Conservapedia has knee-jerking objections to BCE/CE a la ''letters to the editor'' in [[Biblical Archaeology Review]]. As for style, I have no objections to a breezy, mid-register style, provided the grammar, spelling and content/sourcing are sound (1st rule of writing: one always writes to the expected audience, and speaking above them, or worse, to a third party behind them, is an automatic turnoff to all readers). --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== A good wiki rule - no personal attacks ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks No personal attacks]. As this site grows and more people with different interpretations of source material join, it would be proper to put down a rule regarding personal attacks. As has recently been seen, this can can be very disruptive to the communication between editors, makes people who have positive contributions less likely to join and presents a poor image of conservapedia to the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think this is a no-brainer, as Argumentum ad Hominem provides absolutely no value to any discussion. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== rule # 6==
why is this rule not enforced? 20:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Etiquette==
Shouldn't you guys have a page detailing what etiquette is standard? I know you guys prefer rules you can get your knickers (or panties? I guess knickers is a British word) in a twist over, but it might be a good idea to talk about how exactly people are supposed to use talk pages and the like. For example, it doesn't say anywhere to sign your posts with three tildes, and it doesn't say exactly how to respond to comments on talk pages-- I'm never sure if I should respond directly after the post I'm replying to or after the replies to the post I'm replying to. This is just if you're interested in having people who didn't learn already this stuff at Wikipedia already, though. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 14:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Your RH, one might want to check here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Contents]] at the "Help" pages, clearly marked in the menu bar on the left. Thanks for your concerns, and I promise you, my knickers don't have wrinkle one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==American spelling==
We have decided to remove Conservapedia Commandment 5. (American Spellings must be used) We decided that it wasn't enirely fair to and created too much trouble for our users who are not from America. However we would like Conservapedia to be as consistant as possible so we will continue to include american spellings as a style guideline. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 21:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== This does not add up ==

''7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.'' http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia

Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Rules

But if I publish my Original research on my own site, I can include it... --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:It also potentially clashes with the "must be true" and "always cite" commandments (see Talk page of the Differences article). But who cares? We also forbid gossip and at the same time call it "factual information": [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 See here]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That's exactly right. Both Wikipedia and here would allow an author to present his personal opinion on his site and cite it here. This is why it would be better if we did not allow personal websites to be used for information in articles. If it is worthy information, it will appear elsewhere. It might mean a little more editor work, but it will save countless editor discussions. And it will greatly improve how the public sees us, too. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

em.. no .... wikipedia does not allow an author to do that - people try it, but it's removed where found. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

1) Wikipedia ''definitely'' does not allow an author to do that.

2) The key point here is "properly labelled." Andrew Schlafly is experimenting with this idea. I don't know how well formed it is. I haven't been following closely but he posted an example: [[Adultress Story - Original Work]]. Perhaps others will make similar contributions and a body of practice and policy will evolve. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== grammar ==

I believe this sentence is grammatically incorrect:

'''"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of [[Jesus]], give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis."'''

:Deny the historical basis of what? It is a incomplete sentence. I don't want to fix the sentence because I don't know what the author intended. Is it "deny the historical basis" of the birth of Christ? If so, I think a citation is warranted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

*"[[CE]]" and "[[BCE]]" should not be used on Conservapedia because that is exactly what the intent is; to deny historical basis.

"CE" stands for "Common Era." It is a relatively new term that is experiencing increased usage and secular progressives think it will eventually replace AD. The latter is an abbreviation for "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English. The latter refers to the approximate birth year of [[Jesus Christ]]. CE and AD have the same and value. 2004 CE = 2004 AD.

"BCE" stands for "Before the common era." It might eventually replace BC, which means "Before Christ," or "Before the Messiah." BC and BCE are also identical in value. Most theologians and religious historians believe that the approximate birth date of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) was in the fall, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE, although there are estimates as late as 4 CE and as early as the second century BCE.

At its year 2000 convention at Orlando FL, the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] approved their Resolution #9: ''"On retaining the traditional method of calendar dating (B.C./A.D.)." With reference to the popularity of the CE/BCE nomenclature, it stated, in part: "...This practice is the result of the secularization, antisupernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society." ''The traditional method of dating is a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel in world history.''"'' The resolution recommended that Southern Baptist "individuals, churches, entities, and institutions....retain the traditional method of dating and avoid this revisionism.

Those secularists and Liberal progressives adopting the new appellation's, often explain that the [[Ethic of Reciprocity]] ([[The Golden Rule]]) suggests that one should not intentionally cause unnecessary pain to other humans. We should treat others as we would wish to be treated. Since one out of every three humans on earth is a Christian, some very theologians and authors felt that non-religious, neutral terms like CE and BCE would be less "offensive" to the non-Christian majority on the planet. Forcing a [[Hindu]], for example, to use AD and BC are seen by the [[Liberal]] progressives as coercing them to acknowledge the supremacy of the [[Christian God]] and of [[Jesus Christ]]. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Search Engine Exemption ==

Why the note exempting search engine spiders from "Commandment" 6. The "commandment" itself even specifies "wiki-bots" and it's not like a search engine spider would even obey anything like this. I propose the note be removed from the page because it is just dumb, useless, clutter. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== sourcing ==

There is a conservapedia commandment stating: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't think this is enough. There are many articles at Conservapedia which do not have any sourcing via footnotes. I think this undercuts our credibility and helps encourage people to put mere opinion that is not sourced. I think over the long run if we are to compete with Wikipedia we must have sourcing. Sourcing should be a requirement and not merely implied.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: What counts as a reliable source? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Like I said at [[Talk:Main_Page#sourcing]]: We already have a sourcing rule. It's, like, right under the one you quote. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Credentials ==

Many times on this site, if someone does not like and edit, they question the person's credentials. This is a bit of an unfair attack, however, I have presented mine. Perhaps if someone wants to challenge someone else's credentials, they should consider revealing their own? --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

*Doctor, you know what a red herring is, certainly. Pay no mind. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I do think that if someone feels that they are more of an expert on a topic then a particular editor, they should be able to prove it. It is illigitimate to question someone's creds without showing yours.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information==
Commandment number 3 clearly rules out “gossip” the manual of style for political figures clearly says that “non-gossip scandals” are appropriate information to include in a political figure’s entry. Recently some information I (and others) had added to the entry on [[Rush Limbaugh]] was removed as gossip—I had included the part I added (and I assume this is true for the other contributors) under the belief that I was adding non-gossip scandal. I say that as background for my question: what is the dividing line between gossip and non-gossip scandal? I also asked this at [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians]], but it was suggested that I ask here. I am trying to make a contribution here and am trying to edit in line with the rules, but apparently despite my best efforts I may have inadvertently crossed a line, can someone please clarify what exactly is acceptable scandal information and what is unacceptable gossip?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Looking at the edit history, I take it you're referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=75691&oldid=75577 this]? The assertion that he's "repeatedly" been the subject of "scandal and controversy," and the examples being (I'm taking them at their unflattering face value) a) comparing the Clinton's daughter to a dog (but in a way allowing him to pretend he was "just kidding"); b) the revelation that he was addicted to and illegally using oxycontin; c) remarks about Michael J. Fox implying that he was exaggerating his symptoms to gain sympathy.

:Without trying to formulate policy, it seems to me that the essence of gossip is ''schadenfreude,'' delight in seeing some, particularly someone you dislike, humiliated, taken down a notch, exposed in a lie, etc.

:One possible test of whether something should be in an article is this: would it be in someone's newspaper obituary? If you believe it would be in their obituary, than it's not just gossip. If you're not sure whether it would be in someone's obituary, you need to think about it carefully (and make an explicit case as to why it's ''not'' just gossip. I'm about to do a test; I don't know yet how it will come out. I'm going to look up Warren G. Harding's obituary in The New York Times (why the Times? because it's the one I have online access to). I'm ''guessing'' that it will say something about his administration being "marred by scandal" or something of that sort. I'm ''guessing'' it will mention Teapot Dome. What I don't know is whether it will mention Nan Britton. Almost certainly not, since she didn't publish her book until 1927. Let's go see... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go, August 3, 1923, p 3. "HARDING A FARM BOY WHO ROSE BY WORK; Became a Newspaper Publisher, a Party Leader and Held Ohio Offices. PRESIDENT BY SUDDEN TURN His Wife Had a Premonition of His Death if Elevated to White House. WORK FOR ARMS REDUCTION His Efforts in Behalf of American Participation in the World Court." Nope, that article doesn't discuss his Presidency at all, to speak of... Interesting... as nearly as I can tell in a quick search, the Times mentioned Teapot Dome numerous times but did not conspicuously associate ''Harding'' with the scandal. Let's try a standard short-biography source (also courtesy of my public library); Dictionary of American Biography. Teapot Dome, check. Nan Britton, check. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are quite right, that is most of what I was referring to (though my addition was his illegal use of Viagra which seemed relevant in light of the painkiller charges and only in light of them)—though I’ve asked this question a few different times in some other places as well [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Rudy_Guiliani here for example].
::The standard you propose is an interesting one, but I see a few problems with it—
::First, that is clearly not the standard that is followed on many pages: see [[Rudy Giuliani]] (His affairs will not be part of his obituary nor will the fact that his first marriage was to a cousin.), [[John McCain]] (I doubt that the S&L scandal will make his obituary—but I think it is a very relevant and non-gossip scandal), and [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] (Whitewater—another non-gossip scandal—will not make her obituary). Second, the rule you propose is speculative—I don’t think those things will make the obituary, but you might—it provides very little in the way of actual guidance. Third, I think that several important scandals would be left out based on this rule (as I note above) and I find that troublesome. Finally, the rule provides different answers at different times—had McCain died during the S&L scandal it would be part of his obituary and if he dies during another S&L type scandal it might make it, but if he dies today, or during the campaign, it will not.
::Mostly though, I am asking for a clear and official statement on what exactly gossip is so that when I am asking myself “is this gossip?” I can look to something other than my own gut felling (which apparently conflicts with the gut feeling of others) about the nature of gossip.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's "Gossip" if it's about a Conservative. It's a "Legitimate Scandal" if it's about a Liberal. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 22:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== New Rule ==

I suggest a new rule:
:Don't let [[fact]]s get in the way of a good article.
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rule against templates ==

Since there have been 2.5 bans ([[User:BDobbs]], [[User:AmesG]], and my own temporary ban and the ensuing discussion) about templates (all three given out by TK), I suggest a new rule so that people don't just get banned for breaking a non-existent rule TK simply invented and enforces on the fly:
{{QuoteBox|All article templates have to be authorized by a [[Special:Listusers/bureaucrat|bureaucrat]] or by a consensus of a group of [[Special:Listusers/sysop|sysops]]. Users who create and/or use such templates without authorization will be banned.}}
Either implement the rule or stop TK from making up rules. There was no word in an official place that making and using templates is now subject to bureaucrat-approval (it's NOT enough that even two sysops make a template together), and people get banned for it. Hardly sounds fair to me. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sid, your post is inappropriate because you haven't been appointed their advocate. It would be appropriate for them to post here, when back, protesting. You deciding, on your own, to say the act isn't vandalism, won't change the fact that it was. '''Vandalism is against our rules.''' Quit taking up causes to merely stir the pot. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::You forget that you also banned me for allegedly placing an unauthorized template. Besides, I don't ''have'' to be "appointed" to be the "advocate" of anybody. This isn't a court or a republic, it's a freaking WIKI. You just assert that people break rules, you assert that I am not authorized to speak for anybody else, you assert that this is a republic. I honestly don't want this to turn into another lengthy discussion. My request was sincere. The end. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*I understand what you have said, and your sticking up for them. The parties knew full well what they were doing when the made and/or stuck it on articles, I think we can agree on that. Being the thinking people they are, I know they at least considered the ramifications of their actions...at least I would like to hope they would. I am not even saying if I agree or not that some articles actually need a sign that says: "This is pure idiocy, and reading it might actually destroy your Brain!". What I am saying, however, is that without consultation, allowing anyone to slap a text box on article pages labeling it, essentially as "BS", can be very disruptive, tantamount to spray painting a wall, the equivalent of typed graffiti, ergo, Vandalism. There isn't any intellectual squabble between me and the parties, no vendetta. Those with power, in the exercising of it, always risk being mistaken. I honestly don't think I am, and if the powers that be disagree, they can and will reverse my actions. Won't be the first time that has happened here, nor I suspect the last. Just understand there wasn't anything personal in my actions, nor on the part of the other Sysop who agreed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::(Since you copied the thing from your Talk page, here is a copy of the reply)
::TK, the powers that be (=Andy) won't do anything, no matter what you do (with the exception of going against Andy's view of conservatism). You know this, I know this. Just look at the various complaints about Conservative or you on Andy's pages. The only times when Andy actually bothered to reply was in order to say "I don't see anything wrong." or even "Great job, [accused sysop]! You have my full support!"
::Heck, look at the Morality copright thing that got partially revived after the archive-creation. "Hey, what about the morality copyright gig?" - "I thought that was resolved because TK got permission." - "No, it wasn't since that wasn't the only source he copied from." - *no reply*
::Or even more extreme, look at the CWilson/Karajou issue that resulted with the ''complaining'' user being banned.
::So don't worry. Any complaint about you or any other sysop won't put you in any danger of any sort. You won't even have to worry about a slap on the wrist or a scolding "Nuh-uh! Bad sysop!". You are under Andy's shield. If anything, Andy will tell ''me'' to stop bothering him. *shrugs* You don't even have to answer in my complaint threads - just ignore me, the result will be the same.
::If you want to reply, do so, but don't expect me to answer. I have better things to do than discussing about why you think your actions are justified or not. I only try to bring the written rules more in line with what's actually being enforced.
::Just think about this: What is the difference between the template and the various edits that were reverted by Conservative in Theory of Evolution? Arguably, the attempts to remove the extreme anti-evolution bias could be seen as vandalism in your broad sense. We have rules, but they're ''extremely'' fuzzy. I'm only trying to trace the borders of these fuzzy areas. The Bible gave people ten laws, and nowadays, there are a few hundred/thousand or so of them. Me trying to refine the existing rules is the same mechanism - the realization that just six rules are not enough to properly cover such a complex place. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I like your suggested rule, but I think that it should specify how many sysops you need to agree on your template (e.g. 5). --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Somewhere between 5 or 8, I would think more than fair, Benjamin. Now, Sid, part of the problem in discussing anything with you is your hyperbole. Could you at least make an attempt to tone down the flamboyant language? It brings a real anger and false urgency to anything you post about. Blocking for a short duration is more in tune with suspension than "banning" which traditionally means never to return. Arguing nit-picks about if this or that is "vandalism" isn't going to garner you support or replies from Andy and the others. Spend less of your posting on complaining and elevating all issues to VERY IMPORTANT status, and more can get done. I notice lots of people with good ideas for this place, and looking at their talk or user pages, also notice really nasty and vile remarks about Andy, and even his family. Surely you realize crap like that isn't going to get them to be willing to take people who do that seriously..... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*The stub template seems entirely unnecessary to me. Why do we need a notice telling us an article is short? Anyone can see when an article needs expansion. A category for short articles is beneficial, because it will allow people to find short articles easily, but the stub template is superfluous and distracting. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's a boot in the tail. If random visitor X see short articles over and over they'll wander off of the site...If they see stub after stub they MAY think "Hey, I could do something on this article!" And register (if it's open) and expand the article. That's my take on that template anyways. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Sharon. Rob and Sharon, the template in question, the newest one, in essence it said "This Article Is Moronic", in the original version, it threatened "banning" for the contributor. They revised it to read other, later, but kept the snide tone. Then, as MoutainDew posted on my talk page, it was slapped on several articles by a couple of people. Something about doing that, and something about others here thinking that kind of behavior is acceptable, is whacked. Here are the three templates, the original and the "revised" editions:
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: #FFCCCC;"
|-
|align="center"|[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|50px|Warning]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' Be advised that editing with a factual bias grounded in reality is counter to the principles of Conservapedia, and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing for a period of time, or banned.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' You are editing against the consensus of other users, and to promote your own bias in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. You are requested to cease and desist.
|}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 2px solid #8B0000; background-color: #CD5C5C;"
|-
|[[Image:stop_hand.svg | 50px]]
|align="center" width="100%"|'''Warning!''' This article has been identified as containing biased, unsourced statements.
|}

and its location is here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit]] That earned the guys slapping it up a day or two off, just FYI. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Three things. Sharon, you can also search for stubs as a category (articles needing improvement) and see all the articles that need improvement. Convenient. Sid, would this rule apply to templates created by sysops? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it also applies to templates created by sysops. Case in point: The "Protected" template had been created and used by sysops, and due to a <s>hilarious</s> sad mix-up, I ended up in a fairly heated debate about it (after being temp-banned and unbanned). The template had even been temporarily blanked and had then been reworded by Ed and TK to form a sort of "consensus" version. In fact, it had been that template that triggered the whole "Don't insert templates without consulting the other sysops and/or Andy!!!" issue. So just being a sysop does not place you above this rule (hence the careful wording about one bureaucrat or a consensus of a few sysops). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*There wasn't any "consensus" version of the "Protected" template. Ed and I both agreed, from the outset of the convo, what it should contain. Quit trying to drive wedges, or make it a matter of two "sides". That's careful wording to subtly change history, to make it seem there was an issue, when there was not. Sysops should have to obtain the okay from a minimum of five of their peers before making/including system-wide templates. It is silly thinking that as part of the sites administration, that rules regarding housekeeping would apply to them the same as any casual user, someone who signed up 24 hours earlier. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Easy there. The key phrase right now is "Assume Good Faith". When I wrote "consensus" in quotation marks, I was referring to "consensus formed by two sysops, as opposed to the consensus described in my initial suggestion since the latter has more than just two sysops in mind".
::I'm not trying to "change history". That is kinda hard in a place where "history" is an easily accessible tab on virtually all pages. Additionally, I believe that I don't ''have'' to change history. It pretty much speaks for itself. If anybody wants to, I can construct a rough timeline of the events, complete with links to the pages in question. All the information is out there, it's just a question of knowing where to look. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:06, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I am glad you clarified what you meant. As to the number of Sysops, am I reading you correctly, you would prefer agreement of two as opposed to 5 or more? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I chose the "group of sysops" wording because I didn't really have a value in mind. But the "Protected" thing sorta showed that "two" is not enough (Ed and David are both sysops and formed the "consensus" to use it). Besides, I don't think that two sysops alone have the same "decision-making power level" as one sysop in critical cases.
::I still have no fixed value in mind, and ''I don't think there should be one''. Some cases will obviously require more input than others (the higher the impact on pages, the more sysops should be consulted - I'd rank the Protected template relatively low, but a radical template like "This article misrepresents facts and should be rewritten immediately by a more competent editor" should have some serious discussion before usage), so it should be evaluated on the fly by the editor who gets the idea and by the sysops who engage in the discussion.
::(And no, I do not suggest that anybody actually creates such a template - it was an extreme example.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Follow-up note: The "Protected" template in the end only required 3-4 sysops (if I remember correctly), and only 2-3 at a time. Things worked out. That's what I mean with "ranking relatively low" - it was apparent that there was no need for a full poll of 5+ sysops, just a few sysops communicating with each other about goals and implementation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

*Fair enough. BTW, the problem with the protected template, and consensus is, while Ed agreed to it, he expressly said it shouldn't be added to users own pages. So even with "consensus" unless communication is clear, and people actually abide by the intentions of the makers, it all falls apart. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why don't we have Ten Commandments? ==

Seems like it would be meaningful to have a full set of 10 commandments, showing that our inspiration comes from the Bible. Surely we can come up with 4 more.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 19:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I hate to be derivative, but I can think of a couple... Assume Good Faith, Be Civil, and Be Bold (as in, create articles, make articles bigger and better, write, Write, WRITE!) [[User:Human|Human]] 21:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==But some are more equal than others==

<s>1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]

<s>2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aesthetics] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Morality]

<s>3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.</s>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality]

4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.

<s>5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account. Advertisements are prohibited.</s> [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Breast_cancer]

6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.

So we are left with BC and AD and no wiki-bots. But there is no problem adding a ton of capricious rules to randomly block contributors. So THIS is what America would be like if it was run completely by the right wing Christian fundamentalist. Theocratic dictatorship at its best. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Would you like me to hold the door for you, Etaroced? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That kind of proves his point, you know. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:55, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== rule 3 ==

I would like to point out that "family-friendly" and "clean" are fairly vague (clean is figurative, and probably not the best terminology) and probably "obscenity" is a better term than "foul language." Perhaps a rewording would be appropriate. Although, perhaps the language is intentional. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:We use the term "family-friendly" as just that. When we edit here, we have to imagine what we write and how we write it can be seen by families with children. I'm aware of the fact that some children grow up in broken households, but we don't need to contribute to the problem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

You're missing my point; the term is very vague and figurative. How does an encyclopedia entry become a friend to a family. It's just poor wording. "Prohibits sexually explicity material" or whatever specifically is to be avoided would be more exacting. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 10:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps a list of what is to be avoided should be drawn up and posted. How would that do? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:47, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::I for one think that would be a fantastic idea. A lot of the rules here strike me as fairly vague—if while the list is being drawn up you could give attention to my question above about defining gossip, I’d greatly appreciate that. If it would help, I’ve been recording, for personal use, what sysops have said about the rules (as a sort of collection of Conservapedia dicta if you will) and I’d be more than happy to post that to an appropriate page (it takes up something like 5 pages in Word so I don’t want to post it here).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 19:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is exactly why the rules are not too detailed. A wise Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote, when they were deliberating a pornography case, that he couldn't define it with words, but knew it when he saw it. Much the same in administering a website, Reginod. Gossip, btw, is unsubstantiated, unverified, talk or conversation that the spreader of has no real first-hand facts or information about. This includes spreading information, let's say, about a marital break-up, where the gossip spreader might or might not have first-hand knowledge, but not from both sides. Without all facts and information, trying to draw a conclusion as to who's fault it was, is senseless. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:I appreciate the clarification TK—in fact you’ve defined gossip roughly how I was defining it. The problem with the “I know it when I see it approach” (which I have to admit I often find myself advocating in real life) is that it leads to very murky rules. So, I may think I’m posting a scandal which belongs on a page, and a sysop reading my addition may think I’ve simply posted gossip. Don’t get me wrong, I‘d be hard pressed to come up with a precise definition for most (if not all) of the important words in the Commandments and I usually agree with the gut instincts of those enforcing the rules here. But I don’t always agree and from reading the comments of others here I gather there are some who agree far less often than I. I think things would run more smoothly if there were some attempt at a rough explication of the rules, some sort of rough guidelines to let those of us trying to help the site know what is in and what is out and to give people a better idea of how the rules will be enforced. That’s just my two cents and I’m not sure what they are worth, but, that’s what I think.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Yes, well some of what you wrote I do agree with. However, hard and fast rules, like mandatory sentencing guidelines imposed on Federal Judges, to use a well-known example, also can lead, far more often, to justice being denied or perverted. With a divergent group of Administrators, I have found on other sites that their own good judgement (either before or after meting out punishment, is usually enough to protect users. Absent that, peer pressure and ultimately, perhaps, the site owner(s) (Bureaucrats here) are sufficient brakes on abuse. I do recognize the validity in the scenario you paint above, and have lived it on other sites, and even here. No amount of specificity will protect all of the people, all of the time. There will always be dissension as to punishment, and there will always be what some consider abuse, no matter the precautions, but I would rather have some leeway, than be forced to block someone for a minor offense or mistake. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*Let's look at some definitions of family:[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family:
:::"8. the staff, or body of assistants, of an official: the office family.
:::9. a group of related things or people: the family of romantic poets; the halogen family of elements.
:::10. a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live together: Many hippie communes of the sixties regarded themselves as families."
:::I guess I can use whatever "family-friendly" terminology that a hippie commune would use. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 22:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is certainly your right, Sterile. However, I would avise you that since this isn't a judical body, the defense wouldn't be recognized....;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== The 90/10 rule ==

The 90% 10% edit rule is wrong and should be removed. It just doesn't make sense. To suggest that entries of talk pages are bad is utterly muddleheaded.

The rule encourages people to edit without discussion beforehand, which is highly undesirable.

What is worse, I have seen Aschlafly use it to intimidate people who he is ideologically opposed to or who have asked difficult questions. He, of course, likes the rule because it is the criticism of his behaviour and the behaviour of those he protects that is the real target of the rule.

Under the rule this very post is a black mark against my name. I had better go and do a quick edit to make up for it. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not even to mention that it's nearly impossible to calculate a halfway exact ratio. Either it's fast ("mainspace edits / total edits") or precise ("Check all edits and decide what is good"), but it can't be both.
:The additional problem is: What is a "quality edit"? Is copyediting an article a "quality edit"? What about fixing a dead-end page by inserting links? What about reverting vandalism? If I revert fifty articles that had been replaced with "CONSERVAPEDIA SUCKS!", does that count for or against my ratio? Is discussing policy (or even ''writing'' policy) a quality edit? What about helping editors or even sysops with technical problems?
:These things will change the way some people act. And I doubt it will be for the better. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I believe it's intended more as a reminder/guideline that productive work is more important than endless arugments than a specific, mathematically calculated rule. I don't think anybody's going to go down the list and count anybody's edits and figure out from there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not so Dan. Here is an example:
::"Folks, this is an educational project, not a place to bicker and argue. Horace, I've reviewed your edits and found that they are, what, about 90% talk and complaints and less than 10% substantive edits??? More to say but I have run an errand now. Will be back on a bit later.--Aschlafly 20:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)".
:Here's another example:
::"OK, Nematocyte, I've reviewed your edits. I estimate that 90% or more of your edits have been talk, talk, talk, and less than 10% substance. And what is an example of one of your edits? I think you called CreationWiki a "peculiar brand of paganism"! My view is that your account should be blocked and I defer to any Sysop who agrees and decides to block your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)".
:Then there's this:
::"I don't understand your question, "Flippin", but I invite any Sysop to do a similar review of your edits as I just did for Nematocyte, and act appropriately with respect to your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)".
:The intent is to have a tool that can be used to intimidate editors who irritate Aschlafly. Simple as that. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'll grant there there is truth in your remark, Horace, except that the rule applies for the benefit of all our major editors. I don't want Conservapedia to lose a productive editor because he's being constantly irritated by an unproductive one. If you were in my shoes and wanted to do what is best for Conservapedia, then I'd expect you to impose a similar "enough is enough" rule to stop irritation. Wikipedia rules, which are far more complex and manipulable, are also used to stop the heckling at some point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I understand your position. There is a job to be done here and it can be distracting to have too many arguments. You will understand that from my perspective, however, the rule looks somewhat different. Where I perceive a wrong or unjust decision I seek to stand up and make my views heard. If I am met with the proposition that I have made too many edits on talk pages that appears to me to be an unfair criticism and a way of attempting to silence my dissent. Of course I edit on talk pages a lot. Firstly, as you know, I am interested in the theory of evolution. That page has been locked pretty much permanently. I have made a large number of edits on the talk page (and other talk pages) in relation to the locking issue. I regard that decision as just plain wrong. What about James Maxwell? I made a number of edits on the talk page which you didn't even respond to. I was trying to avoid an edit war. Should I have just gone ahead and edited the article? Secondly, I am interested in the processes here. As an editor who appears to have a number of views that are contrary to the views of those in charge, I am concerned (more than those in the majority I suspect), to see that the processes are fair. That leads to a large number of talk page posts. Those posts, in my view, are quality posts because they relate to a very important issue. They should not be used against me. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== "No Unlawful Activity?" ==

'''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.'''

Whoops--ok, no quotes from [[Harriet Tubman]] (Helped slaves to escape to [[Canada]]), [[Martin Luther King Jr]] (Broke racial segregation laws), [[Oliver North]] (Iran-Contra Scandal), [[Mohandas Gandhi]] (rebellion against the British Empire), or the [[Declaration of Independence]] (Treason against His Royal Highness, King George the Third), then? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe change it to:

:'''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting (as of 2007) unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.'''

:--[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Does that include The Law in countries like Saudi Arabia? I mean, we wouldn't want to suggest that women should drive cars, or appear in public without a male family member to escort them, or anything. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::OH--or smuggle Bibles into Communist North Korea. Can't have any of that subversive activity, nosirree! It's '''the law'''!

The intent of the rule should be clear to anybody who is taking this project seriously. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I believe he has a point, nonetheless. The law is going to be different depending on where the lawbreaking editor lives. While his suggestion is rather silly, more detail could be added. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

FSM

2007-04-14T03:00:44Z

GofG: created redirect

#REDIRECT [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]

Jupiter

2007-04-11T21:01:31Z

GofG: Removed absolute

[[Image:Jumpsas.jpg|right|thumb|This processed color image of Jupiter was produced in 1990 by the U.S. Geological Survey from a Voyager image captured in 1979]]
'''Jupiter''' is one of the [[planet]]s. It is named for the highest deity in the Roman pantheon.

Jupiter is conspicuous and easy to recognize when you know what to look for, and is considered the most interesting planet to view through binoculars. It is not so bright as to instantly draw attention, but it is a good deal brighter than the brightest star. It is in fact the fourth brightest object in the sky (the others being the Sun, the Moon, and the planet [[Venus]]). Jupiter is not only brighter than any star, it also shines more steadily. Jupiter is visible in the sky about half the time, and is often high up and clear of surrounding houses and trees.

As of February, 2007, Jupiter is visible in the eastern sky before sunrise, and even in the early stages of dawn.

Through any pair of "real" binoculars (any binoculars that an adult uses for birding or hunting will do; they should be at least 7 power; a "spotting scope" is even better), you can see that Jupiter is not a star, but shows as a tiny round circle; astronomers say it has a visible "disc." Jupiter through binoculars looks about 1/5 the size as the Moon looks ''without'' binoculars. You can't see any of the dramatic markings that you see in photographs made by astronomers, but you can see that it is a round dot.

The exciting thing about Jupiter is that usually you will see two, three, or four little "stars" near it that are all lined up in a straight line, with each other, and with Jupiter. If you watch it night after night, these "stars" will change their position relative to Jupiter, but you almost always will see several of them and they will always be lined up. These are four of the satellites of Jupiter.
[[Category:Planets]][[Category:Astrology]]

Definition of evolution

2007-04-08T13:52:04Z

GofG: The reference was strangely irrelevant to the sentence; the sentence itself is untrue in the modern evolutionist community.

The '''definition of evolution''' is itself part of the controversy over evolution. There are several meanings in common use.

* '''Change in the history of the universe.''' This includes biological change, and non-biological change, such as galaxy formation. When evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution",<ref>http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml</ref> he meant that "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html</ref>

* '''Descent with modification.''' E.O. Wilson defines, "evolution is any change in gene frequency in a population." This is narrower than the first definition because it just includes biological change, and only those changes which are inherited.

* '''Universal common ancestor.''' This is the idea that there is some last universal common ancestor, from which all plants, animals, fungi, and other life on Earth are directly descended.

When evolution is defined simply as "the gradual appearance of new forms of life" over geological time, then 55% of Americans agree with [[biologists]] and [[geologists]] that evolution has really occurred. Disagreement on this point comes mainly from [[Young Earth Creationists]].

But when defined more narrowly as new forms of life coming into being "without any intervention from God", only 13% to 16% of Americans agree.

Advocates for the [[teaching of evolution]] as a finding of mainstream science tend to use two different meanings of "evolution".

*We have fossil evidence for evolution. It's a fact. (teacher in CNN article)

This apparently refers to the assertion that the appearance of new forms of life is supported by fossils (see [[carbon dating]]). But the context of the quote implies that the teacher was actually talking about the notion that "new species can evolve from older ones -- such as humans evolving from ancient apes." [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/creationism.vs.evolution/]

About half of the people who reject the materialist [[Theory of Evolution]] accept the fossil evidence of "gradual appearance" while rejecting mainstream biology's explanation that [[natural selection]] and unguided forces like [[mutation]] and [[copying errors]] is the cause.

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:Origins debate]]

Talk:Definition of evolution

2007-04-08T13:51:06Z

GofG: /* eh what? */

Highly informative expansion of my stub. Never know that about the "nothing makes sense" quote, which I gather gets taken out of context a lot.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Some may say that we should settle on the correct definition, and stick with that. But I think that it is clear that several definitions are in common use. I would also like definitions that pro-evolution folks are happy with. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a lot of potential here. The lefty thing is a bit annoying, perhaps because it hit too close to home...that being said and disclosed, it is not actually a common scientific interpretation as stated. If you were to add a pure atheist view of evolution, you might say something like,

:''Evolution completely explains life on Earth, with no need for recourse to supernatural causes. Evolution is amoral."
[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 15:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, the last definition is really philosophy and not science. I would exclude it, except that it really comes into debates about evolution. I just added a couple of references that say that unplanned, unguided, and random are part of evolution. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for adding the bit about [[unguided evolution]]. My attempts to wedge that into Wikipedia is what got JoshuaZ and company to have me put on probation. (Bitter, and proud!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== that Earth is insignificant? ==

Materially insignificant, possibly - there are billions of other stars and planets. However you will find a wide range of opinion within the scientific community on the question of "life other places" or even "intelligent life other places". To this extent Earth is very significant, it is the only planet in the universe where life is known to exist. I don't think you will find anyone in the group of 'leftist-atheist' who will claim that in terms of life, the earth is insignificant. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The most materialist of scientists would likely argue that while the Earth may or may not be unique, it is certainly significant, being the place where we evolved and live. See the "anthropic principle".[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 15:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am under the impression that it is primarily leftists and atheists who argue that life on Earth is insignificant because of life on other planets, billions of stars, Darwinian processes, etc. I don't have any references handy. I am throwing it out here for discussion. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Alas, such nonsense. The page contains not-so-much a valid definition as a whining screed again evolution written by folks who know nothing of evolution. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== eh what? ==

''A leftist-atheist philosophy. This says that man is no better than an animal; that Earth is insignificant; that progress does not exist; that the history of life is unguided, unplanned, and random;[3] and that materialist explanations have replaced all spiritual ones. Various other ideas may also be included, depending on the evolutionist.''

eh? where did this get dragged up from? what's the connection between people on the left and being an atheist? I'm (british) right and an atheist. As for the rest of it, the mind bogggles! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 08:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roger, that is a comment beneath you. It is insulting, uncited, and unChristian. As I said most scientists, and atheists, and leftists, consider the Earth pretty darn significant, as we live here. That does not change the cosmologic fact that we are one of billions of solar systems, so cosmologically not particularly significant. But, from a human perspective, Earth could hardly be more significant. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 08:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

That bit about a leftist-atheist philosophy is out of place, I believe. It is how some people see evolution our place in the universe and how they see the lack of purpose in evolution, but it's not a definition of evolution per se. I think it likely belongs in the article (perhaps modified somewhat), but not ''as a definition''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== That particular definition ==

As per '''grand''' consensus on this discussion page and the discussion page of [[Theory of Evolution]], I am removing the fourth definition. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 09:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Main Page/archive3

2007-04-01T01:03:08Z

GofG: Teh Archivez0rz

== I hate the new format. I think that a white background is easier to read than a blue background. ==

I hate the new format. I think that a white background is easier to read than a blue background. It just makes sense since white and black print gives better contrast than blue and black print. I also like to see the totals as far as views to a page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Well, if you use Firefox, you can change stuff fairly easily (see my User page). Technically, you should also be able to include your own CSS here, but that didn't seem to work when I tried it (possible that I did something wrong, but the Stylish add-on did the trick, so I won't test it much further). But what do you mean with the last sentence? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::There use to be a counter at the bottom of each page to show how many views an article got. Secondly, not everyone has FireFox or other means to change colors. Wikipedia and TheoWiki and CreationWiki all use the white background. It is easier to read. White and black print gives greater contrast. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::Don't get me wrong, I'm also no major fan of the blue background (even though it irked me personally less than some other changes). Just pointing out possible solutions in case that this doesn't change.
:::You would be able to change your personal CSS if User CSS was enabled ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:User_style as mentioned here]). However, it appears that this is (currently) not the case right now. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Maybe my eyes are weird but I'm actually having an easier time reading since the change. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 22:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, I guess it's a given that the (subjective) impression varies, depending on taste and viewing preferences. I mean, the current layout and color scheme was created by a user (I guess) who hopefully didn't just go "OMG LOL letz throw in random colorz!", so of course there will be quite a few people who embrace the change. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::The article headings really should be left-aligned; having them centered looks rather bizarre. --[[User:Rexislexis|Rexislexis]] 16:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== New layout and some quite serious site concerns ==
Conservative mentioned in the section above that the view count is gone, and while pondering about that, I noticed that quite a few more things are gone. Aside from the "MediaWiki" button, pages now lack:
*A disclaimer link
*Copyright information and link
*Privacy policy link
After some more thinking, I realized something worse: Aside from the under-construction license suggestion, we don't seem to actually have any of those things right now! Anybody know what's going on here? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:After restoring the footer section via User CSS, I realize that Conservapedia has a [[Conservapedia:Privacy_policy|privacy policy]] at least, even though it should probably be updated to include the bit about giving all your info out in case of vandalism. However, my initial issue still stands: Why is the footer being hidden? The modified CSS even has sections that change the looks of the footer, but then it just hides it completely. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Added the Bible verse==
Yesserie bob...began the Bible verse to start a new tradition, and it has my favorite, Isaiah 18:41. More ways to improve the site are happening right now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:Oh. Didn't notice the new section when I made my comment. What other sorts of "improvement" are you talking about? Or is it a secret? *cocks head* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I've been asked, and that part's in my user talk page. But I really didn't have any other plans for the main page at all, and it was a debate between me and the mirror whether or not to add just the verse. The I picked my fav...and there it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree with it being called the "Bible verse" of the day. Couldn't we have general words of wisdom? Of course, this would often encompass Bible verses (just not John 3:16, ''way'' too tacky), but if we find a really, really great Conservative-inspired quote, it wouldn't be restricted. Dunno, just a suggestion. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I think that's a good suggestion by Hojimachong. Perhaps a conservative quote of the day that could include the Bible ''and'' conservative thinkers?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Like, by default it's a Bible verse, but if somebody finds some good Words of Wisdom, it won't be restrictive of adding these. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It should just be "Quote of the day", otherwise it's a serious turn-off to non-Christian conservatives like me (yes, they do exist). Someone doesn't need to be Christian to be a conservative. Otherwise this is just a biblepedia. --[[User:Brewer13210|Todd]] 11:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the idea of a daily Biblical quote...but a daily quotation from a conservative thinker, historical person is also a good idea. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hate to be a killjoy, but today's "Historical Quote of the Day" ("It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."--George Washington) is bogus. GW never said that (which isn't to say that he wasn't a religious guy, but that particular quote isn't his). [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:::I pulled that quotation from ''Halley's Bible Handbook'' by Dr. Henry M. Halley, who has quoted a number of individuals in support of the Bible. But, although I believe GW made this quote, there was no source in Halley's book for reference...so my next quote will have a source one can go to. You're not a killjoy...just someone wanting it right! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The block where both quotes are now does look a little plain. Any way to spruce it up? I think the main page should be a standout attraction, so to speak. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Maybe a small photo of the quoted person? And perhaps drop the Bible quote down to the bottom, so that the photo is higher up, more eye-catching?[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

::Yes! There's a photo of Lincoln I uploaded [[image:Lincoln.png]] which could be used. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How about a box within, containing the quote and a pic? It wouldmake the site visually better looking. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Maybe...You'd have to play with it a little to see how it looks. It might be too "busy"--a box within a box within a box...[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

I just wanted to comment that in general I think that it is a great idea, and find it wonderful that there are still some of us out there who do not have to bow to our national obsession with "political correctness;" though the Supreme Court has adopted the wall-of-seperation principle, between church and state, that does not mean that all political or other informational private intities also have to adopt the same stance. ---[[User:Fair-balenced|Fair-balenced]] 19:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Hello to all. It has been a few days since I’ve been able to visit. I want to thank you for using the Bible verse of the day. Like I said in my last message, I respect the fact that others may not be Christian, as I am. However I think that in our freedom, we as Americans have fallen and are in danger of falling deeper into our age old trap of discrimination. While I do agree that we need to be respectful of the fact that not all Americans, and yes even some Conservatives, are Christians, I also feel that we need to be careful not to try and eliminate Christianity. Back in the times of Egyptian pharos, when one new family would come into power you at times would see that family, or supporters there of, chiseling out the names and images of the past families, and erasing them from the makeup of their nation. I feel that is the sad undertaking that we are undergoing in America today with Christianity. Let’s be respectful of those who are not Christian but still wish to have a daily word of encouragement, but in doing so, let’s not forbid those who are Christian from also receiving their daily word of encouragement. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing both. I am very grateful, not only as a Christian, but as an American, to see that this consideration has taken place here on Conservapidia. Thank you. – Constitution 08:41, 22 March 2007

== A poll requested by Aschafly regarding the new color format ==

I hate the new format. I think that a white background is easier to read than a blue background. It just makes sense since white and black print gives better contrast than blue and black print. I think we should have the same color background as [[CreationWiki]], [[Wikipedia]] which is a white background and black print.

With that being said ASchafly has asked me to conduct a poll about this matter. Please enter your vote and make any additional comments in the additional comments section.

'''Against the new color format:'''

*Find it distracting and hard on the eyes. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
*I hate the new format. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
*I like it the way it is now, without the curvyness background. It looks very clinical and professional. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 17:36, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
*Ouch. Ouch ouch ouch. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
*Please! The new format is horrible. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 12:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
*I object to the new format. Blue is the color that symbolizes the democrat party. This is a conservative Republican wiki, so if it's going to have a background color, it should be red.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 12:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
**Red is far too distracting. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

'''For the new color format:'''

*Blue rocks my socks. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 17:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*I like the blue. I wonder why? [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 17:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*The New format is wonderful. The light blue background is pale enough to contrast quite sufficiently with the black letters. It helps us to look different from Wikipedia, and matches the logo nicely. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 17:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*It is easier to read now. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

* Blue is nice...I have my background in WPs set to a lightish green. Much easier on the eyes. I'm not surprised [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] "hates" it...it's '''new'''. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

* I like it.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Additional comments:'''

I personally like a white for general content articles, but then maybe a slightly different color for project pages (like wikipedia). It's a visual cue, but then not everything is like that. Also, I also like a solid background color rather than the current [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/conserv/headbg.jpg background image]. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:10, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

...why don't you just switch back to Monobook? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I do use that, but just trying to offer a suggestion ;-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:22, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I was not aiming that question at you in particular. Hence the lack of indentation of my initial post. But since we're talking now, don't you think it's a bit too bold to just vape the background image from all skins like that (unless I missed the discussion that led to the removal, which is possible)? I mean, sure, nothing I couldn't fix locally, but still. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Keep the new format, make people aware (via heavy linkage) of how to configure monobook.css to make the formatting different. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:10, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I like the new scroll logo. It is very midieval.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:13, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Has User CSS been enabled? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the rule should be that is has to look different from Wikipedia and similar sites. Maybe add some pastels! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Overall the color schemes are good, however the new colors on the diff pages is horrendous. Also, the coding seems to be backwards on the article, discussion, etc tabs. The tab you're on should be at the front, not behind like it is now (indicated by the line at the bottom of the tab). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Let's have the front page be Red, White and Blue, no? [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:22, 21 March 2007 (PST).

== Archive ==

I'm going to create another archive. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:33, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== IRC channel ==

[[User:Cracker|Cracker]] and I have created an IRC channel, #conservapedia, for - what else - Conservapedia. I would like to see some activity, of which the most thus far was Cracker and I discussing sociocultural issues that were completely irrelevant to Conservapedia. Of course, that's part of the reason it exists. Get an IRC client, and log on. I hope to see you there. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's on freenode, BTW. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Copyrighting==

Since there is no copyrighting in effect, I think that getting a GFDL or Creative Commons license would be a wise decision. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::If you want to use a license, use http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ , GFDL is not a good license. [[User:Noodles|Noodles]] 23:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Blocking==

I know this isn't wikipedia, but isn't it in poor taste there to remove and/or block people for comments on talk pages? Talk pages are just for that, talking. You can disagree or dislike something they write, but it's not an article, so in my opinion censoring comments is wrong. (I'm referring to this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Moon&diff=next&oldid=49571| diff]. l33t speak isn't offensive. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 23:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== List of Presidential candidates in incomplete. ==

The list of candidates on the main page is incomplete.

----
Review Republican presidential candidates: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee.
----

As of today 2007-03-19, the registered candidates for the Republican party are:

Samuel Brownback (R)
Rudolph Giuliani (R)
Mike Huckabee (R)
Duncan Hunter (R)
John McCain (R)
Ron Paul (R)
Mitt Romney (R)
Tom Tancredo (R)
Tommy Thompson (R)

To see the list of official candidates:
http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/pres_cf/2008filings.html

==London Metro Newspaper==

Congratulations, Conservapedia appeared in todays free newspaper Metro. The article was on page 3 of the newspaper and ridiculed Conservapedias biased information. [[User:Jennisuk|Jennisuk]]

This is how I heard about this site. Had a quick look round in my lunch hour.
Wow ! Do you really believe this rubbish (I found the article or marsupials particularly perplexing) or are you hoping to influence some hypothetical fools who may be wandering about in cyberspace ?
Obviously one hears something about the religious right in the media etc, but I couldn't really believe it had got this extreme. How many contributors/readers do you guys have ?

:: Over 3000 contributors and over 4 million page views, and growing quickly. Our contributors are from all across the ideological spectrum, as are our readers. How about enlightening us by adding some factual information that you think we lack here? We're an open-minded group, and I trust you will be also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the invite - I'll certainly consider it. Whilst I was shocked by the extremness of your views, I am impressed by your honesty. Most christians I've spoken to flim-flam to the nth degree, when confronted by a scientific fact or popular ethical stance like, for example, evolution or sexual equality they simply re-interpret the bible to suit. You seem to be able to stick steadfastly to your faith whatever the evidence or peer-pressure. I'm not sure if this is a good thing but it certainly does make an impression.

:::Asch, as long as you refuse to allow open debate on [[dinosaur]], [[Theory of evolution]], et al, you won't be an open minded group. Your editors may be from all across the spectrum, but you and a few others make darn sure that views that disagree with your own don't make it onto article pages.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: AmesG, very few pages are locked, and even those pages have talk entries. The few examples of locking were the result of what became a huge distraction to our efforts on 5000 other pages. I have unlocked several pages. Also, please keep in mind that this is an alternative to Wikipedia, and attempts to make our entries look like Wikipedia's are pointless. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Aschla, Is your Wiki not an answer to the accidental bias in a few of Wikipedia's pages? Surely the creation of a purposefully biased wiki even worse? (read "conservative encylopedia" on front page) --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 11:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:The [[blasphemy]] may be viewed [http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=41802&in_page_id=2 here] (not for the faint hearted).
::"And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities." (Acts 26:11)
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 10:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Things you disagree with aren't blasphemy. And sometimes, they might be right.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm in agreement with AmesG that the controversial articles need to be opened up. You can have 3000 contributors but if only a handfull can edit, total numbers don't matter. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Legal Warning ==

I was just wondering why the legal warning has been taken down. I was wondering the legality of a threat of prison time for profanity and was going to say something but then it got removed.
Any ideas?
[[User:Dommccas|Dommccas]]

: It was removed because it was felt to be too "harsh," even though the warning still stands. [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 14:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think the threats should be restored even though the statutes cited don't have anything to do with what the warning stated. But if it helps deter vandals, that's a good thing.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 02:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Of course, presenting false information - especially in the form of legal threats - serves only to bring ridicule upon one's self if discovered. Kinda like saying "responses to this post will result in immediate amputation of Susan B. Anthony's left big toe".[[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 00:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: Also if it's not a breach of bar ethics already to threaten criminal legal action in bad faith, maybe it should be. I know it is actionable to threaten civil action in bad faith.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Quoting [[18 USC § 1470]] and [[18 USC § 1030]] did come accross as empty threats which only invited ridicule. Perhaps it would be better to just say that obscenity and vandalism are sinful, adding:
:::"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
::God will definitely get them in the end.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationism confusion ==

I think quite a bit of tension is being created because one of the biases of the project is not being explicitly stated. Many overseas editors (such as me) are being attracted to the site because we want to see a strong alternative to wikipedia HOWEVER creationism is a dead issue for us it's a very tiny minority who accept it within europe. I have no problem with this being a creationist site but that bias needs to be explained somewhere - otherwise we are going to have a) a lot of tension and b) a lost of confused editors from the rest of the world. Where we are from being conservative does not equal beliving in creationism. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 19:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, sorry. Conservapedia is a pro-American wiki, so naturally foreigners are going to have to get used to American-style conservative views. If you are not comfortable with the Creationism material, feel free to ignore it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: you've missed my point - I have no problem with it being a creationist wiki but that bias should be made explicit in one of the policies or maybe in the commandments? that way we can avoid a lot of tension and aggravension from confused overseas editors? Surely it's sensible to have such a page so that every science and history talkpage does not dissolve into people saying "hey what's this creationist crap doing here!". --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 20:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, I haven't missed your point. As I stated, this is a pro-American wiki, so we're not going to go to great lengths to accomodate people from other countries who may not understand our culture and heritage. Articles here are presented from the American conservative point of view, simple as that. And I your "creationist crap" comment is out of line, considering there are hundreds of millions of Americans who happen to believe deeply in Creation. If you're just here to stir up trouble, please move on.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 00:09, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: there are NOT "hundreds of millions of Americans" who believe deeply in Creation if by this you associate Creationism with Creation.

Thanks for once again entirely missing my point which has nothing at all to do with if creationism is true or not. Part of the reason that any organisation, project or wiki is successful is that it is able to clearly articulate it's goals. This project does not currently do this, instead random administrators are trying to manage the talkpages using their own judgement about what the goals and acceptable norms of the project are. A clear outline of the POV that scientific and historical topics should be approached would aid the administrators in the ''process'' of management and reduce the need to explain over and over again the same issues and have the same arguments over and over again. Without such a statement, as numbers increase, so will the management load placed upon administration. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 07:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservateur, I commend your patriotism. Your efforts to insure that the bases of our American roots are conserved are admirable. I believe that Cgday brings up a point that would not harm our Conservative cause, but rather to improve the understanding of it. If it is found that others are not clear as to the point of this page, it would be in the cause’s best interest to assist in those areas and to bring about the understanding of our mission. Thank you Cgday for raising this point. – Constitution 09:20 22, March 2007

I am a little confused about the purpose of conservapedia now. Conservateur seems to be saying that it is a biased information source which serves to highlight only creationist and specifically American creationist understandings of the world around them. Is this true? If it is then that would mean that it is not a project of the wikipedia type at all... The project of wikipedia is to allow relatively free editing to arrive at balanced knowledge through the interaction of several perspectives. What you are saying is that conservapedia only serves a tiny minority of a certain population of a small part of the world... I don't quite understand the point of this?

Am I, as a christian conservative, to be excluded by the bias of conservapedia before I can contribute or read?

== IRC ==

Once again, I request more activity on #conservapedia on freenode. We need ops to deal with things like the channel takeover we had (I'll send you a transcript if you really really want it), and incivility. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Problems Uploading Images ==

Am I the only one experiencing difficulty in uploading images? It seems like it's hit and miss as far as getting an image to upload successfully onto the website. Perhaps that's why there are so few images on the site so far. Someone I know said he had to try 12 times before his image would finally upload (he even tried different image file formats). I'm thinking there may be a problem with the site's image upload function.--[[User:Rexislexis|Rexislexis]] 20:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:I've seen this issue being mentioned here and there, so it appears that you're not the only one. I'm not sure what the current status or the cause of the issue is, though. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wrong data r.e - Einstein ==

It is true, depsite what is listed on this website, that Einsteins work(specifically e=mc2) led directly to the development of the nuclear bomb.
In fact, a nuclear bomb is e=mc2 in action.

rebuttal?

== Featured Article (Alger Hiss) ==

I don't know what Aschlafly's criteria for a featured article are, but shouldn't a featured article at least stick to a few basic site rules like "Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain."? I never heard of Alger Hiss before, and the article has ZERO sources, so I am expected to blindly believe the assertion that this is "the truth about Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers" (mainpage quote). Not even to mention that there are a few non-encyclopedic comments and phrases in there ("...contradicting each other. One had to be lying." or "But Hiss could afford the best attorney and had the most impressive array of character witnesses ever assembled." to give two quick examples).

In my humble opinion, a featured article should be well sourced, encyclopedic and possibly be put up for discussion BEFORE it hits the main page.

Maybe then, sections like "The defense relied heavily on testimony by a expert witness who was a psychiatrist, who painted Chambers as a pathological liar. But the prosecutor destroyed the witness in one of the most famous cross-examinations in American legal history." wouldn't leave me with questions like "Doesn't the psychiatrist have a name?" or "If it's so famous, why can't we hear a little bit more about it?". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:The best place to start would be the local library. If Hiss isn't found in a stand-alone book, then books about Richard Nixon (especially his life before 1960), the Cold War, politics during the 1950s, etc may suffice. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My point wasn't about my heightened interest in Hiss. The point is that the article (and all other articles here) should be sourced. It's one of the very few official commandments, and the article got "featured" status without citing ANY sources. That kinda clashes to say the least. When NONE of the information has a hint about its origin, then why have an article in the first place? How am I supposed to trust an article like that, especially when such a politics-related article is on a site with an obvious political bias? The sourcing commandment is in place for a reason.
::If I wanted to have a starting point for Hiss, I'd go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss Wikipedia]. Let's see... 40 inline references, several of them online, 9 "further reading" book recommendations, 12 additional "external links", most of them online. That looks like a much more researched article to me. I of course don't know if everything in there is 100% correct, but if I felt doubt, I could verify the information from the article with the cited sources of the individual claims. No need to go hunting randomly for information through a dozen books.
::Wikipedia exists so I don't have to go out to a library and start my research there. I can start at Wikipedia and just go to the library if I need to check one or two of the sources in question. And since Conservapedia presents itself as an alternative to Wikipedia, I think it's supposed to fulfill a similar role. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::My mistake for miss-reading your posting. Of course articles here can and must be sourced as mach as possible. I'd remove the article in question from the featured catagory and inform the original author that he's got to find the relevant material. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== This must be a joke ==

I too saw the article in today's Metro. I just cannot believe that anyone is going to take this site seriously. If dinosaurs went into the ark,which species were they, because after all the bible says the animals went in 2 by 2 ( not 4 by 4 ) so if they were T rex or velicoraptors then they would have eaten all the others. Also the world may well have been created in seven days but how long where the days ??? Dont recall anywhere it saying that a days is 24 hours long.
All I can say is I despair for the future of the world if there are allegedly intelligent people who actually believe this rubbish. If Darwin is a myth, then where do fossils come from ? and its really interesting to try and work out the logic that atheism leads to rises in crime, under age sex etc etc. This site should have been launched on 1st April

I appreciate your thinking out of the box but 24 hrs. is pretty much the standard definition of day. What makes you think that the bible is not literal truth? --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Science would seem to refute the Bible being literally true. Also the credibility of "everything just magically appearing" in 6 days would seem slightly obscene by many in this day and age.

:Fossils Come from Dead animals. (where else) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Seriously? "The standard definition of day." Wow... wow. It was the UNIVERSE which was created in 7 days, or so the fable goes. The earth has 24 hour days, but let's take a look around. I know many are adverse to science and fact but let's go there anyway. A day on Venus is 5,832 hours long. Saturn days are 10 hours and 47 minutes. Day can also mean a particular time notable for its distinctive characteristics: day, age, epoch, era, period, time. If you are going to spit on all science, then maybe you should spit on time.. the telling of time based on the earth's rotation is science. Sorry. We are going to have to take that back. You can use fuzzy unicorn antlers to tell time from now on.

:What is wrong with assuming that the creation of the universe was described from the point of view of a hypothetical viewer on Earth; described in earth-based time? After all, ''you've done the same thing yourself'', describing the days of Venus and Saturn in Earth-based terms (hours and minutes). Creationists do not "spit on" science. That's just a case of you denigrating people you don't agree with. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bible comment? ==

How can this be a "site you can trust" when on the front page there is a bible quote? For a start, who is to say that Christianity is the correct religion and not one of the other major 6, and on top of this, for us atheists out there who have decided to chose science over religion, what about us?

You can't trust something which is obviously bias. As this website is.

Especially when it says America is "widely" accepted as a great nation.

You ''can'' trust us but if your atheism is offended by our references to the word of God then you are free not to use this site. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

PS America '''''is''''' widely accepted as a great nation.

By whom outside the USA? The Iraqis hate you, most of the world (except internally) is able to see what a dunce you have for a President, and you've ised the English language.

If you can be trusted, why do you show an obvious bias towards one religion on your homepage?

And where do you stand by comparison, Booker? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If you mean what do I think of the UK, I'm not mad fond of it either. However, as I have never said it is a "great nation", this makes your question fairly void. [[User:Brooker|Brooker]]

Yeah I can say that the majority of people I know in Canada far from see America as a great nation. Perhaps a 'once great nation', but certainly not now after starting a war with no purpose and being lead by a person with the IQ of a vegetable. Not to mention the fact that America is, in fact, bankrupt.

But yes the bible verse of the day is just stupid. Why beat around the bush? Why not just change the URL of the website to www.BiasedCreationistConservativeAmericanApedia.com? Or at least admit the total bias on the front page so people stop laughing so much.

Who's up for an Athiest quote of the day? --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 22:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

America is not widely accepted as a great nation, and in the past some of the terrible things done have turned the world, and even America's own population against it. Atom bombs have been dropped on Japanese cities (Nagasaki and Hiroshima) killing many civilians. The Vietnam war ias another case where America tried to "liberate" the south Vietnamese from their "evil" communist oppressors, before bombing it constantly, using defoliants and conducting search and destroy missions that often ended up as just destroy missions. America has committed atrocities in the past (as have other countries) but from a country that counts itself on justice and freedom, going into a village (such as My Lai) and destorying any life found there, from men to women to babies. This seems a bit hypocritical. Also while you say you have more freedoms than any other country, but there are still many narrow minded "freedom" thinkers who are supremist, xenophobic and will not accept any religion but Christianity. Although there are of course some great people in America, some, such as this site seem to be the narrow-minded people we so want to avoid in Life. And yet again the "great America" is going into countries such as Afghanistan and repeating History.

== "Homosexual Agenda" ==

I have a very simple question, to which I would appreciate a succinct, straightforward response...
What valid argument exists to refuse homosexuals the rights and benefits of marriage?
I've heard all of the religious reasons, but honestly, what else is there? It wouldn't cause hardship to anyone else, aside from perhaps an emotional standpoint (which Conservatives, I might point out, are eager to denounce others for). Gay marriage means financial stability in terms of health care coverage, life insurance benefits for spouses.
What reason is there for such opposition to gay man and women having the same rights as you and I?
Are we saying that an unloving heterosexual relationship is better than a loving homosexual one?
Doesn't "ALL CREATED EQUAL" have a meaning anymore?
Or have we not left the days of slavery and lack of women's suffrage?

For the sake of order in responses, I'd ask anyone not opposing gay marriage to respond with a simple "!", to allow for easier reading of (whatever responses might come about). Thank you :) [[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 01:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: I believe it has something to do with the fact that if gays adopt, then the adopted children will grow up to be gay by association, making the number of gays increase. I honestly don't know. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 07:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::More to the point, there are many children already being raised by gay couples. The question of whether or not this should be allowed is not on the table. The question on the table is whether or not those children deserve the legal protection of having married parents. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: "Gay by association" is absolutely ridiculous and unfounded. If sexuality were developed simply by association, there would be NO GAY PEOPLE! Procreation dictates a heterosexual couple, hence hetero association. Obviously, there is something beyond environment affecting sexuality. "Making the number of gays increase" is, also, ridiculous - not to mention trivial and bigoted. Homosexuals are not a scourge on this country - in fact, given the amount of attention paid to the most minor infractions by them, they have all the more reason to stay on the "straight and narrow" (pardon the pun).

: Regarding children deserving legal protection of married parents - that is all the more reason to treat homosexuals - and their marriage, adoption, benefits, etc. - just like everyone else! Homosexual couples adopting children go through much more rigorous adoption procedures than hetero couples, and studies have shown that this results in MORE loving, involved, caring parenting. As I've said before, the private lives of homosexuals do not affect anyone else unduly - unless that person is intruding upon their relationship, which is wrong in itself! Stop being scared of other's personal life choices and give these people the respect due to all citizens of this country! They aren't telling you to stop being straight, who are you to tell them to stop being gay?!?

: God alone is responsible for final judgment, NOT US! My guess is that '''good people''' will get their rewards '''regardless of who shared their bed''', and '''those busy judging others should probably pack asbestos socks!'''[[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 13:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I agree with you that it is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I was just stating, as it had been 7 hours and no one had answered you, what ''I'' believe that ''they'' believe the problem is. I personally am pro-gay marriage. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 16:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== vandalism? ==

I don't now where else to ask, but Tsumetai has put some messages on my page and i don't understant. He wont explain. What vandalism did i do? what am I not being a good parody at? I thought this wasn't like Wikipedia :-( [[User:Gabriel|Gabriel]] 13:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

It isn't. It's much worse, more biased, and run by the God Squad. Get out while you can. - [[User:Brooker|Brooker]] 22:21, 22 March 2007 (GMT)

:Then leave, Mr. Brooker. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==New Icon==
I am offended by the new icon. As an American and someone who has been raised to respect the flag, I cannot believe that on a conservative website such a disrespect of the flag would occur. The new icon makes it appear that the flag is being hung upside down, or even if hung the correct way, it is at the bottom of the icon, which disrespectful to the flag. I really wish the old icon would be put back, if only temporarily, since it isn't disrespectful to the flag and makes no claim about nationality, which is important given the broad range of users of this wiki. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stars should be on the other side...then it would be right. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Honestly, my reaction was the same as ColinR's and Karajou's. But our expert says we are all wrong: the stars are supposed to be on the left. Note especially the [http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html rule 14] for hanging a flag in a window, like the icon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::How odd and interesting! But what good is it to be technically correct when most casual visitors will not get it? (Yes, I'm aware of the discussion about the new logo, but I still felt like saying this :P) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: You've got a point. But do we cave into misperception (which I shared)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::It's a lose/lose situation. You either amuse/confuse casual people, or you tick off the more knowledgeable guys. In such a situation, the only way to win is not to play, I think. I'd stick with the scroll we initially had. Just take out the hidden messages and put it back in. It was by far the most professional and balanced logo (in my opinion). No in-you-face bias, no attempt to summarize "conservative" in one or two images, and it looked smooth. Not to mention the balance between a modern style and what I guess might be seen to stand for old values. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:As a Non-American, I feel it slightly unconservative that a bias towards one country is shown on the flag. While this may not automatically show this, the bias in articles towards America affirms this belief. - [[User:Brooker|Brooker]] 23:26, 23 March 2007 (GMT)

:: Maybe you're right. Another logo has been proposed at the bottom of my talk page [[User_talk:Aschlafly]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I have nothing against using Stars & Stripes except that it excludes conservatives from other nations. What about Canadian conservatives? We really need a new logo.--[[User:Rexislexis|Rexislexis]] 11:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not that the stars are on the wrong side, it's just that with it at the bottom of the icon, it appears the flag is hung upside down. I firmly support using another icon! No offense to the creator of the current one, though. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 21:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think is better to find a brand new icon for the page, a very especial logo, the flag is the symbol of a nation, I'm from Venezuela and I like this page, Why not my country's flag? (I'm kidding) Come on people I think there is more creativity somewhere. What about a book logo or something like that, this is an encyclopedia not a political party. Thanks

:::I am an American and I agree with all the non-Americans that an American flag restricts our audience. Didn't the apostle Paul say he became all things to all men so that he might win the many. Didn't the Christian missionary [[Hudson Taylor]] wear Chinese clothes (which was rare for the time) so he might win more Chinese? I dare anyone say that Hudson Taylor and the apostle Paul were not successful. Why are we purposefully sabotaging reaching more people around the globe? Why? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Pic archive needed==
We need a pic archive up and running here, where our pics are catagorized properly and licenced for use throughout Conservapedia. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:It appears the only image that's currently working is the logo. Is the image server down? Does anybody know when it's going to be back up and running?--[[User:Rexislexis|Rexislexis]] 11:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mistake in wording ==

The first line under "Items of Interest" currently reads:
:Did you know that Darwin believed are were superior to women?"
Darwin believe ''what'' were superior to women? Yeah, I know the answer, but how did a silly mistake like this get on to the front page without someone picking it up?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== TAKE DOWN "Did you know that Darwin believed..." ==

...is misleading. IF Darwin believed men were superior to women, it's becuase that was a prevalent view at the time. Paul believed the same thing (except in Galatians) but I doubt that that's something you'd put on the main page.

Take down the intellectually dishonest frontpage statement.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]]

Why is it intellectually dishonest to state what Darwin believed? I am prepared to make the requested edit, but I don't quite understand whay it's dishonest; do you think that the statement is misleading in some way --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think it's misleading insofar as its calculated goal is to shock - "wow, I didn't know that Darwin thought that" - without presenting the context. Also, the article linked for that inflammatory statement doesn't even support the proposition. It's blatant editorializing, masquerading as fact, just like a good deal else here.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's not intellectually dishonest, but it's completely irrelevant to anything regarding Darwin. It's a complete smear, and I think that our standards as good Christian folk should be a bit higher. Heck, Bill Clinton believed alot of things (like, that he could get away with adultery), but that doesn't mean he created the biggest surplus in US history (yes, inflation considered). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually, it says "Did you know that Darwin believed are were superior to women?" Not "men are superior to women," not "men were superior to women," "'''are''' were superior to women." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Yea, I saw that, I thought about alerting someone to that effect but then I realized it was a perfect metaphor for the complete unprofessionalism of this whole site.

::::: This is outrageous. First of all, it's uncyclopaedic to use the word "You" in an encyclopaedia article.
::::: Second of all, we should also put that George Bush is a homophobe. Yeah, it's a word that has a negative meaning, but it's true, isn't it? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 23:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

WOW ! did you know most christians believe men are superior to women.
whilst some of the smaller sects do allow women to be priests, the anglicans only did recently (they still don't think they are good enough to be bishops) and the roman catholics seem unlikely to ever let women be priests. - TeganGrady 26/03/07 12:50 BST

:No, as a Christian I didn't know that (despite hearing it claimed by sceptics numerous times). Could you provide evidence please? Believing that men and women have different roles is not the same as believing that one is superior to the other, by the way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

=="The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"==
Premature. Wishful thinking.

Calling itself "trustworthy" when it isn't yet trustworthy shows its present lack of trustworthiness.

Vanity, thy name is Conservapedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:07, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:"The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" - Ha, almost as good as Fox News' "Fair and Balanced"--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 15:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::I must agree with Dpbsmith, as of now, it's not trustworthy in most articles/categories. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:20, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I think we need to enforce sourcing more for this to be true. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Yes and no. Lack of sources ''is'' a problem in many articles, but to become trustworthy, I agree there of course. But the problem goes far deeper than that. Some articles do not stand up to Andy's guidelines regarding gossip and encyclopedic style. Many articles misrepresent sources, quotes, and facts. And quite a few articles simply are unbalanced. Not even to mention the various other problems that come from only having been in business for a few months. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Eureka, I have found it! Links to the MAJOR conservative sites..... ==

I was thinking of a way we could attract a lot of conservatives and others by putting something very useful on the site that they could use everyday.

Here is my idea:

The [http://www.drudgereport.com/ DrudgeReport] provides many links to international news sources and columnists. However, the DrudgeReport has been criticized for providing many links to non-conservative sources even though the Mr. Drudge is a conservative radio host. I suggest providing a link on our front page that goes to a page with MAJOR conservative web sources such as Fox News, Cal Thomas, Peggy Noonan, Bill O'Reilly, Phyllis Schlafly (of course!), etc. etc. We could also have links to the MAJOR conservative blogs. I also think it would be nice to have links to the MAJOR conservative Christianity websites like Christianity Today. I might be wrong but I think this would be fairly unique (if not totally unique although I do not want to be presumptious). I saw one website that attempted to do this and it wasn't very well done as it had links to non-conservative websites. The site is called: [http://www.conservativeusa.org/ritelink.htm The Right Links - Conservative Websites] and it was created by the CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS. I also think "The Right Links" failed to bring in much web traffic (according to Alexa) because it had '''too many non-major websites''' that nobody would care about. I think this would be useful so people could could have a handy source to look at what is going on in the conservative world from MAJOR conservative sources and have it be very convenient. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Conservapedia's Holy Road to Wikipedia ==

I am one who believes that the growth of Conservapedia will have a wonderful and mystical effect, on both the readers, but more especially the writers of its "evolving" content.

I do not think that any commentary written on Conservapedia so far, in all that analysis - supportive or derogatory - has dealt with what might yet ensue from this holy quest. And it is something I see occurring in the articles as they are being emended at this very time. Emended, I might add, not by saboteurs and vandals, but by the knights of Conservapedia themselves.

Can you think of what this wonderful process might be? Well, here is a clue. Read the Einstein article as it first appeared. Embarrassing drivel, isn't it? Read it now. A lot more coherent, accurate, presentable. So in this way, by writing on subjects, whether theologically conservative or not, and then putting the content of those articles up for analysis, commentary and even dispute, and emending the following, and then adding new and fresh material, and so forth in a dialectical fashion, well, now do you see what you have done, and what will inevitably ensue?

Contrary to the opinions of some, there are many strains of conservatism, and it might surprise Young Earth Creationists that not only are they not alone in this field, but that they are not even in the forefront. Their truths are handed down on sacred parchments, and admit of no revision. They ask for complete and utter - essentially unquestioning - faith. And this process, one in which a novice is indoctrinated with the “full gospel”, complete with everything they need to know, and with strong proscriptions against going further or emending what has gone before, is, as anyone can see, the VERY antithesis of what is being built by the wiki process.

Don't you see, brothers and sisters? It is not Wikipedia, as such, which promotes liberalism and agnosticism of every kind. It is the wiki process itself! As Marshall McLuhan said, The Medium is the Message. It is not the CONTENT of Wikipedia that is iconoclastic and rebellious, it is the VERY NATURE of the compilation of that content – and that process, the wiki structure and protocol - this is the very thing that we ourselves have adopted so enthusiastically here. And what is that wiki process but the concept of a debating forum, a learning exchange, a conversation, a dialogue, a democracy - essentially the very things that are the foundations of the United States Constitution.

Now, the wiki concept is a development of all that, much more sophisticated and advanced than any of its predecessors could have imagined. Ivan Illych, in the 1970s, could hardly have foreseen how far the concepts of learning exchanges could have come. He was thought an impractical dreamer when he was talking about communal noticeboards and town hall meetings! Now it is upon us with everything that microchips and the speed of light can give us, and far more. And it is a process that has an unstoppable momentum.

So, if Wikipedia is a natural technological progression of what are fundamental American values of plurality, liberalism, democracy, freethinking etc what then does that say about the future of Conservapedia, a project founded on the errant notion that Wikipedia’s deviations are the result of its content rather than the natural outcome of its structure? Well, it means, in brief, that in attempting to outdo Wikipedia, you WILL BECOME WIKIPEDIA!!

It is happening already. It does not require spies and interlopers. It is a perfectly logical progression. As you debate ideas, you will find it necessary to include those ideas, even if only for to rebut them. But in their inclusion will come also the bane of all that is orthodox, the serpent of comparison, of deviation. Once a heresy has been listed, and properly defined, and accurately described, why, who can say that some child may not read it and be swayed by its argument, even if covered in odium by the presenting writer? And looking at lists of different types of creationists, Young Earths, Old Earthers, Geostationers, Flatearthers, and many others, and reading of the hundreds of creation myths of various indigenous cultures, may not a perceptive child ask himself, “Well, what a lot of dispute there is out there over such issues, I did not know there was so much going on! I suppose that what Sunday School told me is the RIGHT and the ONLY Truth, like Miss Crabapple says, of course, but then, I suppose all those OTHER folk, well they went to their own Sunday School or whatever they have in its place, and they get told DIFFERENT stuff, which they sincerely believe, and I figure THEY must thing WE are the ones who have got it all skew-whiff and backwards…” and so forth. And what is that but the precursor of deism and even agnosticism, and the apology for heterodoxy and ecumenism, and plurality of every kind?

Now, how can that be avoided? Well, the nature of encyclopaedias is to be “complete”. And by its nature that makes them rather a different kettle of fish to a book of dogmatics, a catechism, a holy text “handed down”. And when you combine the innate tendency of encyclopaedias to feed the syncretic tendency over the particular one, with the naturally anarchic and polymorphic nature of the internet itself, I simply cannot see how Conservapedia can be constrained by the avowal of its simple and pure intentions. No, keeping Conservapedia pure will be like trying to herd cats - everyone has tried it, but in the history of Man, not one person has yet succeeded.

But here is the nub of my thesis. There is nothing to fear in this progression. It has been a God-given chance to advance in knowledge and philosophy. Look at the first draft of the Einstein article again. It ridicules the theory of relativity, without even understanding it. Basically, it calls Einstein a fraud and a charlatan; it all but calls him a duplicitous Jew. And look at it now. A lot more like Wikipedia, isn’t it? Perhaps even better, in some respects. Now look at the absolute nonsense on the China entry. Is this an example of the “educational, clean and concise entries” Conservapedia purports to support. Watch thoughtful, interested and knowledgeable writers transform this shameful drek into a decent article on this ancient and fascinating place. And then, we well have occasion to note, isn’t this a lot like what we had in that dreadful biased Satanic Bible “Wikipedia”? And so it will go, article by article, theme by theme, as the currents of thought, dialectical and polymorphous, turn the dogmatic into something that is more tentative and discursive, but at the same time, much richer and more interesting.

So that is the Holy Quest that God has bequeathed you. That you shall remove the braces from your brain, by the practice of writing and thinking of all that is on God’s Earth, and that, through this, you will become educated people, and not remain hicks visiting the city. That in the process of expanding your intellect, you shall become your enemy. You shall become better liberals than the liberals themselves. For you shall be holy liberals.

There is a story of a prince whose betrothed died before they could be married. After a long year of mourning, he vowed that he would build her the finest mausoleum in the world. And the grand project began. And so it grew - the columns multiplied, the ornate statues of jade, the friezes of alabaster, the hanging gardens, the avenues of fine marble, the bowers of birds. Every year, new plazas and wings were added, new windows of crystal, new treasures from every corner of the world. Then one day, as the prince - now an old man - surveyed the peerless creation he had spent 50 years in creating, he was a little disturbed. Everything was NEARLY perfect, but there was just one tiny detail which marred the whole effect. Then he saw it. “Have that removed!”, he ordered. And the workmen came and took the sarcophagus of the princess away.

And so it will, I believe, be with Conservapedia. In writing it you will find your liberation from the narrow view of what it is to be conservative, you will free you mental feet from their bindings. You will write a book to break the neck of your enemy, and when you finish the last page, you will turn to the front leaf, and dedicate it to him.
Myles Paulsen myles325@yahoo.com.au March 26, 2007 (my name here mylesP)

:"''Young Earth Creationists['] ... truths are handed down on sacred parchments, and admit of no revision.''". Nonsense. Creationists have revised a number of their ideas.
:"''They ask for complete and utter - essentially unquestioning - faith''". More nonsense. If this were so they would not allow questions at their meetings and in their publications.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I love how this person spent the time to write out such a detailed analysis of Conservapedia and you find two facts that are supposedly incorrect and only point them out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 07:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::: So? Are you suggesting that I shouldn't comment at all unless I comment on every point? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:54, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I was just pointing it out. I personally think that it's well written and accurate. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 21:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia "Leader" ==

I am '''outraged''' by the front page.

::The misinformation spread by Wikipedia just keeps growing. Even Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has given up and started his own system. Read here how the current Wikipedia leader denies that Sanger co-founded it!

'''Every Wikipedian on Wikipedia who took any part in that incident has disagreed with Jimmy and he has been thoroughly told off for what he did.''' IF we are going to attack Wikipedia on our front page, '''we had better get our facts straight.''' What we are doing is withholding some of the information in order to make Wikipedia look bad. In reality, this incident showed how '''little''' people take everything for granted, even the word of our ''exalted'' "leader". In reality, of course, he admits to being a ''terrible'' editor, and knows very little of all of the technical aspects that have sprung up around him.

Why in the world are we attacking Wikipedia on the front page anyway? If we are going to do that, why not also point out our ''own'' faults? Like the imminent bias in nearly ''every single article'' and how we ban '''Sysops''' for doing nothing but encouraging people to follow consensus? This website '''is not an attack page on Wikipedia''', and as such we should not be '''attacking Wikipedia on the front page'''. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 16:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:For those interested; Larry Sanger's wiki can be found at citizendium.com. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== oh please! ==

''Think our schools are doing a good job today? Read this racist contribution to Conservapedia from an internet address at Brown University, an elite, liberal college.'' '''This''' is front page material for an encyclopedia? Really? An encyclopedia? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Well...''this'' "encyclopedia" anyway. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
::Of course it is. Haven't you checked the title page of a World Book lately? [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 04:40, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Firearms pages==

For being a conservative encyclopedia, there sure aren't a lot of boomstick articles on here. Think I'll go make some.

It's funny, because Wikipedia, for being so liberal, has some of the most informative and detailed gun articles I've seen online. Their SKS page is like, a mile long. {{unsigned|Bagpipe}}

:::cause Wikipedia has been around for 6 years?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 03:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh pish. This is an encyclopedia by conservatives for conservatives. There's gotta be at least one WASR-10 toting good ol' boy around here besides me who believes in the Second Ammendment and our right to oust our own government by force if they get too uppity about taking away our liberties. Vote from the rooftops, I say.

Oh, and just for the record, I'm not really much of a conservative. I'm more of a gun-friendly Democrat (ironically, gun-friendly Democrats pulled in the most votes in the 2006 Primaries). {{unsigned|Bagpipe}}

Aschlafly

2007-03-30T13:09:15Z

GofG: Redirecting to Andrew Schlafly

#REDIRECT [[Andrew Schlafly]]

McCarthy

2007-03-30T00:57:44Z

GofG: Redirecting to Joseph McCarthy

#REDIRECT [[Joseph McCarthy]]

Nine Eleven

2007-03-28T00:19:42Z

GofG: Redirecting to September 11, 2001 attacks

#REDIRECT [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]