Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:JLauttamus

2008-09-21T23:11:33Z

Horace:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:05, 22 May 2008 (EDT)}}

== Creation science ==

I see you have reverted my edit in the second sentence without discussion. You appear to have missed the point. I made that particular change because I understand the the 6000 year figure was not necessarily used by all religions. Do Hindus for example agree on that figure? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:03, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:I disagree with the point that the entire sentence is making. I don't think that most advocates of creation science believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. I'm not very well-versed on Hindu views. However, as I said in the edit summary, there are other advocates of YEC. I don't think it is correct or fair to single out Christians in that statement. If you're going for specificity, then you should qualify with all 3 Abrahamic religions. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:07, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::You make a valid point. Perhaps the introduction should first of all make some distinction between the creation science views of various religious groups before going on to nominate the 6000 year period for Christians (and whoever else uses it). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:11, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Deceit

2007-05-14T02:56:30Z

Horace: /* I intend to delete this article and start again */

2007-04-25T00:46:43Z

Horace: T-Rex soft tissue?

Tyrannosaurus

2007-04-25T00:36:03Z

Horace: Making it more neutral

[[Image:Tyrannosaurus rex.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Joe Tucciarone's illustration of a Tyrannosaurus rex (rights reserved, reprinted here with consent).]]
The '''Tyrannosaurus rex''', or T-rex, was a large carnivorous [[dinosaur]] with very small forelimbs, large hind legs and a long tail. It is one of the largest land carnivores to have ever walked the earth, measuring about 13 meters long and 5 meters high.<ref>Brochu, C.R. 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Memoirs of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 7: 1-138.</ref>

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionary]] scientists believe that the T-rex lived at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, approximately 65 million years ago, and that modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs such as T-rex. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/12/dinosaur.reut/index.html Bird Family Ties]</ref><ref>[http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ap_trex_tissues.html T Rex Tissue]</ref>

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe that they became extinct sometime since the [[Great Flood]], which was approximately 4,500 years ago.

== Fossils ==
The earliest find of a Tyrannosaurus rex occurred in 1892. In 1905, after additional discoveries of fossils, the president of the American Museum for Natural History named the dinosaur. Since then, more than 30 specimens have been found.

In 1990, amateur paleontologist Susan Hendrickson discovered the most complete Tyrannosaurus fossil yet. The fossil, named Sue, is also one of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimen discovered.<ref>Guinness World Records Ltd. (2003). 2003 Guinness World Records. pg 90.</ref>

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer has discovered unfossilised soft tissue in T-rex skeletons. This was unexpected as tissue was not expected to last anything like 65 million years. Evolutionists saw this as evidence that tissue can last that long, whilst creationists saw it as evidence that the fossils were not that old.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], by Carl Wieland.</ref>

==Diet==

T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. [[Vision|Binocular vision]] is usually present in carnivores, as it helps them see their prey from far off, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the [[Garden of Eden]] before the Fall, but afterwards they likely adopted [[carnivore|carnivory]].

Some have suggested that T-rex was exclusively a scavenger. This may be partially true, since most carnivores today will happily scavenge available meat. However, it probably was not an ''exclusive'' scavenger, as most meat-eaters must also hunt in order to survive. T-rex's jaws were also quite adaptive to grabbing live prey, and probably used them in the same way most carnivores do: bit the throat to either crush the larynx and thus kill by suffocation or through blood loss. Also, the T-rex's large body probably required a great amount of food and therefore scavenging probably wouldn't be sufficient to support its high metabolism.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547|</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Conservapedia talk:Evolution two

2007-04-25T00:22:37Z

Horace: A beginning

Conservapedia:Evolution two

2007-04-25T00:12:39Z

Horace: A modest beginning

:'''This is a proposed article, to be written by Horace and Karajou, for the purpose of writing a balanced and informed article on the differences between the theory of evolution and creation. To concentrate on this task, we ask everyone else to refrain from editing here, except as to provide good source material on the talk page. The above title is not set in stone; the article will be moved to a better title when finished.''' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Structure'''
*Intro paragraph on the subject of evolution in brief, including briefly describing creation.
*History of the theory of evolution
:This includes persons who proposed similar theories prior to Darwin
:History of Darwin's theory (it should be restricted to the theory itself, and not his life)
*Structure of Darwin's theory
*Reactions to ''Origin of Species''
*Creation as pertaining to Genesis
:how it conflicts with evolution
*Support for both
:This subheading could detail each pillar of support for evolution (possibly eight pillars), along with following subheadings which are arguments against it.
*The Scientific Method
:This should detail how it has been used to support evolution, as well as being against it.
*References and links.

The above is subject to change as far as structure is concerned. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Introduction ==

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory which seeks to explain the existence of the myriad species which are found on the Earth today without resort to supernatural explanations (such as the intervention of a God or gods). Accordingly, the theory is strongly opposed by those who believe that all animals (including man) were designed and created by such a supernatural being.

The theory is essentially based on two observations: (1) that all living things are involved in a struggle for survival; and (2) that all living things can pass on their characteristics to their offspring. It relies upon the combined operation of two processes generally referred to as natural selection and genetic mutation.

Natural selection proposes that in nature some living things will do better than others and, in doing so, will survive to produce more offspring. As a result, over time the characteristics of those more successful individuals will become more common in the population.

Genetic mutation is a process which allows for a physical difference to exist between an individual and its offspring. Differences which arise as a result of genetic mutation are chance events and most such differences are unlikely to be advantageous to the offspring.

The Theory of Evolution proposes that over a very long period of time the differences brought about by mutations which are found to be advantageous (through the process of natural selection) will result in the development of new species.

== History ==

The Theory of evolution has itself evolved over time.

It has long been observed that parents can pass their physical characteristics on to their offspring. Farmers have bred animals on that basis for many centuries and they, along with, for example, dog and horse breeders, continue to do so today.

The mechanism by which those characteristics are acquired and passed on was only discovered relatively recently, but theories have existed for some time. One such theory was proposed by Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1774 - 1829). He believed that animals could acquire physical characteristics during their lifetime and then pass them on to their offspring<ref>''Philosophie zoologique ou exposition des considérations relatives à l'histoire naturelle des animaux'' (1809)</ref>.

==References==

<references/>

*Campbell, Niel A. and others. ''Biology, Concepts and Connections'', Fifth Edition, Pearson Education, San Fransico, CA (2006).

Talk:Adultery

2007-04-23T01:38:03Z

Horace: /* Changing times */

{{protected|RSchlafly}}
==Discussion==
I'm new here. I just registered because of the filth that I saw that users 'Conservative' and 'JDMeans' were spreading. I looked in the 'Recent Changes' and saw that he was adding sexual terms here instead of the well-put and benign 'unnatural' that had been there before. I'm disappointed - I thought this was meant to be a purer option than the rest of the revolting internet filth I see all the time? New user, 50something.

:And now JDMeans is reverting my complaint. I think this is a perfectly reasonable complaint. Sysops?

:What kind of filth was I spreading? I thought I was helping. :-) --- JDMeans

All this use of the word 'sexual', and explicit references to sexual things. It's not what I wanted to find here, I can tell you that. I came across Conservapedia on some web link just recently and was hoping there would be less fllth than elsewhere on the web. 50something.

:: As far as I'm concerned, the concept "Adultery" is inherently 'sexual'. I really think the topic can't be adequately discussed or explained without the use of the word, "sexual". If you have any suggestions, let me know and I'll change the entry. What's the complaint that I'm "reverting"? JDMeans ...

Well, I certainly think the ENTIRE TOPIC shouldn't be discussed here. I have a limited amount of experience on the internet, and I can't figure out how to delete an article. But I would like to delete this one. Do we really want our children knowing about adultery? Do we really want them to listen to this filth? When a man and a woman (and no damn faggots) marry, that is a contract for LIFE. Adulterers, and mention of the Sin, should not be mentioned here. You and that user Conservative are spreading VILE FILTH. 50something.

This is an encyclopedia. Aspects of life, like Sin and Adultery, don't just go away with lack of mention. The word "sexual" is not dirty. From a Christian perspective, it is something that the Bible actually encourages: see Song of Solomon, chapter 4 and on. Insofar as homosexuality is concerned, it is as much as sin as adultery, and as much a part the darker side of life as adultery.--- JDMeans

:I don't like protecting pages, but if y'all can't cooperate with the purpose of the project then what else can I do? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Is any variant on the word, 'sex' considered vulgar on this site? -- JDMeans

::I don't have an easy answer to that, but try to think of what would be appropriate to read out loud in church. If it doesn't offend there, then it should be good here. It's not the ideas, it's the context.

::And sorry about your contribs, I actually liked your extension of the Biblical concept to the legal concept: it's a violation regardless of the sex of the married person who commits the crime/sin. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ruin trust ==
Adultery may ruin trust, but certainly not always. Most marriages do survive an adulterous affair. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:38, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gender Bias ==

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your bizarre revert - do you think WOMEN are the only ones who are adulterers? Every time I try and make the article gender-neutral, it is reverted such that it describes women being unfaithful? 50something.

::Roger, I agree with over-50 but I won't revert. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:28, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The article discusses biblical adultery. The Bible is not gender-neutral. The Commandment against adultery is directed at women. Yes, I know that other definitions are more common today, but it is just not correct to try to force gender-neutrality into the 10 Commandments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the article was titled "Biblical Adultery". Your argument is ridiculous. It's an article about Adultery, plain and simple, and it happens to, and is caused by, both sexes. 50something.

: You justified your edit with "Removing Biblical references may help you", but you didn't remove the Biblical references, and your version is incorrect. If you want to add a current legal definition of adultery, go ahead, and cite your sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

My version is NOT incorrect, and yes, I did remove the upfront Biblical reference. Adultery is practised by both sexes. If you don't believe so, I doubt you are the right person to be contributing to an Encyclopedia. Applying your own weird gender bias is totally unconstructive, and your attempts deserve a ban. Unless, of course, you can cite your sources that prove that women are the only ones responsible for Adultery. 50something.

Oh, I just plain give up. This website is about as close to an encyclopedia as is a dishwasher. With the racist, sexist and ignorant edits being made here, as well as everywhere else on this site, by users like AShalfy, RSchallfy and Conservative, there's just no point even trying to bring some balance here. You couldn't find a more stable, balanced and normal Conservative Christian than myself, but you guys are just plain ridiculous. Adultery - always committed by women. Sheeesh. Bye. 50something.

:Perhaps if we distinguished between the Biblical concept of adultery and the general "wordly" definition, it might resolve this impasse.

:I gather that in a legal or "ordinary" sense adultery is any kind of [[love]] which "adulterates" the conjugal bonds of marital love. Either spouse could be at fault here.

:As far as Biblical injunctions in the Old and New Testaments go, I'm prepared to acknowledge scholarship indicating standards which vary in subtle or significant ways. It may well be that the Bible is stricter on women than on men.

:Whether this "applies" to the modern world is a thorny question. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I am glad 50something is gone. His sole contribution was to repeatedly and inaccurately try to make the Bible gender-neutral. But Ed, I don't really like your edits either. I don't really agree that the Biblical definition concentrates much more on the woman's responsibility, and I don't think that it helps to make those sorts of judgments. Just give the definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I see you left the "Wicked Bible" story in. I don't really care one way or the other, but it is just silly trivia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:02, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::::This discussion made me smile. Thanks.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

RShlalfy - I'm back. However, I'm not 'he', I'm 'she'. And I have a question for you. Given that I am a 50-something year old Conservative Christian woman, whose husband had an 'unnatural' relationship with another woman, for which I subsequently divorced him, I'm interested to know this: since, according to your definition, what my husband did was NOT adultery, perhaps you could provide me with a term for it? Certainly the court agreed with me that it was adultery, but since you're obviously so knowledgeable about these things, I wonder what you'd call it? [[User:50something|50something]], 10.40am, PST, 4/22/07

: Did the court find that he committed the crime of adultery? What state do you live? Most states don't care about such things. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

You are stretching the limits of my patience RSchalfy. Yes, the court found him guilty of adultery. Yes, every other reference book I have ever consulted considers it adultery. You alone, you Rock of Ages, you Sage of Our Nation, seem to be the only one with your head stuck in the sand. You look ridiculous RSchalfy. Might I ask what age you are? And finally, again I repeat my question - was what my husband did not adultery? 50something.

: Was he sentenced for the adultery? Was he punished in some other way? Was the other woman married? What state was it? I live in California, where no one ever gets found guilty of adultery. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

What age are you? I've given you enough information. And anyway, my business is not the point here. Adultery is committed by both men and women, and the article should state that. Your position is utterly ridiculous. 50something

Oh, oh, this is brilliant. You just lokced the page, didn't you?! AHHAHAHHAH this just proves what an utter farce this site is. You just popped back the definition that suits you, despite it being absurd, and locked the page. If that doesn't say everything about this pointless, ego-driven site, I don't know what does. [[User:50something|50something]]

I can't believe it - you also removed my own perfectly good reference, The Catholic Encyclodia reference. You asked for a reference, I provided one. It didn't suit your view, so you removed it. Here's another one, from Christian Answers.: http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html. Your definition here makes it the nly place I can find such a definition on the internet. [[User:50something|50something]]

So now, you and you alone continue to edit the article, despite the page being locked? So, this entire site isn't a community encyclopedia, but is instead basically an essay, written entirely by you? On what basis do you think this makes your "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" a useful resource? Why don't you just call it "The Schalfly Brother's View of The World"? [[User:50something|50something]]

: Yes, I locked the page to stop your repeated false edits. If you tell me more about your husband's situation, then perhaps I can find the definition in the law that was applied to him.
: It sounds to me as if you are using this article to justify walking out on your marriage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:28, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so now you're telling me that I was the one who was wrong? You're brilliant, I'm coming around to liking your perverted logic. Yes, when I walked in on my preacher husband with his trashy girlfriend in her fishnet stockings, I was the one who was in the wrong, yes? OK, I'm very sorry, I should have tried harder, I wish I'd had your number when I needed counselling.

So how do you respond to either of these references I provided (which you've removed, before locking the page):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html

Finally, since you refuse to provide me with any information about you, you ask me for such personal details and make such slander? In my day young pups like you would get a good thrashing for speaking to your elders - and a woman of Faith - like this. [[User:50something|50something]]

:::RSchlafley, your comments here are disgusting. Whatever Leviticus has to to say about adultery, modern law AND common usage applies it to both husbands and wives. Personally insulting a woman because she was the victim --not the perpetrator -- of adultery is especially contemptible. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:41, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you for those kind words of support PF Fox. At least some here want to establish a safe, kind, loving Christian community. Freaks like RScahalfy (and a few others) do Christ's work no good, no good at all. And the immaturity! I now realise why Wikipedia is such a wonderful resource - just one look at the wonderfully fair and balanced page for Adultery there tells you it is written by people who care about ALL views, not just their own bigoted little guttersniping. I have no good words to say about my experience here, I'm sorry to say - as this is much more like what I thought would be my 'natural' community. How disappointing. [[User:50something|50something]]

:::I should perhaps tell you that I'm not a Christian, but that I do know that RSchlafly's views are not typical of Christians. Most of the Christians I know are kind enough and well-informed enough to grasp the difference between the Old Testament definition of "adultery" and the manner in which the word is used and applied today, both legally and in everyday conversation. I'm very sorry if your experience here opened any wounds and caused you pain. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:12, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Catholic Encyclopedia==
*''Discussion moved from'' [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Adultery]]
This article has been vandalised by RSchalfy, and having reverted the article to contain his own ridiculous view of adultery to be only committed by women, locked the article. If this isn't proof that this ludicrous "Trustworhy Encyclopedia" is a farce, I don't know what is. I doubt you'll ban your own brother, but this deserves it. 50something. {{Unsigned|50something}}

:So the ''Washington Post'' trumps the Book of Leviticus, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=122101&oldid=122095] is that the argument? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I did not add the Washington Post reference. I added one from the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm], and Christian Answers [http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html], both of which agree with me. [[User:50something|50something]]
:Ok, It's not certain exactly what happened, you appear to have replaced Lev. & Duet. references with the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I can't find where you put in Christian Answers cite; it's uncertain who put in the ''Washington Post'', and I see you made no reference to Spiritual adultry as defined from the Christian Answers site. Is this about right? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

No, that's not about right. Read the History. I added nothing to this article, and I wrote practically none of it either. I have simply been trying to make it gender netural. I didn't need to add the bit about spiritual adultery, since it was already IN the article. RScahlfy asked me for references, which I provided (Catholic Encyclopedia and Christian Answers), but he removed them, reverted the page to his edit, and locked it. Why is no-one concerned about this SysOp abuse? [[User:50something|50something]]

:OK, two questions, (1) you removed the Lev & Duet cites, and (2) where did you insert Christian Answers cite? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::50something, unfortunately I have to recuse myself from your dispute with RSchlafly, who is one of my brothers (and the only Sysop to whom I am related). I welcome arbitration of the dispute by RobS and/or other Sysops. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:46, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I looked at 50something's edit, and I saw nothing wrong with it. He had it written in which it was clear as to both Biblical and secular views. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::We should continue at [[Talk:Adultery]]. I'll be happy to assist in sorting out issues. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==My view==
50something's edit was on the money: adultery is bad news for anyone practicing it, and what she included in this edit happens to agree with what the Bible says about it. Now, since this is Conservapedia, and according to Andy this site has to uphold traditional family values, I strongly insist that this subject be expanded to describe what adultery means, what constitutes it (any sex outside marriage), and what should be done to prevent it. 50something is trying to do just that, and she should be given credit and thanks for it.

So, let's everyone calm down and work on making this article as good as it can possibly be. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:How does the text, "Jesus said that a man commits adultery in his heart..." conflict with 50something's claim the mainspace is not gender neutral? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Both man and woman are fully capable of comitting adultery. When the woman was dragged before Jesus in John ch. 8, where was the man at? Only she was accused of adultery, and Jesus was told the proper method of taking care of someone who commited adultery was by stoning. Now what was Jesus' response?
:::''Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.''
::Think about that here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I put something like that into the article. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=122198&oldid=122130] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:(a) The version RSchlafly wrote is unambiguous and does not make a "gender bias" claim; (b) the 1911 encyclopdia cite is a Wiki mirror, so I'm not sure we can keep it, especially in ''this'' arrticle. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, what is the purpose of adultery as pertaining to this article? Is it a "man-thing" only? A "woman-thing"? Or are both parties guilty when practicing it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::I could be wrong in mis-reading the article, but I felt, based on 50something's statements vs RSchlafly's, that the article as it stood was leaning toward the man being "not guilty" in adultery. When I quoted the Bible account of Jesus above, some authorities, as well as pastors (and myself) cite the possibility that Jesus knew they were also being one-sided with the woman ''only'' being the one guilty of adultery (and Jesus would have known everything!). And since Jesus boiled adultery down to even thinking about it, it stands to reason that every sexual act outside of the marriage bond between husband and wife constitutes adultery. So, my suggestion would be to arrange the article as to Old Testament/New Testament descriptions of what constitutes adultery, modern laws in force, and anything else...which what I think 50something was trying to do in the first place.

== Toward avoiding double standards ==

Gentlemen: What seems unclear is what Roger Schlafly meant by "Biblical adultery."

From the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, adultery is an intimate relation between two people, ''either one of whom'' is married to someone else.

The HIBD goes on to say that in the [[Old Testament]], adultery was understood in the context of a man having an intimate relationship with another man's wife, and the man involved had committed an offense against the woman's husband.

In the [[New Testament]], three things changed:
# Adultery was a matter of lustful intent and did not require an actual act. See {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}.
# Very clearly, adultery is definable as unfaithfulness on the part of ''either the husband or the wife.'' [[Paul]], for example, states that a man ought to have one wife only, and even that a man having gone through more than one wife (for reasons other than bereavement) disqualifies himself from serving in the clergy.
# [[Divorce]] was now an offense just as grave as adultery.

I suggest that the article address OT and NT law on the subject, in addition to citing legal precedents in American and British family law.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:48, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:At the risk of fomenting sectarian strife, I will second this. Unless Mr. Schlafly has a strong objection, this information should be incorporated - particularly the definition provided by the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:52, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here is the full MLA-style reference:
Michael Fink. "Entry on Adultery." ''The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary''. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, eds. [[Nashville]], [[Tennessee|TN]]: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003 (ISBN 0805428364). pp. 30-31.
--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:05, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: What exactly is the info to be incorporated? The article already addresses OT and NT law on adultery. Is something incorrect? 50something cited the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm], but that article confirms that in the Ten Commandments, "adultery meant only the carnal intercourse of a wife with a man who was not her lawful husband. The intercourse of a married man with a single woman was not accounted adultery". The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary apparently says the same thing. I realize that some people are ideologically opposed to "double standards", but it is important to explain accurately just what was forbidden by the Ten Commandments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Are you sure about that, Roger? I hold the HIBD in my hand, and as I read it, adultery means any illicit activity if ''either partner'' is currently married to someone else.
::Besides: who said anything about ''not'' explaining what was commonly meant in the OT? All I'm saying is that the term ''adultery'' is fairly broad and has more than one meaning.
::As an example of what I mean, and what I suggest, I recommend my articles on [[sin]] and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]]. As you can see, I discuss the concept "sin" in the Biblical sense and in the broader philosophical context.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's an interpretation of the New Testament by Christian author Joe Beam:

:In the New Testament anyone married to one person but sleeping with another committed adultery. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4). [http://www.familydynamics.net/sexandthebible.htm]

I don't mean to start (or prolong) an argument. I'm a guest here. But there is an interesting discussion on the differences between OT and NT standards [http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=153 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:40, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: That article says, "In the Old Testament, 'adultery' properly referred to a married or betrothed woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband. The Greek, Roman, and Hebrew concept of adultery was substantially the same. The infidelity of the husband did not constitute adultery." It also mentions that the NT reiterates the OT commandment against adultery in Mark 10:19 and Romans 13:9. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:59, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not certain anything "changed" in the New Testament; adultry was always considered wrong and evil, even ''prior'' to Moses and the Ten Commandments. Genesis 39:7-9 (prior to Exodus & Deutornomy) states,
:::7...his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. 8 But he refused, and said unto his master's wife...9... thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2039;&version=9;] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Modern law==
The article says that adultery is punishable under "modern law". Is this the case throughout the US anymore? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:03, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: The cited Wash Post article says that a Virginia lawyer got a misdemeanor conviction, and had to do 20 hours of community service. Such punishments are extremely rare and mild. For most practical purposes, adultery is now legal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:20, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Changing times==

The way I always heard it was that Judaism was updated by the Gospel of Christ, so it's probably safe to say that the "male exemption" of the Old Testament was in force then.

But does it still apply to the people of God in modern times? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:I just don't see where a male exemption occurs (KJV); can you be more specific? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Me neither, but I've been brainwashed by feminists. You might ask RSchlafly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:18, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I wouldn't call it a "male exemption". A man who has sexual intercourse with another man's wife was guilty of adultery. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::: But what about a married man who had relations with an umarried woman? Any adultery there? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes; unfaithfulness is adultry, be it carnel or spiritual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I'd like to see RSchlafly's answer to that one. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 21:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-04-23T01:00:19Z

Horace: /* Not me */

{|class="table"
<center><big>Geo.plrd</big> 
Archives
 
[[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive1|1]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive2|2]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive3|3]] [[User:Geo.plrd/Archive4|4]]
</center>

|<center>Current messages</center>

== I just voted for you too ==

I just voted for you too. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== usual crowd ==

A lot of the usual crowd has or will be blocked from Conservapedia via the 90/10 rule. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:22, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Not me ==

I didn't lock my talk page. How could I. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:55, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'd appreciate it if you would unlock it. I hadn't noticed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:56, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-04-23T00:56:52Z

Horace: /* Not me */

{|class="table"
<center><big>Geo.plrd</big> 
Archives
 
[[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive1|1]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive2|2]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive3|3]] [[User:Geo.plrd/Archive4|4]]
</center>

|<center>Current messages</center>

== I just voted for you too ==

I just voted for you too. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== usual crowd ==

A lot of the usual crowd has or will be blocked from Conservapedia via the 90/10 rule. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:22, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Not me ==

I didn't lock me talk page. How could I. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:55, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'd appreciate it if you would unlock it. I hadn't noticed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:56, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Geo.plrd

2007-04-23T00:55:37Z

Horace: Not me

{|class="table"
<center><big>Geo.plrd</big> 
Archives
 
[[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive1|1]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive2|2]] [[User_talk:Geo.plrd/Archive3|3]] [[User:Geo.plrd/Archive4|4]]
</center>

|<center>Current messages</center>

== I just voted for you too ==

I just voted for you too. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== usual crowd ==

A lot of the usual crowd has or will be blocked from Conservapedia via the 90/10 rule. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:22, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Not me ==

I didn't lock me talk page. How could I. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:55, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-23T00:17:46Z

Horace: HELLO? HELLO?

[[User_talk:CPanel/Archive1|Archive 1]]

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population....

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Restore of edit ==

After the decision was made, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=96126&oldid=96125 this edit] removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution decision ==

Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I 2nd this motion. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== TOE ==

Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Age of the earth ===
Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:
<blockquote>
This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating ''does not'' "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of [[your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
::Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
::But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=%28Talk.Origins%29_Isochron_date_of_young_Grand_Canyon_lava_is_excessively_old&oldid=41870 (Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old]." ''CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science''. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the ''coup de grâce'' to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article [[Theory of evolution]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

If the RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy regarding unsubstantiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members.
And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Macroevolution article - request a ruling ==

I am writing to you regarding the current [[Macroevolution]] article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the [[Theory of evolution]] article I would like you to rule on this subject.

Currently the article has these statements:

"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."

Next the article has a section entitled:

"Methods of Macroevolution"

This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.

If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, you have taken the above out of context. The very first line stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process, in other words an idea not a fact. The next line was what you posted above. It seems that you misunderstood the context of the paragraph. The second line about the three fields would not be in opposition to any stance on conservapedia due to the first line stating that macroevolution is an idea not a fact. To not say that the three fields did not provide information would be a lie, where did the idea come from? I do not see how the methods of macroevolution could be a problem considering the number of pages on the site that use methods. There is no double mindedness between macroevolution and ToE on this cite because the macroevolution makes no claims of its stance on rather it is fact or fiction it is just a description of what scientists would consider macroevolution. My statements were cited, from university sources not from freelance websites, and no claims were made as to if macroevolution was fact or fiction, this was due to a chat with Ed Poor about keeping the edits open and placing ideology into the page, let the reader decide. If this page was to be a problem then perhaps those students that planned to take the SAT should look else where for as it stands the previous edit, before I added information, would not have given enough information to make the article a use (hence the reason for the VSA flag at the top of the page, that conservative moved after he reverted my edits).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?

:I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I concur with Philip and Tsumetai. Along with missing the point of both "encyclopedia" and "wiki", the user has refused to engage in any other dispute resolution avenue. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[Adult stem cell]]" ==

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adult_stem_cells&diff=107840&oldid=107836 this comparison] to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[homosexuality]]" ==

I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== What happened to my request? ==

1. What happened to my request that you explain your bizarre decision in relation to the Theory of evolution page?

2. Could you explain your bizarre decision in relation to theTheory of evolution page? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOP/Adminstrator Hojimachong is making big pro-evolutionist changes in the article now ==
'''''Statistics are inherently liberal''''' --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

Admistrator Hojimachong is now making big pro-evolutionist changes in the changes in the [[Theory of evolution]] article as can be seen by this edit: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=109823&oldid=109791 The panel clearly said they did not want the direction of the article changed. Hojimachong seems to think the panel's decision is irrelevant and that Hojimachong is the one to decide. I do not think this is the way things should be done. I do think something needs to be done about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:For the love of a higher power, they aren't "pro-evo", they're statistical facts. Statistics (i.e. "scientists agree that the ToE is valid") aren't evil. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Please take your alleged evolutionists "facts" to Wikipedia where they have a much lower threshhold in terms of what is considered a fact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::: LOL! Conservative, take a math class. Learn the definition of "statistic". It's an ''indisuputable fact'' that the godless, liberal, atheist scientific community has a virtually unanimous consensus about this evil, godless theory called "evolution". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::The irony is almost too much to bear. It must really irk you that no one is actually reading your, uh, diatribe, but that thousands read the one on wikipedia. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the [[Theory of evolution]] article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a ''conserevative'' encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
::::::::::You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::::::::::Do I have to separate you two?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is ''possible'' to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Panel submissions ==

I was under the impression that submitting a case to the panel was supposed to be a last resort for major conflicts only. If this is still the case, I suggest setting some rules to prevent abuse; after all, you are all students and you have better things to do with your time than adjudicate every petty squabble which comes up. To that end, I submit the following:

No user should submit an article to the panel for review without first:

*clearly stating their objections on the talk page of the relevant article
*inviting discussion of these objections
*inviting comments from any editors involved in the dispute, on their personal talk pages

If the discussion does not lead to a conclusion, the user should then:

*propose at least one possible solution to the conflict ('everybody do it my way' does not count)
*request the opinion of at least one '''neutral''' sysop

I don't think this is particularly radical; it's just good editorial practice in a group environment. If users can learn to solve their disputes through discussion, the project as a whole can only benefit.

I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting [[CP:RFA]] and [[CP:RFB]] for official ratification ==

I hereby submit the pages linked to by the above redirects for transformation into official Conservapedia policies, where the result of the vote is binding. The current state of the RfA process simply takes potential applicants to an enitity, whether it be Sharon, Philip, Andy, or the Panel, which can decide, regardless of the community's desire, whether an individual becomes a sysop. I respectfully ask that you consider my request. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 06:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

----

==References tag to allow references to be used above; please do not remove.==
<references/>

== HELLO? HELLO? ==

Is there anybody in there? I posted two questions above and have received no response. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Battle of Hastings

2007-04-22T08:50:50Z

Horace: Grammar

[[Image:Battle_of_Hastings.gif|thumb|450px|Map of the Battle of Hastings]]
'''The Battle of Hastings''' was fought on October 14, 1066, between [[William the Conqueror]], Duke of Normandy and [[Harold Godwinson]], Earl of Wessex. The issue of succession to the English throne provided the basis for the battle, with King Edward the Confessor dying without heirs. Both William and Harold claimed the English throne, the eventual result being the invasion of England by William to assert his claim. The battle ended with victory for the Normans due largely to the poor discipline of the Anglo-Saxon militia (known as the fjord) that formed a large part of Harold's army. The Anglo-Saxon army had also been weakened due to fighting with a Norwegian invasion led by Harald Hardrada before encountering the Norman army, as well as the difficult march from the north of England (where the Norwegians attacked) to the south of England (site of the Norman landings). The battle led to the founding of a French speaking dynasty and aristocracy in England. The numbering of English monarchs begins with the Conquest brought about by the Battle of Hastings. The battle is portrayed in the famous "Bayeux Tapestry." The battle was not fought at Hastings but at the nearby town of Battle, hence this word is now used for large military actions.

[[Category:wars]]

Submarine

2007-04-22T02:03:32Z

Horace: Added CSS Hunley

[[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.

*An 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]]

Talk:French Wars

2007-04-21T04:57:56Z

Horace:

I think Frances involvement in WWI and WWII should be mentioned and how they were not exactly great warriors in these wars should be mentioned. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Just a wild guess: You're not of French lineage?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:38, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::I said I would not give any clues regarding my identity. Regardless, I do think that WWI and WWII were big wars and French involvement and what happened in regards to their involvement should be mentioned. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::I don't actually care WHO you are, I just made a rhetorical comment because someone of French lineage would find such an article highly offensive. And yes, it slab quotes a ton of material from wikipedia.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't know what to do about the "slab quotes". I don't know what you mean by "slab quotes". If it quotes too closely from Wikipedia tell Aschlafly I guess. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::In fact, Conservative, the French acquitted themselves extremely well in WWI. There seems to be a recent myth that the French have always been unsuccessful as warriors. I would have thought that anyone with even a minimal knowledge of history would know that that was not true. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:57, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Horatio Nelson

2007-04-21T00:34:16Z

Horace: Admiral John Jervis (1st Earl of St Vincent) was in command at Cape St Vincent (although Nelson did serve with distinction).

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Nelson1.jpg|250px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|Horatio Nelson
Viscount Nelson of the Nile and Burnham Thorpe
|-
|Born
|September 29, 1758
|-
|Died
|October 21, 1805
|-
|}
Vice-Admiral '''Horatio Nelson''' was a British naval commander during the wars with Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, and the winner of important victories in the battles of the Nile (1798), Copenhagen (1801), and the crucial battle at Trafalgar (1805), where he was killed onboard his flagship HMS ''Victory'' at the moment of his greatest triumph. His private life was known for his love affair with Lady Emma Hamilton, while both were married to other people.

==Early years==
Horatio Nelson was the sixth of eleven children born to Edmund and Catherine Nelson. Edmund was the rector of the parish of Burnham Thorpe, Norfolk, England. Although of good manners and scholarly, the Nelsons were poor. Preferment for an education was difficult, but it was hoped that a distant relation, Lord Walpole, could provide the means. However, Catherine’s brother, at the time a captain in the Royal Navy, made the decisive act and agreed to take the boy, then aged twelve, to sea after his mother’s death (Durant, pg. 518).

He was a slight boy, not physically strong, and often sick, but at every opportunity he would seize the initiative and learn all he could. He had to learn how ships operate, and as a midshipman, how to lead men. But there were also times for adventure, such as his first voyage to the West Indies and a scientific expedition to the Arctic in 1773, where, on the ice, he stood up to an advancing polar bear; only a shot from a ship’s gun prevented the bear from killing him and drove it away. He was reprimanded for leaving the ship without authorization (Durant, pg. 518).

==Mediteranean service==
===Lady Hamilton===
==Cape St. Vincent==
==The Nile==
==Naples==
==Copenhagen==
==Trafalgar==
[[Image:Trafalgar1.JPG|thumb|200px|left|''Battle of Trafalgar'' by J.M.W. Turner, 1822-24.]]

==Grief==
==Assessment==

[[Image:Lord_Nelson_England_Expects.JPG|thumb|250px|left|<center>Nelson's famous semaphore declaration, memorialized in [[Trafalgar Square]].</center>]]
[[Image:Lord_Nelson.JPG|thumb|300px|left|<center>Nelson's death scene, memorialized in [[Trafalgar Square]].</center>]]
==References==
*Durant, Will and Ariel. ''The Age of Napoleon'', Simon And Schuster, New York (1975).

==Links==
*[http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nelson/introduction.htm British National Archives: Biography of Nelson]
*[http://www.snr.org.uk/victory.htm Society for Nautical Research: HMS Victory]
*[http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/the_battle_of_trafalgar.htm Battle of Trafalgar]
*[http://www.aboutnelson.co.uk/englandexpcts.htm Nelson's famous signal at Trafalgar]

[[Category:Military Commanders|Nelson, Horatio]]

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-04-16T01:19:59Z

Horace: /* The 90/10 rule */

==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)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-04-16T00:11:27Z

Horace: /* The 90/10 rule */

==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)

== "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'''!

User talk:CPanel

2007-04-15T23:25:35Z

Horace: What happened to my request?

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

:Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution ==

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and '''it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article. '''

'''Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:'''

"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution]

'''Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:'''

Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population....

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." <ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution</ref>.....

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." <ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html</ref> Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of life|life first came about on earth]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref> Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause [[macroevolution]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp</ref>

'''MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:'''

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==References==
<references/>

:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is ''one'' of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to [[Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory]]. Thanks for your time.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Restore of edit ==

After the decision was made, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=96126&oldid=96125 this edit] removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution decision ==

Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I 2nd this motion. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== TOE ==

Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Age of the earth ===
Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:
<blockquote>
This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating ''does not'' "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of [[your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
::Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
::But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. [[User:Splodge|Splodge]] 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=%28Talk.Origins%29_Isochron_date_of_young_Grand_Canyon_lava_is_excessively_old&oldid=41870 (Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old]." ''CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science''. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the ''coup de grâce'' to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article [[Theory of evolution]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Macroevolution article - request a ruling ==

I am writing to you regarding the current [[Macroevolution]] article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the [[Theory of evolution]] article I would like you to rule on this subject.

Currently the article has these statements:

"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."

Next the article has a section entitled:

"Methods of Macroevolution"

This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.

If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?

:I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I concur with Philip and Tsumetai. Along with missing the point of both "encyclopedia" and "wiki", the user has refused to engage in any other dispute resolution avenue. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[Adult stem cell]]" ==

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adult_stem_cells&diff=107840&oldid=107836 this comparison] to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting "[[homosexuality]]" ==

I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== What happened to my request? ==

1. What happened to my request that you explain your bizarre decision in relation to the Theory of evolution page?

2. Could you explain your bizarre decision in relation to theTheory of evolution page? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Breast cancer

2007-04-15T23:08:44Z

Horace: /* Risk factors */ Reinserted abortion compromise.

Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in women, striking 1 in 7.5 women during their lifetime in America, where the rate is among the highest in the world. Breast cancer is the most fatal cancer for women after lung cancer. The number of cases has significantly increased in America since the early 1970s, when [[abortion]] was legalized. Although it is far less common in men, breast cancer can also affect them.<ref> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/malebreast/healthprofessional</ref>

==Risk factors==

Many factors may affect the incidence of breast cancer in any given population of women including:

* diet <ref> http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0104023.htm </ref>
* racial grouping <ref> http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm </ref>
* obesity <ref> http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html </ref>
* family history if such a history involves having several generations affected by breast cancer or having many relatives diagnosed with breast cancer at less than 50 years old <ref> http://www.breastcancer.org/cmn_who_indrisk.html </ref>
* prolonged uninterrupted exposure to estrogen (e.g. by having an early [[menarche]] and late [[menopause]] or by having no full-term pregnancies).<ref> http://www.breastcancer.org/cmn_who_indrisk.html </ref>
* age: increasing age increases the risk that at some point in her life a woman will contract breast cancer, rising from 1 in 231 (0.5% risk) aged under 40 to 1 in 7 at age 90. <ref> http://www.breastcancer.org/cmn_who_indrisk.html </ref>
* There is some controversy as to whether abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. <ref>http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=245</ref>

==Ways of reducing the risk==

Having children reduces the risk of breast cancer. If a woman breastfeeds her babies she greatly reduces her risk of breast cancer. <ref> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570</ref> <ref>http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html</ref>

Maintaining a healthy weight and a healthy diet reduces the risk.<ref> http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html </ref> <ref> http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0104023.htm </ref>

Breast self-examination carried out every month, ideally one week after beginning a [[menstrual period]], is a common-sense measure to aid early detection of suspicious changes. <ref> http://www.kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/girls/bse.html </ref> For women over the age of 40, mammogram screenings are another measure that can detect cancer earlier, when it is easier to treat. However, not all medical authorities agree on whether there is any benefit from having annual mammograms below the age of 50. <ref> http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/women/9909/27/bcam.mammography/</ref>

==References==

<references/>

Talk:Augustus of the Prima Porta

2007-04-13T02:06:20Z

Horace:

Wait... how do you '''carbon date''' a stone statue? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 00:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

How can you carbon date a stone statue? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Ooooooh good call. Sorry, getting tired & bleary eyed writing.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: My God. I just realized the full idiocy of my mistake. Wow. Accept my apologies. This is what comes of editing at midnight while reading for class.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:12, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, well, my failure to read BDobbs' comment also smacks of carelessness. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:06, 12 April 2007 (EDT)