Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Conservative/Gentlemen-regarding-your-most-recent-offer

2008-05-27T20:28:13Z

JBrown: "I think a primary reason why the R-W material is ranked so low by the search engines is that it is untruthful and irrelevant."

== "I think a primary reason why the R-W material is ranked so low by the search engines is that it is untruthful and irrelevant." ==

No, I think a primary reason is that they don't openly encourage spamming social networking sites and forums with links, "Conservative". And before you wield the paranoia-banhammer: I know who you are talking to, I think you would make less of an ass of yourself if you just chatted with them over there instead of doing the internet equivalent of climbing onto your roof and shouting, and unlike you, I'm not a member there. I just got linked there during my block and occasionally lurk. Come to think of it, '''I''' should make such a shout-out page... --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 16:28, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

User talk:DeanS

2008-05-22T15:22:23Z

JBrown: Might be of interest

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
'''IF YOU NEED IMMEDIATE HELP AND I AM NOT HERE PLEASE GO HERE FOR A LIST OF Administrators/Sysops''': [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop Sysop list]
</blockquote>

{| align=center border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #f0c0c0; background: #e0e0e1; margin: 2em;"
! width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | No Ping-ponging Conversations!
! style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Archive Policy
|-
| width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations are easier to read if they stay on one page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page.
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations which have not had additions in 14 days ''may'' be archived. Or just deleted and recreation prohibited. My "castle", my rules. A 'conversation' is a group of messages delimited by a heading. Hopefully this will allow conversations to stay in one place long enough for people who are interested to read the whole thing, without leading to an overly long page. Make sure you sign your posts, please.
|}

[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive1|Archive1]]
[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive2|Archive2]]
[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive3|Archive3]]

==Block==
Changed name from Kiss20 to AndrasK as per your request. AndrasK 22:59 April 27 (EDT)

:Thanks Andras. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 23:03, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bible==
Do you know of any Bible related articles that need to be created?[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 20:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:You can start with all the red links in the [[Bible]] article. Thanks for asking. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:18, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
==Email==
I have repeadetly tried to get my email confirmation code, but I still haven't recieved it yet, as such, using the email this user, is not available to me yet--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:03, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== URGENT ==

[[Apage]] did something bad to [[Al Gore]](d*** that spam filter!!!!)

:He was blocked by another sysop. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:01, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't know how to revert [[User:MCollins|MCollins]] 17:16, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:What do you mean? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:01, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock request ==

Crocoite, could you please unlock [[theater]]? I'm not sure why it's locked (there's never been any vandalism) and a user wants to make some corrections. Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

:Another sysop unlocked the article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 23:01, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

==User==
I would like to request that you look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:FellowChristian16 This user's] page. It seems to be a large advertisment. thank you [[User:DrCB|DrCB]] 21:25, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

:I removed the references to the personal wiki. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 23:00, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
::No problem, glad I could help [[User:DrCB|DrCB]] 23:18, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== Why do you deleted Final Fantasy article? ==

I'm very curious, I check the history, you said it was vandal, and I fail to see why, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Final_Fantasy Final Fantasy article] . I know you are very powerful guy and please don't ban me, I just very curious T_T. --[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 08:41, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:The game is filled with highly offensive material and the article was not appropriate for this website. The article also attracts vandals. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 01:27, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

(Looking the history again) Oh! My bad, AlbertaFarmer mess up, he put lot '''UNnecessary''' stuffs.
I will make better version WITHOUT spoiler info and warning for famliy-friendly reason.

Thanks, I was about to make Final Fantasy article, but I was in fear of banning. Now I know the reasons.
--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 08:22, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==News==
Since you seem to be The News Guy at CP, I'll post this here...[http://wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=8225422&nav=menu34_2_10 This] might be a good story for the front page (to wit: a bunch of high school students were suspended for wearing shirts with a pro-life message).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:35, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for the suggestion Ross. The article is posted. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Feminism==
Why? It is an eloquent demonstration of the anti-family, anti-man agenda of so-called "feminists". [[User:FlowerpotMan|FlowerpotMan]] 14:45, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:That reference crossed the line from exposing feminism to bashing women. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:55, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

== Flowerpot man... ==

Drops a link to pictures of naked people in an article and gets a "welcome template" from you- and I get banned for a month making jokes about the "largely defensive weapon of gun?" How does that work? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:14, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:The welcome template was before I saw that link (check the time stamp). I'm going to review his other edits before I decide further action. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:24, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:Your "largely defensive weapon of gun" line was pure parody, and pure stupidity, which you reverted again and again after being removed. That was why you were blocked, and that kind of nonsense is not going to be tolerated here, Alice. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:41, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==McCain==

I'll tell you the same thing I told Chippeterson: If you're going to keep reverting my McCain edits, then you better remove the same information from the Barack Obama picture. And if you're going to try and validate the inequality by saying that "it's become a campaign issue" for Obama, and that he's been evasive about it, I would submit to you the fact that McCain had an interview with Charles Gibson or Tim Russert or some other such media "luminary", and simply laughed off the question when asked by a viewer why he didn't wear one. This isn't fair to omit. [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 15:50, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

== Names ==
After looking at the recent changes I am wondering if you will change the Conservaedia commandments to reflect the name rule you are imposing?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Al Gore==

Al Gore's Nobel Prize-winning theory is not actually his own. The reporter you quoted made an error.

Sometimes I think it would take an archangel to translate media "gold" ... --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:09, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Block==

Hey, I have another username and was blocked under it. I was wondering why I was blocked. The name is "Ultimahero". Please let me know. {{unsigned|BillyJ}}.
:BillyJ is a good username. Ultimahero isn't a preferred username and I wanted to get you to switch before you did a lot of editing. btw, sign your posts using 4 <nowiki>~</nowiki> signs like this <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 02:34, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

What's wrong with it, though? According to the rules, it's preferred that you use your real name, but not required. So why was I blocked for something that isn't mandated? [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 10:23, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:This was my own interpretation of the policy. I'm reconsidering this type of blocking in the future. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 12:34, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, considering that it's your own interpretation and it's a debatable issue, then will you please unblock me? [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 13:44, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 13:53, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, sir. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:55, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Directing you to... ==

...my [[User_talk:Aziraphale|talk page]], where Ed explained to me that what I thought was a defense of your actions against a charge of hypocrisy apparently sounded like I was the one accusing you of hypocrisy. I'll let you read the full conversation there, but the short version is: if it sounded like that to you, I apologize. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:47, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for the explanation. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 12:28, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== A major online conservative christian newspaper..... ==

A major online conservative christian newspaper is very interested in regards to Conservapedia's [[atheism]] article and the reporter said she would very likely do a story on it. She said her readers are VERY interested in the subject of atheism and the story that we are promoting our article and that some major Christian internet ministries have started to feature our article is a good story. I am making the conservapedia [[atheism]] article the article of the month which I think fits in nicely with the Expelled controversy. I have sent Andy an email on this matter and I am awaiting an answer. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:43, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for the info. Keep me posted. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 14:45, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== thanks! ==

for the warm welcome! [[User:Rubico|Rubico]] 09:43, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Double redirects ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:DoubleRedirects] Your name change broke a lot of redirects. I'm not sure what you want done with them, but I figured I should bring it to your attention. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 10:14, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Fixed. Thanks for the notice. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 10:23, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== hey! ==

Hi Dean! I hope you don't ban me because I didn't make a username with my first name and last initial! lol! --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 17:30, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
==Blocking rights==
Are you able to give me, Blocking rights -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 18:37, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:No, that must be done by Aschlafly. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 18:38, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==User space==
Please would you unprotect my user and talk pages Dean. Much appreciated. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 13:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
:Cheers. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:20, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins ==

Hi,

I'd like to hear your account of why my edit was inconsistent with evidence about Prof. Dawkins' credentials, and why I was summarily blocked. As it stands I'm willing to adhere to practice on this site and not enter a "revert war", but I should tell you that the University would probably regard the article as defamatory as it stands (although I should stress that I'm not an expert, and don't speak for Oxford University in this regard).

Dave

:Dave, if you want to discuss edits to the [[Richard Dawkins]] article, you can edit the [[Talk:Richard Dawkins|Dawkins talk page]] and debate with Aschlafly about suggested changes to the article. Aschlafly is the site owner and reverting his edits will definately start an edit war and I will intervene.

*(cur) (last) 15:21, May 6, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) (Undo revision 448477 by Special:Contributions/Oxymoron1985 (User talk:Oxymoron1985) - You made a bad mistake undoing Aschlafly's revert - now you will be blocked)
*(cur) (last) 15:14, May 6, 2008 Oxymoron1985 (Talk | contribs | block) (Revert - this is consistent with the bulk of the discussion and evidence in the talk page.)
*(cur) (last) 04:55, May 6, 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) m (Reverted edits by Oxymoron1985 (Talk); changed back to last version by Philip J. Rayment)
*(cur) (last) 04:30, May 6, 2008 Oxymoron1985 (Talk | contribs | block) m
*(cur) (last) 04:30, May 6, 2008 Oxymoron1985 (Talk | contribs | block) (Clarified Oxford position - I work for Oxford University. This is an authorative edit.)

:Start a discussion on the talk page and go from there. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 09:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

As I said in my edit summary, my edit was consistent with the evidence already on the talk page. It would appear that Mr Aschlafly has willfully ignored this evidence, and pressed ahead anyway - perhaps it's he who should have been blocked? I don't particularly care whether he's the site owner, the truth will out. {{unsigned|Oxymoron1985}}

:You're suggesting the site owner should be blocked? That's absurd! --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 12:16, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

What I'm saying is that the site owner appears not to be adhering to the rules of the site, and you have to question that. You still haven't told me why my edit was wrong. Your silence speaks volumes. [[User:Oxymoron1985|Oxymoron1985]] 10:43, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

== Latest News Article... ==

Hi Dean,

I have taken to heart, as best I can, guidance from many sources that I need to be less confrontational on CP. It is with some trepidation, therefore, that I point out to you that I believe you've mis-read the article that you've posted in the news section. A plain-text reading, in my opinion, of someone who writes that conservatives are happier than liberals because conservatives are better at rationalizing inequality would be that conservatives are happier because they delude themselves into believing that a problem doesn't exist, regardless of the truth.

Let me be clear that -I'M- not making that argument. I'm saying that's a reasonable interpretation of the FOX article, and as such you might not want to feature it on the front page. Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Interesting take on the article. I appreciate your non-confrontational approach.
:I have not misread the article. Your objection is not a reasonable interpretation for a ''conservative'', and thus, the article stays on the Main page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 18:32, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Well, as always I reject your judgment that I am not a conservative, as I have consistently rejected it from anyone who has said similar. That having been said, your decision as to what goes on the Main Page stands, obviously. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 01:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I know you are a big fan of the atheism article at Conservapedia and wanted to help get the article more widely known. Therefore, I just sent you an email as I wanted you to be among the first to know. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

I don't remember seeing this mentioned elsewhere (though I didn't have time to look very hard, so forgive me if it's a duplicate), but [http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080521/TUNEIN/80521174/1005/ENTERTAINMENT this] item may be of some interest:
{{cquote|Steven Curtis Chapman’s youngest child died Wednesday evening after being struck by a car driven by her teenage brother in the driveway of the family’s Williamson County home.

Singer/songwriter Chapman, who recently was inducted into Music City Walk of Fame, is one of contemporary Christian music’s most recognizable and most awarded names.}}
If not, feel free to ignore. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 11:22, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Long-eared Jerboa

2008-05-22T14:17:44Z

JBrown: New page: {{Taxonomy |name=Long-eared Jerboa |superkingdom= |kingdom=Animalia |phylum=Chordata |class=Mammalia |order=Rodentia |family=Dipodidae |subfamily=Euchoreutinae |genus=Euchoreutes |species=...

{{Taxonomy
|name=Long-eared Jerboa
|superkingdom=
|kingdom=Animalia
|phylum=Chordata
|class=Mammalia
|order=Rodentia
|family=Dipodidae
|subfamily=Euchoreutinae
|genus=Euchoreutes
|species=E. naso
|binomialname=Euchoreutes naso
}}
The '''long-eared jerboa''', like the regular [[jerboa]], is a small rodent with long hind legs and a tufted tail. As the name implies, the long-eared Jerboa has exceptionally large ears - a third larger than its head.

==Conservation==
Aside from appearance, little is known about this species, but it has been classified as evolutionary distinct and endangered: It is listed as "Endangered" on the ''2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species'' and is in the Top 10 "Focal Species" list of the [[EDGE project]].

==External Links==
*Baillie, J. 1996: [http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/8162/summ Euchoreutes naso] In: 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
*EDGE Project: [http://www.edgeofexistence.org/conservation/mammal_focal_species.php Focal Species]
*EDGE Project: [http://www.edgeofexistence.org/mammals/species_info.php?id=81 Long-eared jerboa]

[[Category:Rodents]]
[[Category:EDGE Focal Species]]
[[Category:Endangered Animals]]

Conservapedia talk:Featured articles

2008-05-22T13:27:57Z

JBrown: /* Even further downgrade? */ Yes, I'm an excitable idealist ;)

My friend are these articles that we wish to see improved or articles that we wish to have displayed as examples of articles that capture the spirit of Conservapedia? Thank you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)

: This is the list of articles that are proposed for the Main page's section "Featured articles". Please add as many as you wish. You can also object one or more of them or improve any as I did with [[I Have a Dream]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:28, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Articles should show the spirit of Conservapedia but also represent the best we have and be attractive for users of CP. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:40, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Is Bible good? I new at this so I'll have to learn a little! :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 17:07, 22 December 2007 (EST)
== Order ==
Could we have some indication of what order the articles will be made feature articles?

I assumed that Genesis would be the next one, as it was next on the list, so made some improvements to it (well, ''I'' thought they were improvements!). I didn't go beyond that. Of course, being an Aussie with little knowledge or nor interest in American politics, I wouldn't have done anything to the Republican Party article, so I don't feel cheated in that sense, but some advance notice on what will be next would be a good idea.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

: There's been no response to this query at all. And now an article that wasn't even on the list has been added to the main page. This prevented any of us from reviewing that article to see if it could do with any improvements before being posted.
: Could we please stick to posting the articles in the order listed. If someone thinks that the order should be changed ''prior'' to an article being posted on the main page, then fine, but the list should be reordered so that we still all know what will be next.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:23, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Dear Philip. In this article as in many of CP any one can edit, but there is an special team for this one. From my point of view, there is not a rule for order in the list. Dates in the year or events could have some significance to select one article. You may join the team if you like and have the duty to update it. Thank you for your interest. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:40, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I didn't know there was a team. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I'd like to be part of the team. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:37, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Great! Welcome aboard. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:50, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== As I have been "encouraged"... ==

... to get involved constructively in the site (I will save a 90/10 debate for the debate pages) I thought I might offer to help here in whatever capacity is needed (copy-editing future articles of note, etc...). However, I'm curious who's running this show? I liked the methodology described on the main page (a list of upcoming featured articles with plenty of advance notice, etc...), but [[user:Conservative|Conservative]] has brought his google crusade to this project and pushed his atheism article to the front of the line.

Without making personal remarks, it's safe to say that I don't agree, philosophically, with how he goes about his business. Please let me know if a)you'd like any help here at all, and b)if so, what role he plays, if any? Thanks, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:What happened to the funny little lines you would always write after your comments? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:22, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

::Having arrows that point at my non-standard user name seems to be "asking for it" in the current climate. ;) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:25, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

: The Featured Article is "run" by a committee comprising [[user:Joaquín Martínez‎|Joaquín Martínez‎]], [[user:Learn together|Learn together]], [[user:DeanS|DeanS]], and me (the late-comer. There was another person, but he has since been banned). Anybody can add featured articles to the list as suggestions, anybody can review and try and improve those articles, and anybody can suggest that any given article should not be used or can propose a change of order. But it is that committee that makes the final decisions on what is used and when (barring being overridden by someone higher up, such as Andy, of course).
: Some senior sysops have also had some discussion about setting specific criteria that featured articles should meet, but nothing much has come of that yet.
: You are welcome to help in any of those ways I've mentioned. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::Unfortunate timing or fate? I'm going to have to look elsewhere on the site, Philip, sorry. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 19:30, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

I think it would be important to consider this for next update:

[[Atheism]]

15:00, 1 May 2008 Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) (I believe a major online conservative christian newspaper is going to do a story on conservapedia's atheism article)

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps there should be a concerted effort to create the red-linked pages in the article? As a shop-window, so to speak. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::Fox, thank you for your very practical suggestion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Secondly, google has a measure how popular a webpage is through something called PageRank. The higher your pagerank the more popular your webpage. Conservapedia's main page has a pagerank of 5. Eagle Forum's main page has a pagerank of 5. The www.worldnetdaily.com mainpage has Page rank of 7. The NY Times website main page has a pagerank of 9. The conservative Christian news organization who has a reporter that is interested in the Conservapedia atheism story has a very respectable page rank and it is better than conservapedia's main page. Also, some Christian apologists with PHDs and websites are going to support conservapedia's atheism article. An award winning Christian author who has multiple web sites is going to endorse conservapedia's atheism article vis a vis his websites. A conservative organization with a website having a page rank of 4 has promised to feature conservapedia's atheism article. There is also other things going on as well. For example, a christian organization who's leader spoke before the National Religious broadcasters convention and whose websites had 100,000 plus people become Christians after going to the organization's websites recently linked to conservapedia's atheism article. I do think a good case can be made for keeping the Conservapedia atheism article the article of the month. It seems to be getting good endorsements and a case can be made that it could attract good editors of conservapedia. My gut tells me that it could become the next homosexuality/theory of evolution article in terms of web traffic that it brings to conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
How long is the atheism article going to be featured? [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 22:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::I hope for the month of May. I can do some of the promotional work and I would appreciate it if some people helped out in terms of the red links in the [[atheism]] article as user Fox mentioned. It does help in regards to people linking to you if you have an article with no red links. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

== Coexisting ==

Do we have an agreement? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:39, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

: I agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 00:52, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Till now, we have 3 of 4 votes; 3 for "yes". --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:01, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: You have my support as well. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: We have 4, lets restart. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:00, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Even further downgrade? ==

I'm quite sad to see Conservative disrupting this project so badly. I didn't even realize we had a new Featured Article! Why? Because it's now on the middle of the second page, under the "Masterpiece of the Week", under the "Article of the Year", under the "Popular Articles" list, without its own headline and filed under "Suggested article". Really, you might as well not bother. Nobody is going to notice. Stop pretending that people will scroll past non-CP content (painting), that article section that will not change for the next half year and the mostly static list of "popular articles"... only to check out the tiny paragraph where the actual Featured Article is.

My suggestion: Be bold, restore the Featured Article in its old glory - '''above''' the "Article of the Year". I don't care that Conservative wants ''his'' article to be in the page-1 spotlight all year long, but this site isn't just about him and his Search Engine Optimization "Operations". It's about people who come to Conservapedia and who will be bored once they see the same "featured article" all the time. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 09:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree...though not with such vehemence. :P I always used to look forward to the article of the '''month''' - not year!! A year is a really long time for one article that most people have probably already read since it is number four on search engines. I think we should change it back to article of the month. [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 09:16, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:Hey, I'm a very excitable guy with ideals, so sue me! :P And I fear the "Article of the Year" will remain on the Main Page for the rest of the year simply because Conservative wants to boost the Google ranks. It's all about gaming the system, and I have moral issues with exploiting Google's algorithms by means of linkspam, but that's an issue for [[Conservapedia:Public Awareness of the Atheism Article|another article]]... For now, the realistic goal is to work around Conservative's promotional campaigns, and that's why I'd suggest restoring the more current "Month" feature above the "Year" one. It would work much better at raising interest and awareness about the site as a whole instead of just a single article. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 09:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Featured Article: Wikipedia? ==

Why do we feature "Wikipedia"? That article screams "activism", "bias" and maybe "grudge/jealousy" and doesn't reflect well on this "encyclopedia". Anything that can be phrased negatively ''will'' be phrased negatively, anything bad that is remotely connected to Wikipedia made its way into it, and after the "Quality" section (one of the few sections that actually point out a few good properties between all the criticism), the article can be summed up as "scandal scandal scandal hoax scandal bias scandal". Which is a bit weird, considering how most of those things are fairly obscure to the everyday guy and have little impact to the site as a whole. And don't even get me started on the "Two wikifascists find someone without a biography" or "The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!" images.

I do acknowledge that the article is unlikely to change because it appears to be written mostly by sysops, so I won't even bother posting this on the appropriate talk page, but I think it's a bad choice for the Featured Article project... even if it has been disrupted to the point of being completely non-notable (see section above). --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 09:13, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Average earth temperature

2008-05-22T13:17:22Z

JBrown: Don't worry, I got your back.

The '''average earth temperature''' (about 50° Fahrenheit) is useful in determining whether [[Global Warming]] is occurring.

Conservapedia talk:Featured articles

2008-05-22T13:14:13Z

JBrown: /* Featured Article: Wikipedia? */

My friend are these articles that we wish to see improved or articles that we wish to have displayed as examples of articles that capture the spirit of Conservapedia? Thank you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)

: This is the list of articles that are proposed for the Main page's section "Featured articles". Please add as many as you wish. You can also object one or more of them or improve any as I did with [[I Have a Dream]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:28, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Articles should show the spirit of Conservapedia but also represent the best we have and be attractive for users of CP. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:40, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Is Bible good? I new at this so I'll have to learn a little! :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 17:07, 22 December 2007 (EST)
== Order ==
Could we have some indication of what order the articles will be made feature articles?

I assumed that Genesis would be the next one, as it was next on the list, so made some improvements to it (well, ''I'' thought they were improvements!). I didn't go beyond that. Of course, being an Aussie with little knowledge or nor interest in American politics, I wouldn't have done anything to the Republican Party article, so I don't feel cheated in that sense, but some advance notice on what will be next would be a good idea.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

: There's been no response to this query at all. And now an article that wasn't even on the list has been added to the main page. This prevented any of us from reviewing that article to see if it could do with any improvements before being posted.
: Could we please stick to posting the articles in the order listed. If someone thinks that the order should be changed ''prior'' to an article being posted on the main page, then fine, but the list should be reordered so that we still all know what will be next.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:23, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Dear Philip. In this article as in many of CP any one can edit, but there is an special team for this one. From my point of view, there is not a rule for order in the list. Dates in the year or events could have some significance to select one article. You may join the team if you like and have the duty to update it. Thank you for your interest. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:40, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I didn't know there was a team. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I'd like to be part of the team. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:37, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Great! Welcome aboard. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:50, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== As I have been "encouraged"... ==

... to get involved constructively in the site (I will save a 90/10 debate for the debate pages) I thought I might offer to help here in whatever capacity is needed (copy-editing future articles of note, etc...). However, I'm curious who's running this show? I liked the methodology described on the main page (a list of upcoming featured articles with plenty of advance notice, etc...), but [[user:Conservative|Conservative]] has brought his google crusade to this project and pushed his atheism article to the front of the line.

Without making personal remarks, it's safe to say that I don't agree, philosophically, with how he goes about his business. Please let me know if a)you'd like any help here at all, and b)if so, what role he plays, if any? Thanks, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:What happened to the funny little lines you would always write after your comments? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:22, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

::Having arrows that point at my non-standard user name seems to be "asking for it" in the current climate. ;) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:25, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

: The Featured Article is "run" by a committee comprising [[user:Joaquín Martínez‎|Joaquín Martínez‎]], [[user:Learn together|Learn together]], [[user:DeanS|DeanS]], and me (the late-comer. There was another person, but he has since been banned). Anybody can add featured articles to the list as suggestions, anybody can review and try and improve those articles, and anybody can suggest that any given article should not be used or can propose a change of order. But it is that committee that makes the final decisions on what is used and when (barring being overridden by someone higher up, such as Andy, of course).
: Some senior sysops have also had some discussion about setting specific criteria that featured articles should meet, but nothing much has come of that yet.
: You are welcome to help in any of those ways I've mentioned. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::Unfortunate timing or fate? I'm going to have to look elsewhere on the site, Philip, sorry. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 19:30, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

I think it would be important to consider this for next update:

[[Atheism]]

15:00, 1 May 2008 Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) (I believe a major online conservative christian newspaper is going to do a story on conservapedia's atheism article)

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps there should be a concerted effort to create the red-linked pages in the article? As a shop-window, so to speak. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::Fox, thank you for your very practical suggestion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Secondly, google has a measure how popular a webpage is through something called PageRank. The higher your pagerank the more popular your webpage. Conservapedia's main page has a pagerank of 5. Eagle Forum's main page has a pagerank of 5. The www.worldnetdaily.com mainpage has Page rank of 7. The NY Times website main page has a pagerank of 9. The conservative Christian news organization who has a reporter that is interested in the Conservapedia atheism story has a very respectable page rank and it is better than conservapedia's main page. Also, some Christian apologists with PHDs and websites are going to support conservapedia's atheism article. An award winning Christian author who has multiple web sites is going to endorse conservapedia's atheism article vis a vis his websites. A conservative organization with a website having a page rank of 4 has promised to feature conservapedia's atheism article. There is also other things going on as well. For example, a christian organization who's leader spoke before the National Religious broadcasters convention and whose websites had 100,000 plus people become Christians after going to the organization's websites recently linked to conservapedia's atheism article. I do think a good case can be made for keeping the Conservapedia atheism article the article of the month. It seems to be getting good endorsements and a case can be made that it could attract good editors of conservapedia. My gut tells me that it could become the next homosexuality/theory of evolution article in terms of web traffic that it brings to conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
How long is the atheism article going to be featured? [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 22:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::I hope for the month of May. I can do some of the promotional work and I would appreciate it if some people helped out in terms of the red links in the [[atheism]] article as user Fox mentioned. It does help in regards to people linking to you if you have an article with no red links. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

== Coexisting ==

Do we have an agreement? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:39, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

: I agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 00:52, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Till now, we have 3 of 4 votes; 3 for "yes". --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:01, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: You have my support as well. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: We have 4, lets restart. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:00, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Even further downgrade? ==

I'm quite sad to see Conservative disrupting this project so badly. I didn't even realize we had a new Featured Article! Why? Because it's now on the middle of the second page, under the "Masterpiece of the Week", under the "Article of the Year", under the "Popular Articles" list, without its own headline and filed under "Suggested article". Really, you might as well not bother. Nobody is going to notice. Stop pretending that people will scroll past non-CP content (painting), that article section that will not change for the next half year and the mostly static list of "popular articles"... only to check out the tiny paragraph where the actual Featured Article is.

My suggestion: Be bold, restore the Featured Article in its old glory - '''above''' the "Article of the Year". I don't care that Conservative wants ''his'' article to be in the page-1 spotlight all year long, but this site isn't just about him and his Search Engine Optimization "Operations". It's about people who come to Conservapedia and who will be bored once they see the same "featured article" all the time. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 09:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Featured Article: Wikipedia? ==

Why do we feature "Wikipedia"? That article screams "activism", "bias" and maybe "grudge/jealousy" and doesn't reflect well on this "encyclopedia". Anything that can be phrased negatively ''will'' be phrased negatively, anything bad that is remotely connected to Wikipedia made its way into it, and after the "Quality" section (one of the few sections that actually point out a few good properties between all the criticism), the article can be summed up as "scandal scandal scandal hoax scandal bias scandal". Which is a bit weird, considering how most of those things are fairly obscure to the everyday guy and have little impact to the site as a whole. And don't even get me started on the "Two wikifascists find someone without a biography" or "The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!" images.

I do acknowledge that the article is unlikely to change because it appears to be written mostly by sysops, so I won't even bother posting this on the appropriate talk page, but I think it's a bad choice for the Featured Article project... even if it has been disrupted to the point of being completely non-notable (see section above). --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 09:13, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Featured articles

2008-05-22T13:13:36Z

JBrown: Featured Article: Wikipedia?

My friend are these articles that we wish to see improved or articles that we wish to have displayed as examples of articles that capture the spirit of Conservapedia? Thank you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)

: This is the list of articles that are proposed for the Main page's section "Featured articles". Please add as many as you wish. You can also object one or more of them or improve any as I did with [[I Have a Dream]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:28, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Articles should show the spirit of Conservapedia but also represent the best we have and be attractive for users of CP. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:40, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Is Bible good? I new at this so I'll have to learn a little! :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 17:07, 22 December 2007 (EST)
== Order ==
Could we have some indication of what order the articles will be made feature articles?

I assumed that Genesis would be the next one, as it was next on the list, so made some improvements to it (well, ''I'' thought they were improvements!). I didn't go beyond that. Of course, being an Aussie with little knowledge or nor interest in American politics, I wouldn't have done anything to the Republican Party article, so I don't feel cheated in that sense, but some advance notice on what will be next would be a good idea.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

: There's been no response to this query at all. And now an article that wasn't even on the list has been added to the main page. This prevented any of us from reviewing that article to see if it could do with any improvements before being posted.
: Could we please stick to posting the articles in the order listed. If someone thinks that the order should be changed ''prior'' to an article being posted on the main page, then fine, but the list should be reordered so that we still all know what will be next.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:23, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Dear Philip. In this article as in many of CP any one can edit, but there is an special team for this one. From my point of view, there is not a rule for order in the list. Dates in the year or events could have some significance to select one article. You may join the team if you like and have the duty to update it. Thank you for your interest. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:40, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I didn't know there was a team. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I'd like to be part of the team. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:37, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Great! Welcome aboard. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:50, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== As I have been "encouraged"... ==

... to get involved constructively in the site (I will save a 90/10 debate for the debate pages) I thought I might offer to help here in whatever capacity is needed (copy-editing future articles of note, etc...). However, I'm curious who's running this show? I liked the methodology described on the main page (a list of upcoming featured articles with plenty of advance notice, etc...), but [[user:Conservative|Conservative]] has brought his google crusade to this project and pushed his atheism article to the front of the line.

Without making personal remarks, it's safe to say that I don't agree, philosophically, with how he goes about his business. Please let me know if a)you'd like any help here at all, and b)if so, what role he plays, if any? Thanks, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:What happened to the funny little lines you would always write after your comments? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:22, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

::Having arrows that point at my non-standard user name seems to be "asking for it" in the current climate. ;) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:25, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

: The Featured Article is "run" by a committee comprising [[user:Joaquín Martínez‎|Joaquín Martínez‎]], [[user:Learn together|Learn together]], [[user:DeanS|DeanS]], and me (the late-comer. There was another person, but he has since been banned). Anybody can add featured articles to the list as suggestions, anybody can review and try and improve those articles, and anybody can suggest that any given article should not be used or can propose a change of order. But it is that committee that makes the final decisions on what is used and when (barring being overridden by someone higher up, such as Andy, of course).
: Some senior sysops have also had some discussion about setting specific criteria that featured articles should meet, but nothing much has come of that yet.
: You are welcome to help in any of those ways I've mentioned. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::Unfortunate timing or fate? I'm going to have to look elsewhere on the site, Philip, sorry. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 19:30, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

I think it would be important to consider this for next update:

[[Atheism]]

15:00, 1 May 2008 Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) (I believe a major online conservative christian newspaper is going to do a story on conservapedia's atheism article)

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps there should be a concerted effort to create the red-linked pages in the article? As a shop-window, so to speak. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::Fox, thank you for your very practical suggestion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Secondly, google has a measure how popular a webpage is through something called PageRank. The higher your pagerank the more popular your webpage. Conservapedia's main page has a pagerank of 5. Eagle Forum's main page has a pagerank of 5. The www.worldnetdaily.com mainpage has Page rank of 7. The NY Times website main page has a pagerank of 9. The conservative Christian news organization who has a reporter that is interested in the Conservapedia atheism story has a very respectable page rank and it is better than conservapedia's main page. Also, some Christian apologists with PHDs and websites are going to support conservapedia's atheism article. An award winning Christian author who has multiple web sites is going to endorse conservapedia's atheism article vis a vis his websites. A conservative organization with a website having a page rank of 4 has promised to feature conservapedia's atheism article. There is also other things going on as well. For example, a christian organization who's leader spoke before the National Religious broadcasters convention and whose websites had 100,000 plus people become Christians after going to the organization's websites recently linked to conservapedia's atheism article. I do think a good case can be made for keeping the Conservapedia atheism article the article of the month. It seems to be getting good endorsements and a case can be made that it could attract good editors of conservapedia. My gut tells me that it could become the next homosexuality/theory of evolution article in terms of web traffic that it brings to conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
How long is the atheism article going to be featured? [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 22:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::I hope for the month of May. I can do some of the promotional work and I would appreciate it if some people helped out in terms of the red links in the [[atheism]] article as user Fox mentioned. It does help in regards to people linking to you if you have an article with no red links. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

== Coexisting ==

Do we have an agreement? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:39, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

: I agree. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 00:52, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Till now, we have 3 of 4 votes; 3 for "yes". --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:01, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::: You have my support as well. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: We have 4, lets restart. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:00, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Even further downgrade? ==

I'm quite sad to see Conservative disrupting this project so badly. I didn't even realize we had a new Featured Article! Why? Because it's now on the middle of the second page, under the "Masterpiece of the Week", under the "Article of the Year", under the "Popular Articles" list, without its own headline and filed under "Suggested article". Really, you might as well not bother. Nobody is going to notice. Stop pretending that people will scroll past non-CP content (painting), that article section that will not change for the next half year and the mostly static list of "popular articles"... only to check out the tiny paragraph where the actual Featured Article is.

My suggestion: Be bold, restore the Featured Article in its old glory - '''above''' the "Article of the Year". I don't care that Conservative wants ''his'' article to be in the page-1 spotlight all year long, but this site isn't just about him and his Search Engine Optimization "Operations". It's about people who come to Conservapedia and who will be bored once they see the same "featured article" all the time. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 09:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Featured Article: Wikipedia? ==

Why do we feature "Wikipedia"? That article screams "activism" and "bias" and doesn't reflect well on this "encyclopedia". Anything that can be phrased negatively ''will'' be phrased negatively, anything bad that is remotely connected to Wikipedia made its way into it, and after the "Quality" section (one of the few sections that actually point out a few good properties between all the criticism), the article can be summed up as "scandal scandal scandal hoax scandal bias scandal". Which is a bit weird, considering how most of those things are fairly obscure to the everyday guy and have little impact to the site as a whole. And don't even get me started on the "Two wikifascists find someone without a biography" or "The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!" images.

I do acknowledge that the article is unlikely to change because it appears to be written mostly by sysops, so I won't even bother posting this on the appropriate talk page, but I think it's a bad choice for the Featured Article project... even if it has been disrupted to the point of being completely non-notable (see section above). --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 09:13, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Featured articles

2008-05-22T13:04:53Z

JBrown: Even further downgrade?

Talk:Goat

2008-05-19T11:24:49Z

JBrown: /* Deletion */

==Deletion==
What worries me is:
# Deleting it is admitting defeat
#[[Homosexuality]] had its page views boosted beyond reality by bots, yet wasn't deleted [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:46, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't think consistency is required in responding to idiotic behavior. :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}
::See also: Opportunism --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 07:24, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages

2008-05-18T18:45:19Z

JBrown: Article title: Birth name, artist name, nickname?

'''[[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive1|Archive #1]]'''

== Capitialization of article names ==

People do realize that when the names of the articles are in all caps, this makes it rather difficult for the wiki software and thus the editors to link to the proper article. As Conservative has pointed out, excessive redirects also hurt page ranking. When you want to talk about [[blocked trains]] by typing <nowiki>[[blocked trains]]</nowiki> you are instead forced to do <nowiki>[[Blocked Trains|blocked trains]]</nowiki> to get [[Blocked Trains|blocked trains]]. This adds an unnecessary burden on the person writing the article to add a pipe link, and a redirect from the lower case version so that if someone does link it, it doesn't show up as a wanted page and a red link. This is not so much a matter of "be different than wikipedia" but rather "this is how the software works and the way to make the most use of it." This becomes even more important if non-sysops are not allowed to make redirect page links.

I would strongly suggest that administrative types reconsider the name of the article. If it is a proper noun, certainly have it in the proper case - but if it is not, let the wiki software handle it correctly.

If the decision is to remain have it upper case, I would likewise strongly recommend that this be put down, enforced, and you go though all the pages that do not conform to this and rectify them. Do realize that you will be working against the software in trying to do this.
--[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 11:28, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*No, it isn't "working against" the software at all. That is not an accurate statement. Now some editors, on rare occasions might have to do as in your examples. How often does that happen? Not much. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:33, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:: New articles, out of the past 500 that are not title caps:
::* New! Capitol punishment‎; 18:51 . . (+582) . . Boyscout (Talk | contribs)
::* New! Communazi pact‎; 16:04 . . (+37) . . RobS (Talk | contribs) (create)
::* New! Average velocity‎; 08:10 . . (+209) . . SharonS (Talk | contribs)
::* New! Instantaneous velocity‎; 08:09 . . (+203) . . SharonS (Talk | contribs)
::* New! Zone blocking shceme‎; 23:56 . . (+295) . . TimmyJdb (Talk | contribs)
:: Poking about, you've also got [[citizenship cases]], [[prior restraint]], [[parochial school]]. Look through [[:Category:US Senate Terms]] or [[:Category:Biology]] and you'll see many, many, many examples of non-title case articles. You might need to do a sysop education class if you want to change all of these and have that change stay going forward. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:46, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Linked from the main page, you've got [[mainstream media]], [[liberal bias]], [[public school]], [[2008 presidential race]], [[illegal alien]]. This happens quite a bit and is the natural way to write articles, which is the way the software best supports. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:52, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*Well, as you already knew before posting, this is something that we are doing just as you suggested, systematically changing. Originally most articles were created in title case, then it mostly stopped for a while, mimicking Wikipedia. So, does this mean you would like to coordinate this project, like Azriphale is doing with the categories? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:56, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:: I believe you are waisting significant amounts of time and energy trying to do this which ultimately will end up as a bad thing. You are making it harder for contributors to add material, to link to existing material, and for search engines to find the material in question. Aside from 'being different than Wikipedia', what is the reason to do this? How much work and education will it take of sysops and users rather than working with the software as it is designed? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:00, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*So, you are merely a troll, spoiling for a disruption? Why do you insist on saying what several Wikimedia programmers have told me is false? Title case in no way disrupts the software or makes it "work harder". It in no way impacts search engine bots, as they are adaptive, and learn. It might effect placement for a day or two, but afterwards it compensates. And that information came to me from a pretty unimpeachable source at Google. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:12, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know about search engine rankings and how "hard" the software works, but it does make it harder for editors, and it's not accurate to say that this is "not much". It's also fair to say that it's not the way that the software was designed to work. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:13, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
::I agree with Philip on this. It is much easier to put links into pages if only the first word is capitalized. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 10:36, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

: Search engines don't like being redirected. If nearly every link to multi word link is a redirect, they will slightly lower the score of those pages. Nor do they like what appears to be duplicate content at multiple pages.
: Secondly, when writing articles, it is natural to put the <nowiki>[[ ]]</nowiki> around relevant word groups. This can be seen in [[instantaneous velocity]] where the contributor was writing and then put in <nowiki>[[average velocity]]</nowiki>. To make this upper case, it would either require the contributor to write <nowiki>[[Average Velocity|average velocity]]</nowiki> or create a redirect page at the lower case version to the title cap version - something that it appears that non-sysops are forbiden to do.
: This also increases the likelihood of having two articles that differ only in case that need to be merged later. If one user created a link to <nowiki>[[Average Velocity]]</nowiki> page and another created a link to <nowiki>[[average velocity]]</nowiki> without realizing what the other had done, and then two people come and each fill in content at each page, you end up having to merge the documents later.
: This makes more work for those with the move power to constantly patrol the recent changes and move files to the one that the manual of style states.
: It is not a matter of making the software work harder, but rather needlessly making the individuals work harder at getting an article into the wiki properly. It also makes it so you cannot leverage the wiki knowledge of other users entering who are familiar with other wikis (I challenge you to find another wiki out there that has all upper case article titles).
: --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

*Is there something about the statement above, ''that the decision had been made'', that is escaping my learned colleagues and editors? Has anyone done an actual count as to how many articles exist with Title Case as compared to what you suggest? And how many existing articles without Title Case are merely re-directs from ones that began with it? Now, please move on. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:57, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

::I hate to disagree publicly about this, but I think this is going to more trouble than it's worth. We can differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia by making quality articles that are objective and reliable; capitalizing words unnecessarily isn't going to help our reputation any.

::For proper nouns, like [[Abraham Lincoln]], we're already doing it. For book titles, we capitalize all but the small connecting words: ''[[The Church of Liberalism]]''.

::But terms like [[intelligent design]] (the theory itself) are ofter shadowed by a movie or book title having the same words: [[Intelligent Design]] (the book by [[William Dembski]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:22, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed and I have talked, and he believes he has a software solution (being the greatest Mediator on the Planet) that will please everyone. Stay tuned. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:41, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I know this a bit back in time, but has any progress been made on a software solution? Or has any more formal policy as to the proper capitalization and how to create wikilinks been specified? Having it be inconsistent just leaves more work for the day it does become consistent. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 15:32, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

*If you check the other page here, Manual of Style, you can clearly see it dictates Title Case, and to not wiki-link dates. ''Unless and until'' some other solution is found, that is the decision. I posted on your talk page, asking you to contact me, to inform you about this matter, so I am happy you decided to post here, at least. If some software solution is found, the Manual of Style will be changed. As for wiki-dating, that was a decision of the Owner. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:38, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
----
This policy has been reversed, following discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=347410 here], and in line with the majority preference on both this page and the linked page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 6 December 2007 (EST)

== Saints ==

Currently there are three different styles in use: Saint, St and St. There are also unique links to various saints, like [[Paul]]. I propose that the title '''''Saint''''' be used for holy persons and that '''''St.''''' be used for places, institutions or other derivatives. '''St''' without a period to signify an abbreviation should be scrapped. Also because first names are common to many people the single name articles should be moved to '''''Saint Someone'''''. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:18, 25 November 2007 (EST)

*Good and logical points all. I agree. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:26, 25 November 2007 (EST)
: I suspect (but can't quote examples to be sure) that there are places which are known only by "Saint ''something''", so "St." wouldn't be appropriate.
: I agree, though, with dropping "St" in favour of "St.".
: As a Protestant, I don't like people like [[Paul]] being referred to as "Saint Paul", so do object to this being policy. The Bible uses "saint" of any Christian, not just ones granted that status by the Catholic Church. I do accept that simply "Paul" is not the best for an article title, but there are alternatives, such as "Saul of Tarsus", "Paul (missionary)", etc.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:44, 25 November 2007 (EST)
::Where St is used in place names, the inclusion of a full stop (period) or not should surely be determined by the name itself - that is, whether the local municipality (or whatever - eg the US Board on Geographical Names) uses a full stop. In other cases, I would argue in favour of St rather than St. . Too much punctuation makes the page look messy, and the trend is in favour of doing away wuith stops. Who, nowadays, writes U.S.A. and U.K. rather than USA or UK? Think of keyboard wear and tear, quite apart from anything else. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 06:47, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== Policy on categories: Capitalisation and singular/plural ==

There is currently no formal (written) policy on capitalisation of categories, although there has been un unwritten policy to use title case, probably in line with the former policy for article names.

Some discussion on this issue has occurred [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=350319#Page_and_category_titles. here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&oldid=349907#Categories here], and possibly other places.

At the first link [[user:Learn together|Learn together]] hinted, and stated more explicitly in the second, that there were more title-case categories than lower case categories. This seemed to me to be little more than gut feeling, so I did a rough count. There are currently 1669 categories, of which 951 comprise more than one word. Dividing those 951 categories very roughly into two groups, title case and lower case (both groups, due to the simple sorting algorithm I used, include categories that would remain unaltered under either option, such as [[:category:United Stated Department of the Interior]] (sic: that needs fixing!) under upper case and [[:category:Department of Justice]] under lower case) gives 426 lower case categories and 525 title case categories.

So Learn together is correct that there are more title case categories, although the difference is not enormous.

The advantage of lower-case names for article titles is that linking is easier, but this doesn't apply to categories, so the most reasonable thing to do would seem to be to make categories title case.

Any comments or objections? If we have/get agreement, I will incorporate that into the [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]].

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: In my opinion, your thoughts on this are good, I agree with title case for Categories. But either way, it's a very good idea to make a decision on this now, as the category listing is growing, and there should be uniformity. -- [[User:Taj|Taj]] 06:29, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: Indeed, there doesn't seem to be much sense to reinvent the wheel. We had changed about a thousand entries or so from lower to title case when that was standard we were told. There is still work to be done (a lot of it), but it didn't seem to make sense to backtrack over the same ground we have already covered. By the way, a number of the lower case categories are shells, meaning that content has basically been removed, but they still exist. May I recommend having a formal section where we can point them out to you for removal? That would seem to be wise. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:27, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::I like title case for categories, but I'll go along with the consensus. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:40, 11 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have no preference for category case. I think the choice should be what ever comes more naturally, but that might be quite subjective. Whatever the decision it should be explicitly stated to avoid confusion and stuck to. I don't agree with Learn together's point about not backtracking. If you're going the wrong way then you need to turn round at some stage. If it means undoing work that has been done then so be it. I can appreciate him not wanting to undo all his own good work but that shouldn't be an argument for not doing it. The main thing is that we get it right. On balance though I probably go with title case. One good thing about categories however, is that anyone can change them but article titles are restricted to sysops. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:15, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::::Not backtracking is appropriate in cases where there is no indication that backtracking would provide a better solution. Since no one commenting so far, including you, seems to believe that would be the better way to go, I am surprised you called me out on this issue. It's not rocket science. Let's not make it a bigger issue than it is. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:01, 13 December 2007 (EST)

----
If we are going to write a policy on this, we might as well ensure that we have agreement on something else: Should categories be singular or plural? Learn together has asked me to delete [[:Category:Musical Instruments]] because [[:Category:Musical Instrument]] already exists. But I was under the impression that most categories were plurals. What's the thoughts on this? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)

:I'm not sure any decisions have been made in this area in the past. I've seen singular and plural in categories. In this regard, if one category has 59 entries and the other has 4, I move the entries to the category that is established. In this case it happened to be singular. I would recommend a "spot check" of categories/articles that have singular or plural forms and see which way has been the most common until now. That should at least give us information to consider. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

:In looking at this in more detail, the trend is strongly to plural. Let me know when a decision has been made to make this policy and I will see about implementing changes in this area as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:04, 14 December 2007 (EST)

:The following are groups I have come across so far that fit this criteria:
: * Category:Bird
: * Category:Creationist
: * Category:Musical Instrument (of course)
: [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:50, 17 December 2007 (EST)
=== Policy written ===
I was disappointed at the lack of response here regarding plurals, but I believe that there's been enough opportunity, and not having a policy is holding up some work. I believe that Learn together is correct regarding the trend being towards plural titles for categories, although there's plenty of examples where plurals are simply not applicable (e.g. [[:category:New Testament]]).

So I've now amended the Manual of Style to include categories. If the plural bit is not clear enough, we can tweak it later.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:15, 22 December 2007 (EST)

:Thank you. I will be sure to adhere to the approved specifications. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:26, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== Books by foreign authors ==

What's the MoS recommendation regarding book titles written by non-English-speaking authors?

For example, say you want to write about Machiavelli's "The Prince" (original title "Il Principe", apparently), would you start the article at the original title or at the most common US translation? --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 18:02, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I believe the practice has been the common English translation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I guess that makes sense. :) Thanks for the reply! --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Etymologies and the like ==

I was looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrenees Pyrenees] on Wikipedia recently, and had to wade through the language variations cluttering the opening sentence:{{QuoteBox|The Pyrenees (Spanish: Pirineos; French: Pyrénées; Catalan: Pirineus; Occitan: Pirenèus; Aragonese: Perinés; Basque: Pirinioak) are a range of mountains ...}}

Conservapedia, being younger, is not replete with this sort of clutter, but it does have some. This example from [[Sin]] is about as bad:
{{QuoteBox|Sin (from Old English synn, from either Old Norse synd or German Sünde, from sun(d)jo it is true, from Sanskrit(?) es- it is) is any failure ...}}

It's not worth putting such details in a separate section (i.e. under it's own heading), but surely we shouldn't be cluttering opening sentences like this. Might I suggest that we create a template that would be an "[[etymology]] box", so that these sorts of details can float off to the right (or wherever) rather than clutter the opening sentence?

Oh, and the reason I'm posting this here is so that we don't just have a template, but we make this template a requirement.

Support? Opposition? Alternatives?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:40, 7 January 2008 (EST)

: I agree --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 11:05, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::I've created the {{tl|etymology}} template for this, and applied it to [[theater]] and [[sin]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:03, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== Titles ==
Yoinked from main page's talk: Dunno if there's a better place for it, but is there an official policy on bolding titles in articles? For example, should it be "'''Sir Elton John'''" or "Sir '''Elton John'''"?

Also for military ranks, doctorates, etc. Any titles held for life (IE, not POTUS). [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:I don't think they should be bolded. My preference would be for something like:
::'''Isaac Newton''' (Sir Isaac Newton FRS) was a ...
:or
::'''Norman Schwarzkopf''' (General Norman Schwarzkopf, also known as Stormin' Norman) is a retired...
:However, if it forms part of his actual name, then the whole thing should be bolded, such as
::'''Pope Benedict XVI''' (born Joseph Alois Ratzinger) is the current...
:[[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:01, 4 February 2008 (EST)
:: In the case of "sir", I think that my preference is to bold the title as well, as is done in [[Isaac Newton]], but probably not bold otherwise (although it might depend on normal usage). I can't give a logical reason why this must be so, but it just seems to be better, in my opinion. I will note, however, that I've ''often'' seen or heard people refer to a title as though it was part of the name, such as "My name is Dr. Fred Nurk". (By the way, I'm assuming in these comments that the person actually uses the title. There was a discussion elsewhere (Isaac Newton talk page perhaps) about using the title "Sir" when the person themself doesn't normally use it.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:11, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==New Categories==
We should elaborate on the categories section. Some guidance on when it is appropriate and inappropriate to add ''new'' categories would be helpful. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Crocoite, do you mean new categories? I think every article should have some sort of category, its part of the basic organisation of the site. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::Yes, I mean ''new'' categories. I agree with the basic necessity of categories. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::: Do you have any suggestions on what those guidelines should be? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:38, 9 March 2008 (EST)
::::Large categories should be broken down when size becomes combersome or difficult to manage. It should also be appropriate for our target audience. Personally, I try to only create new categories when I can place several articles under the new category and make a logical link within the overall category structure. One of the big shortcomings of Wikipedia is the morass of categories and navigation. Generally I have found our KISS method to be easier for casual movement. It should also be noted that one of the strategies discussed by those who oppose the message of Conservapedia was to make our category system so complex or ridiculously redundant that we lose the ease of movement of the attention of people who might be curious about what our site has to offer. Any new contributors who jump in with creating a number of questionable categories and altering current category designations before even adding new articles should be looked at carefully. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Thanks Learn together for your very helpful comments. I have incorporated your suggestions into my list below:

::::'''Appropriate'''
:::#Every article should have at least one category.
:::#Large categories should be broken down when size becomes combersome or difficult to manage.
:::#Appropriate for our target audience (conservative and Christian).
:::#Make a logical link within the overall category structure.
:::#New editors should discuss appropriate categories on the articles' talk page prior to adding categories.
:::#Categories are to be in title case (e.g. Australian Cities and Towns, not Australian cities and towns)
:::#Categories are to be plural where applicable (e.g. Planets, not Planet, but Rail Transport).

::::'''Inappropriate'''
:::*New editors adding categories without discussing it on the articles' talk page.
:::*Adding categories to articles based upon "silly" grounds.
:::*Categories in lower case (e.g. not Australian cities and towns)
:::*Categories in singular tense (e.g. not Planet)
:::*Few members in the category - it is possible to over-categorize if the category will only have a few members.
:::*A similar category already exists.
:::*Trying to use a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Conservapedia doesn't follow Wikipedia guidlines regarding NPOV.

::::This is a start. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 03:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: Thanks for the comments. I've changed Crocoite's bullets to numbers for easy reference. I have a few concerns with the suggestions, however.
:::::* Learn together says that "Any new contributors who jump in with creating a number of questionable categories and altering current category designations before even adding new articles should be looked at carefully". Well, anyone, new or not, who adds ''questionable'' categories should be looked at carefully. So let's leave that point out. That leaves "Any new contributors who jump in with creating a number of categories and altering current category designations before even adding new articles should be looked at carefully". Now this I have a problem with. I know I'm at odds here with others, including Andy, but what's wrong with a new editor's first contributions being to add or alter categories, and even new ones, ''assuming that they are appropriate''? The point we should be focusing on is providing guidelines as to what is appropriate, not whether or not the editor is new.
:::::* Requiring editors to always discuss categories on talk pages is just bureaucracy, in my opinion (which is not to say that such things should ''never'' be discussed on talk pages).
:::::* Crocoite's points 1 to 4 are all good, except of course that points 2 to 4 could be somewhat open to interpretation (how large is too large, for example).
:::::* Crocoite's points 6 & 7 are valid, but already in the Manual of Style.
::::: I'm not commenting on Crocoite's "inappropriate" points, as they are mostly just the negatives of the first list.
::::: Perhaps we should be putting some numbers on things. Something like "any categories with fewer than x entries should not be broken down without prior discussion".
::::: I realise that my comments are probably not very helpful (and of course they should be taken as being from me as an editor, not as an administrator), but perhaps I'll have better ideas after some more feedback. Please feel free to disagree with me.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:01, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Mr Schlafly seems to have made his views on categorisation clear [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Explaining_myself|here]]. If it's his wish that users can't easily find articles dealing with the pernicious nature of [[liberal]]s we should respect that. Tho personally I can't see much point in producing articles that visitors are unlikely to find due to the difficulty in second-guessing the somewhat esoteric titles for use in the search box. [[User:BenHyme|BenHyme]] 07:56, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

== City/town/county names as article titles? ==

Is there currently a defined style for articles whose title is the name of a city/town/county? I'm pretty sure that currently we have articles with the following style titles: City; City, ST; City, State. It seems reasonable to bring them all under a universal style, and in my brief searching I didn't see an existing style definition. I propose that for United States locations we use City, ST (or whatever the formal name is, if not a city; examples: Andover, MA; Town of Andover, MA; Essex County, MA). If this isn't the correct place for style proposals, feel free to move it. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 21:01, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:Right place, but wrong priority. Even more important is whether Deborah should be uploaded stub articles for cities in Texas. Better to have a [[Cities in Texas]] article than a lot of stubs, I'd say. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:06, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::It was Deborah's recent city-stub marathon that triggered the question, but regardless of priority I'm sticking with my initial inquiry. :-) See the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:California_Cities_and_Towns California Cities and Towns category] for some examples of the current diverse methods for titling city articles. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 21:13, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Good suggestions, Jinkas. Unless another Sysop objects, I like your proposed standard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:31, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Oh, I wish people would stop think just in U.S. terms! First, I'd go for "City, State", not "City, ST", as (a) (many?) other countries don't have two-letter codes for their states, so that format would not be universally applicable, and (b) the American state codes would not be as familiar to non-Americans as the names of the states. Second, and this is more of a query than an objection or proposal, what about countries without states? Do we say "Newcastle, England" ("City, Country") and "Newcastle, New South Wales" ("City, State") or "Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia" ("City, State, Country"), or what? It's probably okay to have "City, State" where there are states and "City, Country" where there are no states, but I'd be interested in other views on this. Then of course there are places with provinces or etc. instead of states, but I guess we simply treat them in the same manner as states. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Thank you for your input. I made a suggestion about US terms because it is with US terms that I am most familiar. As far as I know, other countries do not have two-letter codes for their states, so my proposal would be applicable to US cities only. Other users with more international experience, such as yourself, Joaquín Martinez, or any other of the good users who live outside of the US could certainly propose a style definition for cities in your country or international cities in general. Furthermore, although my proposal could be construed this way, I was not advocating for having only a City, ST article and nothing else. For US cities, let's put the main article (with category) in City, ST, but create City, State and City (if appropriate) as redirects. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 09:31, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Personally, I'm not sure this is needed at this time. I go with the thought that the fewer rules we apply, unless obviously necessary, the better. The fewer rules that there are and the easier that we make it to edit, the more likely people are to want to create articles, or to edit those that already exist. Many cities are known by their names alone: "Las Vegas", "Los Angeles", "Boston", etc. I think there should be some amount of discretion left to the article creator. In the event that a city, ST naming convention is adopted (or city, state) then please also make sure that the city names alone are created as redirects. An article on Nevada may make mention of famous cities such as "Las Vegas", "Reno", etc. We don't want the Nevada article to say "Las Vegas, NV", "Reno, NV". (Note: I am aware the editor can put "Las Vegas, NV|Las Vegas" but again we are adding extra levels of complexity, and the greater the level of complexity, the less likely the rule is to be properly followed.

::: These are my thoughts, but I don't wish to have this classified as an "objection". If there is a concensus that city naming convention should be adopted, then I don't want to impede that view.

::: Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:39, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Thank you for your comments; I would like to say a few words in response. I think it is important to adopt some sort of universal style at this time, while the number of city articles is still somewhat small and easy to change. As I mentioned above, a redirect from City, State to City, ST would be created, as well as a redirect from City to City, ST when appropriate (and I believe your mentioned examples of Las Vegas and Reno would be more than appropriate). I don't think this would inhibit or discourage editing as I have proposed no punishment or system of enforcement. Our users could edit as normal, and if a sysop or someone with the permissions to move pages notices an article that happens to be misnamed, they could simply move it to the correct name and establish the appropriate redirects. I think that uniform style definition in this regard will give a consistency to a large part of Conservapedia that will add to the professional appearance of this resource. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 09:31, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree with Ed. In my opinion creation of lists of stub cities plays into the hands of our detractors who like to claim we are specialists at one line articles. We don't need to make that a reality. We've worked hard to improve our reputation, and that doesn't do us any favors. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:41, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I took it for granted (but shouldn't have, particularly as Jinkas did implicitly reject this option) that this proposal to show (for example) "City, State" does not apply where the city is sufficiently well-known to just be referred to by it's name ("City"). That's why I chose "Newcastle, England" as an example rather than "London, England", as I assumed that the latter would be just "London". We already have [[Melbourne]], and I don't propose changing that to Melbourne, Victoria, despite the existence of Melbourne, Florida (which would be named that way), because Melbourne (the Victorian one) is a major world city (yeah, not as major as New York, London, or etc., but more than twice the population of Las Vegas).
::: However, there are or will be many places where just the city name itself will be insufficient of not unique ("Perth, Scotland", vs. "Perth, Western Australia", for example?) for which we should have a naming convention.
::: I'm not suggesting creating many stub articles, but sooner or later, if not already, we'll want non-stub articles on some of these places, and we'll have this issue. As it's been raised now, we might as well discuss it now.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:35, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree with Phillip that we should have this discussion now. I created [[Colorado Springs]] and it doesn't have a state because I'm not aware of any other places named Colorado Springs. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:55, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

So where does this stand? I see some discussion and some suggested improvements, but what does it take for this to be "policy?" Perhaps a few more sysops/editors could weigh in? I'd like to get to work on this (by the way, I'll need move permission to do this effectively), but I'm not the fastest editor here so it's going to take a while and I'd like to get started. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 16:50, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
: I'd like to see a few more opinions, and ones that form some sort of consensus. If we get that, I'll write it up as policy. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::I put a note on the talk page of each active sysop that hadn't already been alerted or that hasn't already participated in this discussion. Hopefully that will give us some more opinions and a uniform view of how to treat these article names. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:43, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::: You could include any non-sysops who have reasonable experience here and who might have an opinion on this. This sort of issue, being a consistency issue more than anything, is not something that needs to be decided by sysops exclusively. BrianCo and Arizaphale come to mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:02, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: The circle has been duly widened. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:15, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

My two cents/tuppence/deux centimes/dos centavos/zwei pfennigen:

An article on any given city ought to have as its title the city and the state, or city and province, or city and country.

The style for cities and towns in any country big enough to have provinces the size of, say, Colorado (USA) ought to be: City, State, Country. Use the full name (except use USA for the United States). The reason: not everyone is going to know the abbreviations for Canadian provinces or Mexican states (or Australian States, for that matter).

Exceptions: States or provinces having more than two words in their names. Thus, "New York" ought to be spelled out, but not "New South Wales."

I want to encourage city articles on cities in all nations.

Every State or province ought to have one article listing all the cities within it. Then you should break out a city article only when you can fill a standard letter page with content (text and/or images). Cities and towns that rate only a paragraph ought to get a paragraph in the list article.

I grow tired of clicking on Random Page only to see stub after stub after stub. Let's fill them out or rake them all into one article, with header redirects if necessary.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:49, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I endorse Jinka's style suggestion. However, I think it should be a suggested guideline instead of a rule. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:50, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I agree on the guideline/rule distinction, whatever that means! This will be a Manual of Style "rule". I guess the difference is that failing to follow the Manual of Style is not (normally?) a punishable offence, but having it in the Manual of Style justifies anyone else (a sysop in this case, as only they can "rename" pages) changing the article to conform to the Manual of Style. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: I agree with Philip's interpretation; see my response to Learn Together above for my thoughts on "enforcement." Whatever we decide on, it shouldn't be a stick with which to beat users; rather, it should be a way to give a professional consistency to a subset of Conservapedia's articles. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 23:00, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::My take on this would be the following:
::::::::Country, state, province are unique; each would have separate articles (Mongolia, New York, Alberta, etc)
::::::::City articles that don't have to have countries or states attached as part of the article title, as they are recognized world-wide (Los Angeles, Lisbon, London, New York City)
::::::::City articles that ''do'' have to have countries or states attached as part of the article title (Lisbon, Texas; Saginaw, Michigan; London, Ontario)
::::::::Counties would be listed as Rutherford County, Tennessee; Genesse County, Michigan; Pima County, Arizona. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:51, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree with Karajou. It would cut down on the confusion. *nods* [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 12:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Feedback requested, so here it is: I think PJR has it right tht it should be city + state/province, spelled out. In those rare cases that a city and state need further clarification from the outset, the first line of the article could be an italicized indicator of disambiguation (how many people ever used this word before wikis, I wonder?). Spell out the state/province completely.

Feel free to visit my talk page for my broader opinion on this subject, but I'll spare the viewing masses. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:36, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== Article title: Birth name, artist name, nickname? ==

Following [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez/archive5#Move_request|this discussion]], it has become apparent that there is no policy about an article title when it comes to persons.

I hereby suggest this policy:
{{cquote|When creating an article about a person or multiple persons, go in this order when choosing the title:
#If there is an officially acknowledged artist name, use that one ("Nicolas Cage" instead of "Nicholas Coppola", "Freddie Mercury" instead of "Farrokh Bulsara", "Donatello" instead of "Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi")
#If the person is almost exclusively referred to by a nickname, use that one ("Bill Clinton" instead of "William Jefferson Clinton")
#If none of the above apply, use the real name in the form it is most widely used.}}

Please state your opinions or suggestions here. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 14:45, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Charles Darwin

2008-05-17T11:02:55Z

JBrown: Undo revision 455148 by Special:Contributions/Jamesjames (User talk:Jamesjames) ...actually, this one's not wrong, but I'd rather remove that entire sentence.

[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Charles Darwin]]
'''Charles Darwin''' (12 February 1809 - 19 April 1883) was a famous naturalist born in England. He is best known for the [[Theory of Evolution]] by Natural Selection. The concept is that organisms are modified over vast amounts of time by naturally occurring processes, originating from common ancestors that lived tens of millions of years ago. Outside the area of evolutionary theory in particular, Charles Darwin was regarded as an expert on barnacles, as well as being credited with discovering how coral [[atoll]]s were formed.
==General Biography==
Charles Darwin was born in [[Shrewsbury]], [[England]] in 1809 to his parents Dr. Robert Darwin and Susannah Wedgewood. Darwin's mother was a religious woman but his father was, for the most part, a weak deist. Despite his lack of theistic religious belief, the Darwin's father allowed Charles to be baptized into the Anglican Church and encouraged him to become a clergyman. Darwin's mother died in 1817. In 1825 Charles Darwin went on to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh. There, he became horrified with the brutality of surgery before anesthesia was invented and quit his medical studies.

In 1831 Charles Darwin graduated from Christ's College at Cambridge with a BA degree in the classics and theology. On December 27 of the same year Charles Darwin departed on the ''HMS Beagle'' for a five year voyage of exploration. The ''Beagle'' returned to English shores on October 2 1836. In 1837, Charles Darwin drew his now famous depiction of [[common ancestry]] in the form of a branching tree.<ref>Charles Darwin, Transmutation Notebook B 1837:36</ref> The following year he discovered the concept of ''[[natural selection]].'' Darwin insists that naturally occurring phenomena and factors working together in blind tandem have produced nature and eventually mankind.

However, Charles Darwin originally based the idea of human evolution on a racist assumption<ref>Milton, Richard ''Shattering the Myths of Darwinism'' 1997:186,287 says "Darwin [was] openly racist"</ref>, [after God was rejected as Creator], made in the late 1830s<ref>Barlow, Nora (editor) ''The Autobiography of Charles Darwin'' 1958:130</ref>, that Fuegians (natives of Tierra del Fuego) resembled primates that he had observed in the London zoo.<ref>Larson, Edward J. ''Evolution: The Remarkable History Of A Scientific Theory'' 2004:66,67</ref> In 1842 he wrote out a ''sketch'' of his theory but did not publish it. Again, in 1844 Charles Darwin produced what is known today as an ''essay'' of the same theory more developed but he still chose not to publish.

Finally, in 1859, Charles Darwin publishes his famous theory about how life may have been produced without any aid from a Divine Creator, he titles his book: ''On [[The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection]] Or The Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life.'' In 1871, well after his theory enjoyed widespread success, Charles Darwin published his ideas on human evolution in a two volume book titled ''[[Descent of Man]].''

==Religious Views==


[[Image:CharlesDarwin.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Charles Darwin in 1880 at the age of 71.]]
Charles Darwin likely abandoned Christianity as a student when he disappointed his father by refusing to become a minister. In his autobiography Darwin wrote about the diminishment of his religious faith and Darwin also stated he was an [[agnostic]].<ref>http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm</ref> Darwin wrote the following: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."<ref>http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm</ref> However, in the 1996 ''British Journal for the Philosophy of Science'' Kim Sterelny wrote in a book review the following: "I have no doubt that Darwin was a [[Materialism|materialist]] and a mechanist..."<ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/00070882/ap020188/02a00130/1?frame=noframe&userID=80cdbf39@buffalo.edu/01cce4405c00501c2c38a&dpi=3&config=jstor British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume 47, 1996, page 641</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] provides some illumination regarding why it is maintained that Charles Darwin was privately a materialist:
{{cquote|[[Ernst Mayr]]’s recent book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of [[brain]], more wonderful than [[gravity]] as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as follows:

‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref>}}

Scholars refer to the private notebook in which Charles Darwin stated he was a materialist as the "M" notebook of 1838.<ref>Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276</ref> [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote that "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of [[Robert Malthus|Malthus]]. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist' (more or less = atheist)". <ref>''American Scientist'' May 1977:323</ref>

According to Charles Darwin the "manifestly false history of the world" <ref>ibid. Barlow 1958:85.</ref> as recorded in the Old Testament and New Testament miracles led him to reject Biblical veracity <ref>ibid. Barlow 1958:85-87.</ref>. Eminent Darwin biographer, Professor Janet Browne, sums up Darwin's views concerning religion: Darwin "mapped out a comparative evolution of the religious sense, proposing that religious belief was ultimately nothing more than a primitive urge to bestow a cause on otherwise inexplicable natural events...In short, he made no secret of his view that he did not believe religion to have any rational foundation at all" <ref>Browne, Janet ''Charles Darwin The Power of Place'' 2002:341</ref>. When he died in 1882 at the age of seventy-three, Darwin was buried at Westminster Abbey next to Sir [[Isaac Newton]].

However, the [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] states the following regarding Charles Darwin:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

There exists in hostile Darwin literature a story about a Christian called Lady Hope who visited and spoke with a dying Charles Darwin. This appears to be merely a legend, and there is no evidence that Lady Hope ever converted or even visited Darwin on his deathbed. <ref>http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm</ref>

== Darwin's Sickness and Controversy Regarding His Sickness ==

For more on this topic see: [[Darwin's Sickness]]

For most of his adult life Charles Darwin suffered from very poor health.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref> The 1992 ''New Encyclopaedia Britannica '' stated that Darwin's illness was [[psychogenic]] in origin (A psychogenic illness is one that originates in the mind or in mental condition). <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref> A 1997 article in the [[Journal of the American Medical Association]] entitled "Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder" states that the "variable intensity of symptoms and chronic, prolonged course without physical deterioration also indicate that his illness was [[Psychiatry|psychiatric]]." <ref>''Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder''" by Thomas J. Barloon, MD and Russel Noyes, Jr., January 8, 1997 [[Journal of the American Medical Association]]</ref> In regards to illness associated with evolutionary ideas a journal article in the [[American Journal of Medicine]] states that Darwin suffered from "[[psychoneurosis]] provoked and exaggerated by his [[theory of evolution|evolutionary]] ideas".<ref>"The Illness of Charles Darwin", William B. Bean, September 1978, American Journal of Medicine</ref> The American Journal of Medicine article also stated that his Darwin's wife, Emma, greatly disapproved of his evolutionist ideas and "This, facsimile of public reaction, must have kept lively his anxiety and torment". <ref>"The Illness of Charles Darwin", William B. Bean, September 1978, American Journal of Medicine</ref> According to the abstract for a 1997 journal article in the [[Notes and Records of the Royal Society]] the psychogenic hypothesis for the origin of Darwin's illness "holds the field" but the article questions the validity of this diagnoses and mentions the work of [[Ralph Colp Jr.]] MD, a physician and psychiatrist (For details see: [[Darwin's Sickness]]). <ref>http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/c5la8dhfh8v7tbx8/</ref><ref>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist06.htm</ref>

Given Darwin's likely psychogenic or [[psychobiological]] illness various [[Creationism|creationists]] have stated that Darwin's illness was the result of guilt and/or fear. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref><ref>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist06.htm</ref>

== Darwin's Reaction to Criticism of His Work ==
Charles Darwin closely followed the general public's reaction to his evolutionary ideas. In 2002, [[Richard Milner]] wrote an article entitled ''Putting Darwin in his Place'' and stated that Darwin ''"clipped, catalogued and indexed hundreds of offprints, about 350 reviews and 1,600 articles, as well as satires, parodies and Punch caricatures, with which he filled hefty scrapbooks..."''<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B62D6-7E63-1D7E-90FB809EC5880000#</ref> Criticisms of his work troubled Darwin. Milner wrote that after [[Charles Lyell]] published a weak endorsement of Darwin's work in Lyell's Antiquity of Man, "''Darwin's disappointment brought on 10 days of vomiting, faintness and stomach distress''". <ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B62D6-7E63-1D7E-90FB809EC5880000#</ref> In addition, Milner states when anatomist St. [[George Mivart]] made a negative review of Darwin's work The Descent of Man, it "triggered two months of "giddiness" and inability to work..." ''<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B62D6-7E63-1D7E-90FB809EC5880000#</ref>
== Family Life ==
Author Peter Brent wrote of Darwin's relationship with his wife Emma and stated that "Their ties to each other were linked to childhood and the very beginnings of memory. They had a common history, a joint tradition. It is hard to think their relationship a passionate one, but it was happy, and the happiness had deep roots."<ref>Peter Brent, "Darwin: A Man of Enlarged Curiosity", page 316</ref> Charles Darwin displayed a dependency on his wife that was childlike. Darwin wrote a letter to his wife in 1848 that said, "My dearest old Mammy ... Without you, when sick I feel most desolate .. Oh Mammy I do long to be with you and under your protection for then I feel safe."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar9.html</ref> Peter Brent states that it is hard to imagine that the letter was from thirty-nine year old man writing to his wife rather than a young child writing to its mother.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar9.html</ref> In their article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, entitled Charles Darwin and Panic stated that Darwin felt "nervousness when Emma leaves me".<ref>''Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder''" by Thomas J. Barloon, MD and Russel Noyes, Jr., January 8, 1997 Journal of the American Medical Association</ref> Darwin had ten children with his wife Emma. <ref>http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Browne_EmmaDiaries.html</ref>

==Darwin's Racism==
Charles Darwin wrote in his work ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' the following:
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.<ref name="DoM6">[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/dscmn10.txt The Descent of Man], chapter VI</ref>}}

==Darwin's Belief in Male Superiority==
In Darwin's work ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' he wrote the following:
{{cquote|... a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on “Hereditary Genius” that ... the average of mental power in man must be above that of women.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/24/feedback-female-inferiority</ref>}}

==Darwin and the Cult of Personality==
There is a cult of personality and type of religiousity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: ""... all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists ...".<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref> In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Charles Galton Darwin]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Liberal Style

2008-05-17T11:01:29Z

JBrown: Undo revision 455150 by Special:Contributions/Jamesjames (User talk:Jamesjames)

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Liberals]]

Judicial activism

2008-05-17T11:00:58Z

JBrown: Undo revision 455151 by Special:Contributions/Jamesjames (User talk:Jamesjames)

'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of [[Congress]] rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.

The [[Warren Court]] was prominent for engaging in judicial activism or, in a stronger version of the term, [[judicial supremacy]]. The judicial supremacy of the Warren Court claimed that segregation was not constitutional in the case [[Brown v. Board of Education]] and so therefore unilaterally destroyed an institution that was an integral part of society and widely supported in the areas where segregation was legal. The Warren Court imposed its political opinions, forcing schools to become desegregated. This action caused minorities in the United States, specifically African-Americans, to be legally equal with white Americans. This type of judicial supremacy is typical of liberal courts trying to give every person in the United States their rights and liberties guaranteed in the constitution. If the Warren Court had practiced [[Judicial Restraint]], they would have seen that the U.S. constitution and its amendments do not specifically state any requirements regarding education, therefore, the supreme court has no official powers over the states' ability to regulate and maintain their respective educational services. African-Americans were not denied access to public education and so therefore the ruling by the Warren Court is judicial supremacy at its worst.

==See Also==

*[[Judicial Restraint]]
*[[United States Supreme Court]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[category:law]]
[[category:judicial activism]]

USS Enterprise

2008-05-17T11:00:44Z

JBrown: Undo revision 455153 by Special:Contributions/Jamesjames (User talk:Jamesjames)

'''USS ''Enterprise''''' was the name of several ships which served in the [[United States Navy]]:
*[[Enterprise (sloop)|''Enterprise'']], a British supply sloop captured during the [[American Revolution]].
*[[Enterprise (privateer)|''Enterprise'']], a privateer in the American Revolution.
*[[USS Enterprise (schooner)|USS ''Enterprise'']], a schooner which saw service in the [[Barbary Wars]] and the [[War of 1812]].
*[[USS Enterprise (2nd schooner)|USS ''Enterprise'']], a schooner which served in the 1840's.
*[[USS Enterprise (sloop of war)|USS ''Enterprise'']], a sloop of war which served 1878-1909.
*[[USS Enterprise (CV-6)|USS ''Enterprise'']], aircraft carrier which saw extensive service in [[World War II]].
*[[USS Enterprise (CVN-65)|USS ''Enterprise'']] the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

The name and title was also given to a fleet of starships in the fictional [[Star Trek]] universe, with [[USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)]] of the television series broadcast from 1966-1969 being the most familiar.

[[category:Disambiguation Pages]]

Deer

2008-05-17T11:00:22Z

JBrown: Undo revision 455154 by Special:Contributions/Jamesjames (User talk:Jamesjames)

{{Taxonomy|image = deer.jpg|caption = A white-tailed doe and two fawns|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Artiodactyla|suborder = Ruminantia |family = Cervidae}}
'''Deer''' are a large family of over thirty species of even-toed [[ungulate]]s, occurring naturally throughout much of the world, and introduced to parts of Australasia. Only in [[Africa]], where deer, apart from the [[Atlas Deer]], are replaced by [[antelope]]s, are they largely absent.

==Behavior==
Seasonal movements involving migrations from higher elevations ([[summer]] ranges) to lower winter ranges are associated, in part, with decreasing temperatures, severe snowstorms, and [[snow]] depths that reduce mobility and food supply. Deep snows ultimately limit useable range to a fraction of the total. Deer in the arid southwest may migrate in response to rainfall patterns.

==Vocalization==
Deer are not especially vocal, although young fawns bleat on occasion. Injured deer utter a startlingly loud ''BLATT'' or bawl.

==Food==
Food of the deer is quite varied. In [[Spring]] and [[Summer]] it feeds on green leaves, [[herb]]s, [[weed]]s and [[grass]]es more than on browse species. The reverse is true in [[Fall]] and [[Winter]]. Deer are browsers and eat a great variety of vegetable matter, including fresh green leaves, twigs, lower branches of trees, and various grasses. They are particularly fond of [[blackberry]] and [[raspberry]] vines, [[grapes]], [[eggplant]], [[mistletoe]], [[mushroom]]s, and [[fern]]s. They eat so carefully they can even consume the fruit of [[cactus]].

==Breeding==
The mating season for deer reaches its peak in [[November]] and [[December]], as antlered stags round up females and fight for their possession. [[Antlers]] are shed after the breeding season, from mid-[[January]] to about mid-[[April]]. Most mature bucks in good condition have lost theirs by the end of February; immature bucks generally lose them a little later. Males and females mix freely while traveling together in groups during winter months, often down to the desert floor. Dominance is largely a function of size, with the largest males, which possess the largest antlers, performing most of the copulations. Deer breed in late November and early December. A buck will find a suitable doe and they will often play chase games at breakneck speeds before mating. They will remain together for several days. When antlers start growing again in the spring, the group breaks up. The females go off by themselves and eventually give birth and nurse their young; the males wander in friendly twosomes or small bands throughout the summer months as antlers grow. From April through June, after about a 400-day gestation period, the doe delivers 3 to 8 young (normally 5). Fawns are born in late May or early June. A doe will usually produce a single fawn the first year she gives birth and then produce twins in following years. The fawn, colored reddish with white spots, weighs about 60 pounds at birth. It must nurse within the first hour and stand within the first 12 hours. During early weeks of life, the fawn sees its mother only at mealtimes for feeding. Spots begin to fade by the end of the first month. They have white camouflage spots and are further protected by having little or no scent. Fawns usually stay with the doe for the first full year.

==Human use==

Many species of deer are hunted for meat and sport.

The [[reindeer]] is domesticated and herded by the Lapps of Northern Scandinavia, and red deer and several other species are farmed for [[venison]] in Scotland and elsewhere.

[[Category:Hoofed Mammals]]
[[Category:Kosher Animals]]
[[Category:Ruminants]]

Congressman

2008-05-17T11:00:05Z

JBrown: Undo revision 455155 by Special:Contributions/Jamesjames (User talk:Jamesjames)

A '''congressman''' or '''congresswoman''' is a [[politician]] who is a member of a [[Congress]]. In the [[United States]], both [[senator]]s and [[representative]]s are members of Congress, but the term congressman/congresswoman is usually applied to a member of the [[House of Representatives]]. The term "senator" is unambiguous.

[[Category: United States Government]]
[[Category: United States Elected Officials]]
[[Category: United States Congress]]

Qualified immunity

2008-05-17T10:59:54Z

JBrown: Undo revision 455156 by Special:Contributions/Jamesjames (User talk:Jamesjames)

'''Qualified''' or "good faith" '''immunity''' is an affirmative defense against a [[lawsuit]] that must be asserted (pled) by a defendant government official. ''[[Gomez v. Toledo]]'', 446 U.S. 635 (1980).

The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] established that the "good faith" defense has both an "objective" and a "subjective" aspect.

The objective element involves a presumptive knowledge of and respect for "basic, unquestioned constitutional rights." ''[[Wood v. Strickland]]'', 420 U.S. 308, 322 (1975).

The subjective component refers to "permissible intentions." ''Id.''

Typically the [[Supreme Court]] has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, it has held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the [[constitutional right]]s of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury ...." ''Id''. (emphasis added).

The "objective" standard for qualified immunity in the [[United States]] departs from the tradition of [[English]] [[common law]], which used a subjective standard based on [[malice]]. As [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia]] wrote in ''[[Anderson v. Creighton]]'', 483 U.S. 635 (1987):

:Although it is true that we have observed that our determinations as to the scope of official immunity are made in the light of the "common-law tradition," 5 Malley, supra, at 342, we have never suggested that the precise contours of official immunity can and should be slavishly derived from the often arcane rules of the common law. That notion is plainly contradicted by ''[[Harlow]]'', where the Court completely reformulated qualified immunity along principles not at all embodied in the common law, replacing the inquiry into subjective malice so frequently required at common law with an objective inquiry into the legal reasonableness of the official action. ''See [[Harlow]]'', 457 U.S., at 815-820. As we noted before, ''[[Harlow]]'' clearly expressed the understanding that the general principle of qualified immunity it established would be applied "across the board."

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:Qualified Immunity]]

Lal Masjid

2008-05-17T10:59:38Z

JBrown: Undo revision 455157 by Special:Contributions/Jamesjames (User talk:Jamesjames)

'''Lal Masjid''' (Urdu: '''لال مسج''', "Red Mosque") is a [[Salafism|Salafist]] mosque in [[Islamabad]], the capital of [[Pakistan]]. The mosque is known for it's radical teachings. Recently, the leaders of the mosque (Abdul Rashid Ghazi and Maulana Abdul Aziz) authorized their students to attempt to enforce a strict, [[Taliban]]-like Islamic law on [[Islamabad]]. This was to be accomplished by kidnapping and murdering dhimmis, apostates, and prostitutes.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6503477.stm BBC Profile - Red Mosque]</ref>

Near the beginning of the year 2007, Pakistani Army Rangers (a paramilitary group) began a siege of the mosque, and were soon assisted by Pakistani police forces. On July 3, a major gunbattle erupted near the mosque, resulting in 10 dead (9 of those being civilians, killed by the radicals) and approximately 150 injured.<ref>[http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/04/top1.htm Fierce gunbattles rock capital], ''DAWN News''</ref>

Pakistani President [[Pervez Musharraf]] has generally been lenient with those in the mosque, offering $83 and free education to any student who surrendered from the mosque. Maulana Abdul Aziz was captured while attempting to flee the mosque in a [[burqa]], a cowardly way for a leader to be incapacitated. Following his capture, approximately 1,200 students surrendered.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/08/pakistan.red.mosque/index.html Commander killed outside Red Mosque], ''CNN''</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:islam]]
[[category:pakistan]]

Sponge

2008-05-17T10:59:18Z

JBrown: Undo revision 455158 by Special:Contributions/Jamesjames (User talk:Jamesjames)

{{Taxonomy|image = Sponge.jpg|kingdom = Animalia
|phylum = Porifera|}}
'''Sponges''' or '''poriferans''' ([[Latin]]: ''porus'' "pore" and ''ferre'' "to bear") are animals of the phylum '''Porifera''', with about 5000 species known across the world. Sponges are primarily marine, but around 150 species live in fresh water. Sponges have cellular-level organization, meaning that that their cells are specialized so that different cells perform different functions, but similar cells are not organized into tissues and their bodies are a loose aggregation of different kinds of cells. This is the simplest kind of cellular organization found among [[parazoa]]ns.<ref>Myers, P. 2001. "Porifera" [http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Porifera.html Animal Diversity Web] Accessed June 20, 2007</ref>

==Classes==
There are three classes of porifera:

{{clade| style=font-size:100%;line-height:100%
|label1=[[Porifera]]  
|1={{clade
|label1=[[Calcarea]]
|1= 
|label2= [[Demospongiae]] 
|2= 
|label3= [[Hexactinellida]] 
|3= 
}}
}}

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

Eugene Boudin

2008-05-16T19:18:18Z

JBrown:

[[Image:Boudin The Beach at Villerville.jpg|right|180px|The Beach at Villerville]]

'''Eugene Boudin''' (1824-1898) French [[Impressionism|Impressionist]] painter; specialized in [[maritime art]].

''In the 1850s, Boudin met [[Claude Monet]] and did much to help the young painter find his true artistic self. In the 1860s he frequently saw [[Edouard Manet]] and worked with him in Boulogne and Deauville.'' (cfr: Eugène-Louis Boudin, [http://www.abcgallery.com/B/boudin/boudinbio.html Olga's Gallery])

 
 
<center>
[[Image:Boudin Venise, la Piazetta vue du Grand Canal.jpg|600px|La Piazetta vue du Grand Canal]]

'''La Piazetta vue du Grand Canal. (Venice)'''
</center>

== See also ==
*[[Eugene Boudin/Maritime Art]]
*[[Painting Schools]]
*[[Painting Masterpieces ]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.ville-honfleur.fr/Musee-Eugene-Boudin,0,0,139.html Musée Eugène BOUDIN] '''In French.'''
*[http://musee-orsay.fr/en/collections/index-of-works/resultat-collection.html?no_cache=1&S=0&zsz=1&zs_r_2_z=3&zs_r_2_w=Boudin%2C%20Eugene&zs_ah=oeuvre&zs_rf=mos_a&zs_mf=20&zs_sf=0&zs_send_x=1&zs_liste_only=1 Eugene Boudin] Musée d'Orsay. '''In French.'''
*[http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/boudin_eugene.html Eugene Boudin] Artcyclopedia.
*[http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2007/boudin/pleinair.shtm Eugene Boudin at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC.]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Boudin, Eugene }}
[[Category:Painters]]

Eugene Boudin/Maritime Art

2008-05-16T19:16:56Z

JBrown:

[[Eugene Boudin|Eugène Boudin]].

Beach Scene at Trouville, 1863

[[Image:Boudin Beach Scene at Trouville.jpg]]

Oil on wood, National Gallery of Art, Washington, Collection of Mr. and Mrs. [[Paul Mellon]].

[[Category:Artists]]

Rafael

2008-05-16T19:14:16Z

JBrown: Turning redundant copy into redirect. All info on this page was also in the Raphael article.

#REDIRECT[[Raphael]]

Talk:Titian

2008-05-16T19:10:49Z

JBrown: New page: ==Categorized redirect?== Why is this redirect categorized? I had assumed that this is a mistake, but I see that fixing this had once been reverted by a sysop, so I'd rather ask. It makes ...

==Categorized redirect?==
Why is this redirect categorized? I had assumed that this is a mistake, but I see that fixing this had once been reverted by a sysop, so I'd rather ask. It makes no sense to categorize a redirect since the actual page is already categorized. Also, this redirect is in a different category than the actual article. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 15:10, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Christo and Jeanne-Claude

2008-05-16T18:48:48Z

JBrown:

{{move|Christo and Jeanne-Claude}}
[[Image:Christo Surrounded Islands 1983.jpg|thumb|right|In May 1983, Christo and Jeanne-Claude surrounded 11 islands in Miami's Biscayne Bay with 6.5 million square feet of pink woven polypropylene fabric.]]

'''Christo''' (born as '''Christo Vladimirov Javacheff''' on June 13, 1935) and '''Jeanne-Claude''' (born '''Jeanne-Claude Denat de Guillebon''' on June 13, 1935) are married installation artists who are best known for wrapping large-scale objects in fabric (for example the [[Reichstag]] in [[Berlin]]).

The artists have been active for a very long time: Their first collaboration ("Dockside Packages") dates back to 1961, and their most recent project ("The Gates") was completed in 2005.<ref>[http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/bio.shtml Official biographies]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Installation art]]
*[[Architecture]]
*[[Painting]]
*[[Sculpture]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/ Official site]
*[http://www.americantrails.org/resources/art/Gates.html Orange fabric project] in [[Central Park]]

[[Category:Modern artists]]

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2008-05-16T18:42:50Z

JBrown: Thanks, TerryH!

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Christo and Jeanne-Claude

2008-05-16T11:31:20Z

JBrown: /* External links */

{{move|Christo and Jeanne-Claude}}
[[Image:Christo Surrounded Islands 1983.jpg|thumb|right|In May 1983, Christo and Jeanne-Claude surrounded 11 islands in Miami's Biscayne Bay with 6.5 million square feet of pink woven polypropylene fabric.]]

'''Christo''' (born as '''Christo Vladimirov Javacheff''' on June 13, 1935) and '''Jeanne-Claude''' (born '''Jeanne-Claude Denat de Guillebon''' on June 13, 1935) are married installation artists who are best known for wrapping large-scale objects in fabric (for example the [[Reichstag]] in [[Berlin]]).

The artists have been active for a very long time: Their first collaboration ("Dockside Packages") dates back to 1961, and their most recent project ("The Gates") was completed in 2005.<ref>[http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/bio.shtml Official biographies]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/ Official site]
*[http://www.americantrails.org/resources/art/Gates.html Orange fabric project] in [[Central Park]]

Christo and Jeanne-Claude

2008-05-16T11:30:42Z

JBrown:

{{move|Christo and Jeanne-Claude}}
[[Image:Christo Surrounded Islands 1983.jpg|thumb|right|In May 1983, Christo and Jeanne-Claude surrounded 11 islands in Miami's Biscayne Bay with 6.5 million square feet of pink woven polypropylene fabric.]]

'''Christo''' (born as '''Christo Vladimirov Javacheff''' on June 13, 1935) and '''Jeanne-Claude''' (born '''Jeanne-Claude Denat de Guillebon''' on June 13, 1935) are married installation artists who are best known for wrapping large-scale objects in fabric (for example the [[Reichstag]] in [[Berlin]]).

The artists have been active for a very long time: Their first collaboration ("Dockside Packages") dates back to 1961, and their most recent project ("The Gates") was completed in 2005.<ref>[http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/bio.shtml Official biographies]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.americantrails.org/resources/art/Gates.html Orange fabric project] in [[Central Park]]

Christo and Jeanne-Claude

2008-05-16T11:29:46Z

JBrown:

{{move|Christo and Jeanne-Claude}}
[[Image:Christo Surrounded Islands 1983.jpg|thumb|right|In May 1983, Christo and Jeanne-Claude surrounded 11 islands in Miami's Biscayne Bay with 6.5 million square feet of pink woven polypropylene fabric.]]

'''Christo''' (born as '''Christo Vladimirov Javacheff''' on June 13, 1935) and '''Jeanne-Claude''' (born '''Jeanne-Claude Denat de Guillebon''' on June 13, 1935) are married installation artists who are best known for wrapping large-scale objects in fabric (for example the [[Reichstag]] in [[Berlin]]).

The artists have been active for a very long time: Their first collaboration ("Dockside Packages") dates back to 1961, and their most recent project ("The Gates") was completed in 2005.

==External links==
*[http://www.americantrails.org/resources/art/Gates.html Orange fabric project] in [[Central Park]]

Christo and Jeanne-Claude

2008-05-16T11:29:21Z

JBrown:

{{move|Christo and Jeanne-Claude}}
[[Image:Christo Surrounded Islands 1983.jpg|thumb|right|In May 1983, Christo and Jeanne-Claude surrounded 11 islands in Miami's Biscayne Bay with 6.5 million square feet of pink woven polypropylene fabric.]]

'''Christo''' (born as '''Christo Vladimirov Javacheff''' on June 13, 1935) and Jeanne-Claude (born '''Jeanne-Claude Denat de Guillebon''' on June 13, 1935) are married installation artists who are best known for wrapping large-scale objects in fabric (for example the [[Reichstag]] in [[Berlin]]).

The artists have been active for a very long time: Their first collaboration ("Dockside Packages") dates back to 1961, and their most recent project ("The Gates") was completed in 2005.

==External links==
*[http://www.americantrails.org/resources/art/Gates.html Orange fabric project] in [[Central Park]]

Christo and Jeanne-Claude

2008-05-16T11:28:57Z

JBrown: At least some content, and a move request.

{{move|Christo and Jeanne-Claude}}
[[Image:Christo Surrounded Islands 1983.jpg|thumb|right|In May 1983, Christo Vladimirov Javacheff and Jeanne-Claude Denat de Guillebon surrounded 11 islands in Miami's Biscayne Bay with 6.5 million square feet of pink woven polypropylene fabric.]]

'''Christo''' (born as '''Christo Vladimirov Javacheff''' on June 13, 1935) and Jeanne-Claude (born '''Jeanne-Claude Denat de Guillebon''' on June 13, 1935) are married installation artists who are best known for wrapping large-scale objects in fabric (for example the [[Reichstag]] in [[Berlin]]).

The artists have been active for a very long time: Their first collaboration ("Dockside Packages") dates back to 1961, and their most recent project ("The Gates") was completed in 2005.

==External links==
*[http://www.americantrails.org/resources/art/Gates.html Orange fabric project] in [[Central Park]]

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2008-05-16T11:17:00Z

JBrown: Move this talk page, please.

{{move|Talk:Same-sex marriage}}
{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Homosexual Marriage

2008-05-16T11:15:16Z