Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Flat Earth

2007-04-01T21:51:14Z

JamesK: added refs section

The Flat Earth theory is the mistaken idea that medieval Europeans believed that the Earth was flat based on a literal reading of the Bible. They tried to convince Christopher Columbus that he would fall off the edge of the Earth, the story goes, but Columbus proved that the Earth was round by discovering America.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm</ref>

The Flat Earth theory was mostly invented and promoted by evolutionists for the purpose of making fun of Christians.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html</ref>

In fact, the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round, and had correctly estimated its diameter. Medieval Europeans knew this, and had correctly warned Columbus that he would never get to India with his limited supplies. Columbus relied on a fallacious argument that the Earth was much smaller than the Greeks estimated.

==References==

<references/>

Tuba

2007-04-01T15:57:31Z

JamesK:

A '''Tuba''' is a large [[brass instrument]], the lowest in pitch of all commonly employed brass instruments.

It is used to provide a bass-line in [[brass bands]] and some [[traditional jazz]] bands. In classical music, it is used more for its distinctive tone in coloristic effects, particularly from the late 19th century - [[Richard Wagner]] and [[Richard Strauss]], for example, employed it as a part of their rich orchestral pallettes.

[[Category:Musical Instrument]]

Template talk:Epoch

2007-03-29T16:43:57Z

JamesK:

Well, good. At least this editorial dispute can take place on one page. (I refuse to take sides or even express an opinion. I'm just your technical support guy at this point. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Ed!! Now, to clarify, there is no distinction between "evolutionary" and "mainstream" science, except that "evolutionary" is used as a pejorative here to denigrate the quality of the science, even though those using the term don't understand the science itself. Please understand and accept the distinction.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::As there have been many edit wars in the past over the phrase to use, I really think a site-wide policy needs to be set on this. Of course "evolutionary scientists" is wrong but [[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] seems to disagree. Maybe it should be brought up on [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s page. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 12:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Andy doesn't care, and if he does, he will care in the wrong direction. We shall fight them on the stub pages. We shall fight them on the template pages. We shall fight them on the debate pages. But we shall not fight them on Andy's page.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I guess you're right, it probably wouldn't come to anything, though I still think it's better to have clear policies, whatever the direction they go in, rather than edit wars --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 12:43, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Template talk:Epoch

2007-03-29T16:33:12Z

JamesK: Term to use

Talk:Cretaceous

2007-03-29T16:28:10Z

JamesK: Name change

This is ridiculous. It would be like having a page that said "according to modern historical consesus, the 4th century came between the 3rd and 5th centuries." There is no "modern scientific consensus" about when the Cretaceous was, its the term we use to describe a certauin time period.

:I see your point, but it doesn't apply in this case. Tsumetai was trying to accommodate two points of view. As you may know, [[geological time]] is a matter of controversy. A huge number of Americans are [[Young Earth]] creationists, and for them there was no "history of the earth" before it was created around 10,000 years ago.

:Edit warring doesn't help. So before reverting again here, please explain yourself and get - well - "consensus". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::He's got half a point, actually. The weasel words ought to be associated with the dates, not with the ordering of the periods in question. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree it needs to be changed. Even though some don't believe the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, you still wouldn't have a page saying:
:::"According to modern scientific consensus, 4 million years BC came between 5 million years BC and 3 million years BC."
::How about:
:::"In mainstream science, the Cretaceous period came after the Jurassic period and before the Paleocene period in Earth's geological history, dating from 145 million years ago until 65 million years ago.

:::Creation scientists do not believe such a period existed in the Earth's history."
::--[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 08:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well since no one has objected yet and Tim has since done his favorite amendment to the article, I'll put it in. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Name change ==

Can this article be moved from "Cretaceous Period" to just "Cretaceous" so that it matches the related articles and the first sentence make sense? --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 12:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Cretaceous

2007-03-29T15:09:18Z

JamesK: fixed links

In mainstream science, the Cretaceous period came after the [[Jurassic]] period and before the [[Paleocene]] period in Earth's geological history, dating from 145 million years ago until 65 million years ago.

[[Creation scientists]] do not believe such a period existed in the Earth's history.

Cretaceous

2007-03-29T15:02:08Z

JamesK: Stop using the phrase "Evolutionary science"

In mainstream science, the Cretaceous period came after the Jurassic period and before the Paleocene period in Earth's geological history, dating from 145 million years ago until 65 million years ago.

Creation scientists do not believe such a period existed in the Earth's history.

Talk:Cretaceous

2007-03-29T15:02:02Z

JamesK:

Talk:Cretaceous

2007-03-29T12:56:47Z

JamesK: Suggestion

Google

2007-03-27T15:52:21Z

JamesK: /* PageRank Algorithm */ spelling

'''Google''' is a company whose primary business is [[internet]]-based services, including an extremely popular [[search engine]]. The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref> Google also owns [[YouTube]], the home made [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] are suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

==History==
===Founding===
Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref>

===Google Goes Public===
===Growth===
===Purchase of Smaller Parties===

==PageRank Algorithm==
Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is its '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to its constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page to form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040614/news_mz1b14google.html Dropping 'Google-bombs']</ref>

*'''"Miserable Failure"''': For nearly two years, searching "miserable failure" (or even just "miserable", or "failure") in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm 'Miserable failure' links to Bush]</ref> This was orchestrated by [[Democrat]] party supporters in late 2003, as part of the 2004 Presidential election. However, at times, [[Conservative]] supporters were able to shift the phrase to [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Michael Moore]].
*''''"Great President"''': returns the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].
*'''"Waffles"''': Also as part of the 2004 Presidental election, Conservative supporters managed to link the term "waffles" to the official website of [[John Kerry]].
*'''"French Military Victories"''': Hitting "I'm Feeling Lucky" for this term directs you to a fake Google page (in reality, it is an [[AlbinoBlackSheep]].com page, styled to look exactly like a Google page. Found [http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html here]) giving no matches, and asking if meant "French military defeats?".

On January 25, 2007, Google claimed to have modified their PageRank algorithm to lessen the likelihood of future Google bombs<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Information technology]]

Talk:Easter

2007-03-27T14:18:47Z

JamesK: /* The holiest day */

== The holiest day ==

I was taught that Easter ''was'' the holiest day of the Christian calendar, more important than Christmas. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
* Now that you mention it, I think I have that worded backwards. I'll remove the sentence, as it doesn't add much to the article anyhow. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 21:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think it's important to mention that it's the most important christian festival, so I put a sentence to that effect back in --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:This might just be the next article to get world publicity, considering how bad it is.--[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
**If you have improvements you'd like to share, feel free. I think it's a pretty good start. There's the history of the name in there, as well as the Biblical significance. I didn't put anything about easter eggs in there, as that is more of a pagan custom. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 21:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Resurrection Sunday

2007-03-27T14:16:17Z

JamesK: Re-added most important festival reference

'''Easter''' is the [[Christian]] holiday marking the resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]] three days after His crucifixion on [[Good Friday]], and is the most important festival of the [[liturgical year]]. Its name is derived from ''Eastre,'' the pagan goddess of fertility and spring. In biblical times the Jewish Passover, which commemorates the sparing of the [[Hebrew]] first borns, was celebrated at roughly the same time as the [[spring equinox]] or this “Eastre” festival. As the Gospel was being spread to the pagans, the celebration of Eastre and the celebration of the resurrection became combined and the Christians adopted the name that the pagans had used for their festival. In 325, the [[Nicene Counsel]] declared that the Easter holiday would be celebrated on the first Sunday after the [[full moon]] of the vernal equinox.

Easter doesn't fall on a fixed date in the calendar. Instead, it is based on a lunar calendar like that used by the Jews. At the [[Nicean Council]] in 325 AD it was decided that Easter would be celebrated on the Sunday after the first full moon on or after the day of the vernal equinox. The date of the [[full moon]] was to be determined by using the [[Metonic Cycle]]. Eastern Orthodox Churches still use the Julian calendar when determining the date of Easter and thus have an inaccurate date for the resurrection.

Easter marks the end of the 46 days of [[Lent]], a period of fasting and penitence in preparation for Easter, which begins on [[Ash Wednesday]] and ends on Easter Sunday. However, Lent really only comprises 40 days since the 6 Sundays during this period are excluded from the Lent fast, and are days that are set apart to commemorate Easter Sunday and Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead, defeated the grave and guaranteed eternal life to those who believe.

The days before Easter also are special in the Christian tradition: the Sunday before is [[Palm Sunday]], and the last three days before Easter are [[Holy Thursday]], [[Good Friday]] and [[Silent Saturday]]. These days commemorate Jesus' entry into [[Jerusalem]], the [[Last Supper]] and the [[Crucifixion]].

[[Pentecost]] is seven weeks after Easter.

Talk:United Kingdom

2007-03-27T14:02:01Z

JamesK: /* Article has a superfluous "The" in the title. */

'Great Britain' redirects automatically to 'United Kingdom.' This is incorrect as the two terms are not interchangeable. The former is strictly the name of the Island which comprises the Mainland of England, Scotland and Wales, whereas the United Kingdom, is the name of a country, who's territory extends over many islands, including Northern Ireland. There should be a seperate article for 'Great Britain.'

:It is true that this difference needs to be made clear in the entry -- but there seems little sense in having a separate entry for two such overlapping entities! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

That's a fair point I suppose!
Consider it done : )

:::I see that "Great Britain" still redirects here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Currency==
Not changed the article text but I'm 99% sure that while English money is legal tender in Scotland, NI et al the reverse isn't true - can anyone confirm this & if so amend the article appropriately? [[User:Tracy C Copeland|Tracy C Copeland]] 13:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The paragraph, as it is, is ok and correct - you could expand it if you wanted to, but the situation's a little complex:
:*Bank of England coins are legal tender throughout the UK.
:*Bank of England notes are only legal tender in England and Wales (and possibly Channel Islands & Isle of Man).
:*Channel Islands & Isle of Man notes and coins are only legal tender those jurisdictions.
:*Scottish & NI notes aren't legal tender anywhere.
:*So no notes are legal tender in Scotland & NI at all.
:But "legal tender" doesn't really mean anything. All the forms of currency are perfectly acceptable anywhere in the UK - you'd have a hard time convincing a court that you had a right not to accept Scottish notes (for payment of debt) just because they aren't "legal tender". I got this information from [http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/about/faqs.htm here], [http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_7.html here] and [http://www.royalmint.com/RoyalMint/web/site/Corporate/Home/Corp_faq.asp here] --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Anthem==
Wales is the only country of the UK to have an official national anthem. Scotland hasn't ("Flower of Scotland" is definitely not official), England hasn't, and "God Save the Queen" is not even the official anthem of the UK. [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 15:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article has a superfluous "The" in the title. ==

Have no problems with the article but why is the title "'''The''' United Kingdom" rather than "United Kingdom"? After all there are not articles for "'''The''' People's Republic of China" or "'''The''' United States of America".

Perhaps someone could move the page to "United Kingdom"...? It would then be more consistent with other names, easier to search for, and easier to link to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 19:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Since "United Kingdom" redirects to "The United Kingdom" searching and linking shouldn't be a problem but I agree it should probably be changed for consistency. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Easter

2007-03-26T09:15:04Z

JamesK: The holiest day

== The holiest day ==

I was taught that Easter ''was'' the holiest day of the Christian calendar, more important than Christmas. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Golden Ratio

2007-03-26T02:35:16Z

JamesK: Added math tags, not sure about it, modify/revert if you want

The golden ratio is a number, commonly known as phi (<math>\varphi</math>), defined as
<math>\varphi^2 = \varphi + 1</math>. The value of phi is

:<math>\frac{1 + \sqrt{5}}{2}</math>

Phi is an [[irrational number]]. In decimal form it is often written

:1.618...

It has been observed that the golden ration is evident in the arrangement of branches along the stems of plants, and of veins in leaves.

Golden Ratio

2007-03-26T02:20:04Z

JamesK: correction

The golden ratio is a number, commonly known as phi, defined as 'phi * phi = phi + 1.' The value of phi is

:<math>\frac{1 + \sqrt{5}}{2}</math>

Phi is an [[irrational number]]. In decimal form it is often written

:1.618...

It has been observed that the golden ration is evident in the arrangement of branches along the stems of plants, and of veins in leaves.

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-03-25T16:05:01Z

JamesK: /* Larry Sangers */

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

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

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

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

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

== "Controversy" ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== "Like conservipedia" ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

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

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

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

-- from the bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

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

== Larry Sangers ==

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

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-03-25T15:59:57Z

JamesK: /* Larry Sangers */

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

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

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

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

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

== "Controversy" ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== "Like conservipedia" ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

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

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

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

-- from the bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

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

== Larry Sangers ==

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

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-03-25T15:50:52Z

JamesK: /* Larry Sangers */ No it doesn't

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

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

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

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

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

== "Controversy" ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== "Like conservipedia" ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

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

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

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

-- from the bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sangers ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Dpbsmith

2007-03-25T15:06:59Z

JamesK: /* Initialism */

Comment posted on talk page for Commandments:

Seeing as you seem to be our resident Evolution Expert, I have a question. How Does evolution explain the instinct in bees to only harvest nectar from one kind of plant on any given day? According to the survival of the fittest, the bees should be going to the flowers closest to their hive so as to maximize the amount of nectar that they could gather in a day.
--[[User:CJS|CJS]] 21:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:I don't want to be "resident evolution expert" if that means I'm supposed to "prove" evolution, or have a pat answer for everything, or anything like that. And, by the way, I love to argue, but I'm a stranger here and ''trying'' to be a polite guest.

:I don't know a specific answer to your specific question.

:So I'm going to answer your question with another question: how can you be ''sure'' that going to the closest flowers is really the best survival strategy? How can you be sure that what they actually do may not be better?

:Scientists have discovered some surprising things. You might wonder why sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disease, persists in African populations. You'd think that according to Darwinism, the people without sickle-cell anemia would be fitter and that over time the population carrying the sickle-cell gene would be selected out. So, does the continued existence of the sickle-cell gene disprove Darwinism?

:It turns out that the gene that causes sickle-cell anemia only does so when there are two of them... and when there is only one of them, it provides protection against malaria! So, in places where there is malaria, there is selection ''for'' the sickle-cell gene. This benefits the population as a whole, because most members of the population only get one gene, so they get malaria protection without getting sickle-cell anemia. Only the unfortunate people who are homozygous for the gene get sickle-cell anemia.

:So, it may not be at all obvious what is really being selected for... in fact it may take a research study to discover it.

:So, with respect to the bees, the real scientist's question: ''how would you find out?'' What experiments could you perform to find out whether it is better for bees to go to the closest flowers than to go to the flowers they actually go to?

:(Pretty feeble, but the best I can do at short notice!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:24, 15 January 2007 (EST)

:: '''Reply:''' Evolutionists exaggerate the sickle-cell anemia example, though I don't fault Dpbsmith for repeating it. From the Mayo Clinic's website: "Sickle cell anemia is an inherited form of anemia — a condition in which there aren't enough healthy red blood cells to carry oxygen throughout your body. Under normal circumstances, your red blood cells are flexible and round, and they move easily through your blood vessels to carry oxygen to all parts of your body. In people with sickle cell anemia, the red blood cells become rigid and sticky and are shaped like sickles or crescent moons. These irregular-shaped blood cells die prematurely, resulting in a chronic shortage of red blood cells. Plus, they can get stuck when traveling through small blood vessels, which can slow or block blood flow and oxygen to certain parts of the body. This produces pain and can lead to serious complications. There's no cure for most people with sickle cell anemia. However, treatments can relieve pain and prevent further problems." http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sickle-cell-anemia/DS00324

:: So sickle cell anemia is, overall, a harmful disease. And the disease itself does not protect against malaria, but those susceptible to the disease (e.g., have the gene) may be less vulnerable to malaria. I don't know if that's been proven but I have an open mind about it. Regardless, this does not support evolution in any way. There is no evidence that really has been "selection" for those afflicted with vulnerability to sickle cell anemia, and that suggestion seems highly unlikely. The link to evolution here remains a leap of faith. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:24, 16 January 2007 (EST)

:::I happen to think that on the topic of evolution, the scientific community ''has'' allowed itself to become somewhat dogmatic and to claim too much about the explanatory value of the theory.

:::And I also think the "science versus religion" aspect doesn't do much good for either science or religion. The Catholic Church's 1992 rehabilitation of Galileo was a good thing.

:::P. S. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to research whether or not a single allele of the sickle-cell anemia gene really protects against malaria. I think that's sound, but a lot of things that circulate as simple stories turn out to be a lot more complicated when you look into them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:02, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith, I reflected further on your criticism, which was well-taken. Accordingly, I have changed the Commandment #4 in response to your criticism as follows: 4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, you must give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are not acceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis for the date.

Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to Conservapedia. --Aschlafly 12:33, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Feel free to respond there. Thanks!

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:Much better. Fine, in fact. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 20 December 2006 (EST)

----

I moved our interesting debate about perpetual motion machines to its own talk page for that entry, in the hope it will enlighten and perhaps spark debate by others. I've marked that page as "Watch" now so I will be notified whenever you post to it.

Thanks. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:00, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Your explanation of [[Bell Laboraties]] is superb! I worked there in the mid-1980s and became an expert in UNIX there. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Nice image of Phillip Brooks! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:08, 6 January 2007 (EST)

*Thanks. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:26, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your entry on <big><math>\pi</math></big>. I improved the symbol using our LaTex capability. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 13 January 2007 (EST)

I am sickened that this discussion on evolution is going on here, not that I agree with your views on it, but there are places to debate this other than a member's talk page. I just wanted to thank you for your conflicting, yet intelligent, contributions. We need more people like you. :) [[User:David R|David R]]

:Well, thanks. But everybody on this talk page has been perfectly courteous. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:42, 17 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your superb improvement to [[geometric progression]]!!! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 19 January 2007 (EST)

:You're welcome. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:41, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for putting your two cents in on the 'spelling issue'. You certainly make more sense than the other person I was speaking to. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 21:54, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I'm afraid that you're mistaken about the debates; they are available to anyone who has anything to say.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 19:33, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Yeah, the debates are for everyone. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:39, 20 January 2007 (EST)

*OK, I'll consider that an invitation. Thank you. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:48, 20 January 2007 (EST)

:'''OOPS!'''

You're right, I did mean protected -- not against. Thanks

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 13:57, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your good improvement to my additional example of Wikipedia gossip (about John Tower). Your time reference is insightful. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your superb improvement to the [[Chappaquiddick]] entry. I didn't realize it is a separate island! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:38, 31 January 2007 (EST)

:Oddly enough, I was just about to add something to it... a quotation from a New York Times editorial. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:52, 31 January 2007 (EST)

*Whoops! I didn't realize I had the font in blue. Thanks for catching that! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 18:39, 11 February 2007 (EST)

== King James Bible ==
''I have no idea what that last edit is about. Seems completely wrong. What the heck is "REAL Douay-Rheims?" Is it a reliable source? Seems to be pushing some point of view.''
:Please don't revert corrections unless you have at least '''some''' source to back it. The ancient texts were lost at the time of the KJV; it couldn't be based on them. It is well known that the KJV borrowed from the Douay Old Testament. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 11:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Herman Melville ==
Dpbsmith, thanks for your reply. I don't know what happened to my Melville comments about its shift in popularity. That's OK, the entry looks great the way it is now. Please feel free to add to the content your fascinating material about the NY Times obituaries that you have on the talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:01, 3 February 2007 (EST)

== Work in progress ==

Kentish Sir Byng stood for his King, 
Bidding the crop-headed Parliament swing: 
And, pressing a troop unable to stoop 
And see the rogues flourish and honest folk droop, 
Marched them along, fifty-score strong, 
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song. 

God for King Charles! Pym and such carles 
To the Devil that prompts `em their treasonous parles! 
Cavaliers, up! Lips from the cup, 
Hands from the pasty, nor bite take nor sup 
Till you`re--- 

CHORUS.---Marching along, fifty-score strong, 
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song. 

Hampden to hell, and his obsequies` knell 
Serve Hazelrig, Fiennes, and young Harry as well! 
England, good cheer! Rupert is near! 
Kentish and loyalists, keep we not here 

CHORUS.---Marching along, fifty-score strong, 
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song? 

Then, God for King Charles! Pym and his snarls 
To the Devil that pricks on such pestilent carles! 
Hold by the right, you double your might; 
So, onward to Nottingham, fresh for the fight, 

CHORUS.---March we along, fifty-score strong, 
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song! 

''Kentish:'' the county of Kent was a Royalist stronghold.

''Sir Byng:'' appears to be Browning's invention, not a real person.

''Crop-headed:'' Oliver Cromwell and his followers were Puritans, and many of them wore their hair cut short, an unusual style at the time. See also [[Roundheads]].

''Parliament:'' Before the Civil War, the English Parliament did not play an important role in the government of England. The Civil War pitted Parliament against the King, with Parliament ultimately winning a much more powerful role. Parliament, and its supporters, the Parliamentarians, were the opponents of King Charles.

''swing:'' i.e. Byng thought that the Parliamentarians should be hanged for treason.

''Pym:'' John Pym (1584-1643), leader of the Long Parliament.

''carles:'' variant of "churl," a rude, ill-bred person

''parles:'' Words. Probably also intended to echo "Parliament."

''Lips from the cup:'' Cavaliers are often portrayed as jolly, devil-may-care types who liked their wine, women, and song, as contrasted with the Puritans, who were, well, puritanical.

''Hampden to hell:'' John Hampden, (1595—1643), a champion of Parliament.

Hazelrig:

Fiennes:

Young Harry:

Rupert: Prince Rupert, the German nephew of King Charles, who led a thousand Royalists in a cavalry battle against the Parliamentarians at the Battle of Powick Bridge.

Onward to Nottingham:

===Thanks===

On second thought you're probably right; I unblocked him.

Thanks for the heads up.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 13:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Why do you and JoshuaZ keep refering to "Middle Schoolers"? and what does that have to do with any debate? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:21, 14 February 2007 (EST)

:Hmmm... I thought I had seen that somewhere, but I guess you're telling me it's a mistake. The original article in Wikipedia said "It was created by a World History class of 58 homeschooled teenagers." So I guess I should say "teenager," not "middle-schooler." Sorry.

:It's not directly relevant to any debate, but it certainly affects ''my'' understanding of the site, the project, what's appropriate, and how I should interact with other users. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:28, 14 February 2007 (EST)

::"Teenager" would be accurate. There are not many non-teenage middle-schoolers, though they are certainly welcome also. Also, as time goes by, many of the original teenagers are quickly becoming adults.

::Somewhere else someone (Joshua, I think) speculated that the requirement that entries be clean here was motivated by the age of many users. That's certainly a consideration that sometimes is important. But the bigger reason is to keep the entries on a high level, just as a real encyclopedia would.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 14 February 2007 (EST)

::: I don't know what you mean by a high level in that regard. Britannica has articles on articles on human reproductive systems that I imagine you might consider inappropriate to have articles about and a variety of other, arguably even more "unclean" topics. It isn't clear to me what "cleanliness" has to do with high-mindedness (indeed, I would be tempted argue that if one is sufficiently high-minded everything becomes clean as they are just different parts of God's Creation). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 12:43, 14 February 2007 (EST)

== Syntax ==

No need to "pretend" thanks for the catching that mistake. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:44, 15 February 2007 (EST)

== Appreciation for work on Robert Frost ==

Nice work on improving the Robert Frost entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 17 February 2007 (EST)

== Homeschooling ==

Some good edits were caught up and lost in your recent deletions, please be more careful. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 14:50, 23 February 2007 (EST)

== IP or SYSOP? ==

We'd really like to make you a SYSOP, Dpbsmith. With more SYSOPs, we could then reopen new registrations and handle in influx of vandals more easily. You could recommend others to be SYSOP also. You could relinquish SYSOP power at any time, or simply choose not to exercise your powers.

Otherwise, I don't see how to protect your IP from blocking unless you can email it to us at webmaster@conservapedia.com, as just suggested by another SYSOP.

I hope you can become a SYSOP!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:54, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:I ''very much'' appreciate the invitation, but I decline... I enjoy writing articles. I enjoy collaborative interaction. I enjoy spirited argument between people willing to play fair, maintain some level of civility, and take the risk of having their opinions changed.

:I don't enjoy fighting vandals and don't want to do the heavy lifting. When the system isn't too slow it's almost as easy to revert an article "manually" as by clicking "rollback" which is 90% of fighting vandalism, anyway.

:(I know you don't believe it, but Wikipedia's stability rests more on the community of editors than the sysops, and Conservapedia's best shot at staying ahead of the vandals is to attract a sufficiency of ordinary editors.)

:Thanks again. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:43, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== [[Real numbers]] ==

I'm fine with your edits (I would argue that decimal representations are always infinite but this may be a nitpick). The main causes of the pain were the previous article insisting that the reals contain "infinite values" and the notion that the real numbers *exclude* anything (since if one wants to talk about them that way, one might as well say they exclude cows and deities). Regarding your other comments, I'm not sure of a general name for the procedure, however the motivation for going to the reals that a mathematician would most likely give is that one wants to be able to take limits. As for infinities, that's complicated and can be dealt with in a variety of different ways depending on what one means by infinity. Wikipedia has a few good articles on these topics. I would recommend [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_arithmetic cardinal arithmetic] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number ordinal number] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_reals extended reals] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number surreal numbers] as different examples of ways of incorporating infinity. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:26, 24 February 2007 (EST)

Hallo Dpbsmith,

you wrote:

"What was your rationale for this edit? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)"

Dpb, not many people know this, but every member of the College of Cardinals is automatically a Doctor of Divinity. Other degrees are also possible, though they would normally be granted through one of the several Pontifical Academies. But in every case, cardinals would already have an undergraduate degree that they received in the process of becoming priests. (Although, technically, a non-priest could become a cardinal; however, this has not happened since the Middle Ages, before the College of Cardinals was founded).

[[User:Hiram Whickermeister III]]

Best regards,

Whick

== Earth article unprotection ==

Thank you for your kind request. I composed a lengthy response to you but unfortunately it was lost due to Conservapedia "hiccuping" and me not saving it. I will remove the protection now. Again, thank you for your kind request. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== pH ==

Yeah, that's why I said "roughly" [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:12, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== Your thanks is appreciated regarding my making Conservapedia more factual in regards to the Intelligent Design article ==

Your thanks is appreciated regarding my making Conservapedia more factual in regards to the Intelligent Design article and I wanted to let you know I changed my edit again in order to make it more precise. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

==Articles For Deletion==
When posting for AFD please create an AFD page for the page in question. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:16, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Hey Smithy ==

It has been suggested to me that you are someone who knows what he/she is doing on this site. I am having trouble uploading an image file. Are you able to help? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:03, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Believe me, I have ''no'' idea what I am doing on this site!

:Image uploading is very flaky. I get error messages about two-thirds of the time. I have no idea why and haven't bothered to ask. What ''seems'' to help is changing the filename, i.e. if it doesn't work try changing the name. But maybe that's just coincidence. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Thanks. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::No quite sure how to contact the webmaster... I suppose we could try leaving a note at [[User_talk:Conservapedia Webmaster]] but the fact that that page is blank isn't promising... and/or email to webmaster@conservapedia.com . [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:11, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== I trust your judgement regarding the prison delete it ==

I trust your judgement regarding the prison material so delete it. I can't investigate the material right now and block possible parody people because i am researching something for Andy. Let me know if you get into a edit war. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

== I permanently banned the troll Christian Concern ==

I permanently banned the troll "Christian Concern". No need to get Andy involved. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While you revel in that block, please block another harmful user - (explicative)Saddam. It would be greatly appreciated. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:32, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==the homeschooling thing==
No, I in fact did not read the line you sent me, as I was not aware of it. The word that stuck out as making the whole insulting was "schizophrenic", and that made it sound as though Conservapedia should be treated with contempt.

But after reading your follow-ups, I don't think you intended that at all, so it is me who should be apologizing. And I do. So now, let's get our collective posteriors in gear and make it better than it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[Bible]] article improvements==
Although it needs some filling in regarding the subheadings mentioned in the talk page, that article itself was improved to the point of being original. Check it out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I've seen too many articles here that suffer from lack of info; it was like someone created an article, threw in a single sentence, pronouced it good, then left. I don't like working like that! There will be additional info and pics added before the week is out to make it look better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== a few questions... ==

:a) First, Conservapedia has a policy of original material only, no copying (except short, properly attributed quotations, of course).
::and where may I have found this "policy"? its not on [[The Conservapedia Commandments]] page...

:b) Second, the GFDL license does not allow re-use of GFDL material unless you follow the GFDL rules. Conservapedia itself does not license its material under the GFDL, so re-using it here breaks one of the most important GFDL rules.
::so if conservapedia does not use the GFDL (which I should have realized, my apologies), and there is not a link to the license in use in the lower-left corner like most mediawiki-based sites have, what license is the content of conservapedia under?

{|
| style="background:orange" | [[Image:ccbyncsa.png|right]] This comment was left by [[User:frijole|frijole]]. This, as well as all contributions by this user, is covered by a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike US] license. This has important ramifications for your use or reuse of this material. See the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ license page] for more information.
|} 13:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

hey, thanks a lot for your replies about my questions. apologies if I came off argumentative at the start, it was uncalled for. You really went above and beyond in your replies, and again, thanks.

~[[User:Frijole|frijole]]

== Same-sex Marriage ==

Nice work. That's probably the most professional-looking article on the site. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative blocking AmesG==

Based on what has occured between them, this is an egregious abuse of power. Can't another SysOp referee this? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

*If you're asking ''me'' to referee... I'm not a sysop here. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

I am lobbying to have the evolution page openned up. Would you lend your voice to the cause? I started a topic ("Rallying point") on the Talk Theory of evolution page. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

*No, thanks. There are some areas in which I ''try'' to say my piece, make sure I've been heard, and then move on. I've written off this topic as one of the areas where Conservapedia has bees in its bonnet. I'll try to fix factual errors I notice on pages I happen to come to, and, hey, there are ''plenty'' of unprotected pages to work on. Conservapedia doesn't do itself any good with the extreme creationist stuff. Maybe they'll figure that out eventually. Aschlafly's comments on NPR sounds more like the idea is to give suppressed conservative points of view an airing than exclusively promoting a conservative point of view... actions speak louder than words, though... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

testing...

== Debate Topics ==

I'm going to be bold and go root out inactive/stupid topics. If they have less than one post per day, they probably should go. Cheers! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Global warming==
Are you still keeping an eye on what's going on at Global warming? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=43297&oldid=16552] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Cheers!

:(Shrug) I find it interesting to collaborate with people who have a commitment to truth, accuracy, and honesty, but have a different viewpoint from mine. I don't find it interesting to collaborate with the sorts of people called "POV warriors" at Wikipedia, who think they're doing something useful by just putting the maximum amount of spin on everything.

:It's much more fun writing about [[Rainbow]]s.

:BTW I'm not really sure where Aschlafly thinks he's going with all this... or whether there are others besides him "running" things... but I don't care much for perma-protected pages under the supervision of single editors it they think their job is to present a one-dimensional point of view. As opposed to, say, preventing vandalism, maintaining whatever Conservapedia thinks is proper balance, but acknowledging multiple points of view in some intellectually-honest way.

:I'm not interested in reading articles on the topic of "every bad thing I can think of to say about homosexuality," for example... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:P. S. Global warming is a particularly interesting case in point, because I expect to see this "debate" resolved within my lifetime. In fact, in a couple of decades I don't think it will be controversial. I don't expect to see new species evolve in my lifetime, but I do expect to see at least one coastal city abandoned in my lifetime. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Yes, I share much these same views. In the case of global warming, however, I'm not so certain it's a liberal vs conservative arguement, and I'm concerned the page is being used as an attack page. It probably has to be overhauled at some point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==But yours was funny==
The joke (MIT and Harvard) ''was'' funny. Mine? Yeah but it was SOOO easy I couldn't methinks pass it up. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks, but I decided that in the final analysis it still amounted to namecalling. Actually, I was thinking of your joke and thought: hmmm, if I'm going to lecture other people about this maybe I should try to do what I say myself.

:Also I finally figured out how Aschlafly gets to that "6," and it is ''defensible.'' No point fussing about that part. The squishy part is how you get 2:1 from "33% conservative, '''40% moderate,''' 18% liberal." What's even squishier is how you get 1:3 out of the facts that at Wikipedia there has been a bit of a fad for "user boxes," little colored boxes that people can put on their page if they wish to advertise their personal tastes in food ("This user drinks coffee,") music ("This user is a fan of Green Day,") or politics ("This user is interested in conservative issues.") Of ''three million'' registered users, 78 decided to put a "Conservative" tag on their page and 202 put a "Liberal" tag on their page.

:I figure this is just one of the areas where Aschlafly has a bee in his bonnet. Or thinks its justified because it gets attention. Just not an area where it is productive to say anything more. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bach==

Sorry about the incorrect information. I seem to have mixed up a series of compositions, the most egregious being Bach's Goldberg Variations with Beethoven's Diabelli Variations. Thank you for fixing the article. [[User:Scriabin|Scriabin]] 20:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry to have wondered whether you could be a prankster. The other article I was trying to merge with this one was definitely a prank, and mixed correct and misleading information, so when I saw this one did too, I wasn't sure what to think. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Your comment invited ==

I have initiated a discussion about quality of sources at [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Discussions#References]. If you are interested, your input would be welcomee. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Davinci code blanking - check the history - page was vandalised.

Sevenstring

Thanks for putting up with a newbie...

== Doppelgangers ==

The pages I am creating are called Doppelganger accounts, and I have taken it up with Aschlafly (it's the bottom topic on his talk page as of right now). Wikipedia describes it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DOPPEL here], in a nutshell, it's a pre-emptive measure to make sure people do not imitate those famous or obscene names. I created the accounts also, and stored the passwords safely. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK. Looked very odd... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Lochness Monster and "the board" ==

I really haven't researched the Loch Ness Monster controversy. What's wrong with the material there now? I haven't read it.

Re: "The Board" - This is a mistake on my part. This site is not a internet discussion board. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== I knew you were referring to the Dino article. What is your beef with the Loch Ness monster? ==

I knew you were referring to the Dino article. I skimmed the Loch Ness monster material before you sent your note. What is your beef with the Loch Ness monster? I really haven't researched the Loch Ness monster issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Compromise. I put a link for you==

Dpbsmith, I briefly looked into the whole Loch Ness Monster issue. I think the best way to handle it is to provide a sentence saying some people think Nessy is credible and then provide a sentence saying some people don't. Each sentence should have links/footnotes so people can decide for themselves. I am not too interested in the whole Nessy debate but I wanted to be fair to you. I created an internal link in the Dino article. By that I mean, I created a [[Loch Ness Monster]] link. You can have at that article which links to the Dino article. Out of that article I think will come the best "pro" and "con" links. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Lochness ==

I stiil think the best solution is to find the best link(s) for pro and footnote it and find best footnote for con. I think that will happen as the article in question progresses. Perhaps, you can go to the dreaded and stenchy place [[Wikipedia]] and find the best links! LOL They seem to have a long article giving the pros and cons. However, I think we can probably find better links than Wikipedia if we try as I have often found that to be the case when I was a Wikipedian. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Initialism ==

Thanks for sorting that out, I couldn't be bothered :) Though I still think the original article should be deleted rather than a redirect, because a redirect makes it look like it's a legitimate alternative. So I've put the speedy delete template back, and fixed the two articles that had links to "abbreviationism". --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Good. Thanks. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**Ah, sorry, I hadn't read you comment on the abbreviationism talk page where you had just said exactly the same thing! --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Dpbsmith

2007-03-25T15:01:11Z

JamesK: Initialism

Acronym

2007-03-25T14:46:29Z

JamesK: corrected link

An ''acronym'' is an [[initialism]] pronounced as a real word. '''N'''orth '''A'''tlantic '''T'''reaty '''O'''rganization is routinely pronounced 'nay-toe', and spelled, as a proper noun, '''Nato''' (the other letters are not capped).

''Scuba'', '''S'''elf '''C'''ontained '''U'''nderwater '''B'''reathing '''A'''pparatus, aka "scuba" is another famous acronym.

Anno Domini

2007-03-25T14:45:54Z

JamesK: sorrected link

''Anno Domini'' is [[Latin language|Latin]], conventionally translated into [[English language|English]] as "in the year of the Lord." The conventional abbreviation is '''AD'''; periods after each letter are an optional matter of style, but modern usage dislikes them.

AD is sometimes misinterpreted as being an abbreviation for "after death," referring specifically to the death of [[Jesus Christ]]. This causes the common confusion resulting from the general consensus is that Jesus died roughly AD 32.

Convention requires that the letters be before the year, e.g., ''AD 800''. Usage of "AD" in full dates, e.g., "AD July 4, 1776" or "July 4, AD 1776" is rarely enountered, and calls attention to itself, and on these grounds alone should be eschewed. For most AD-era dates, convention allows you to omit the indication that this is not in the era Before Christ. For three-digit AD-dates, however, there there is a greater tendency to use the form. You can say "the first Council of Nicaea was convened AD 325", and forms such as "the first Council convened in the early 4th century AD" are unexceptionable.

Contrariwise, [[BC]] is an English [[initialism]] meaning "Before Christ" and ALWAYS is the last element. If the context does not otherwise indicate we are in such times, one is obligated to use the form. One can use it with full explicit dates, e.g., "Julius Caesar was killed March 15, 44 BC".

Talk:Abbreviationism

2007-03-25T14:23:08Z

JamesK:

Can this article be deleted please? "Abbreviationism" isn't a word. Normally I wouldn't mind, but it's such an ugly word I'd hate to think that some people might take this seriously and start using it. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:18, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

(Edit) I suppose it could be moved to the correct term, "initialism" instead.

Talk:Abbreviationism

2007-03-25T14:19:05Z

JamesK:

Talk:Abbreviationism

2007-03-25T14:18:41Z

JamesK: New page: Can this article be deleted please? "Abbreviationism" isn't a word. Normally I wouldn't mind, but it's such an ugly word I'd hate to think that some people might take it seriously and star...

Can this article be deleted please? "Abbreviationism" isn't a word. Normally I wouldn't mind, but it's such an ugly word I'd hate to think that some people might take it seriously and start using it. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:18, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-03-25T14:02:16Z

JamesK: signed

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-03-25T13:57:57Z

JamesK: Encyclopedic Content & Gossip

Germany

2007-03-25T03:43:25Z

JamesK: FFS

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:GermanyMap.gif|250px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Federal Republic of Germany
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Germany.JPG|250px]]
Flag of Germany
|-
|Capital
|Berlin
|-
|Government
|Federal Republic (parliamentary)
|-
|Official Language
|German
|-
|President
|Horst Köhler
|-
|Chancellor
|Angela Merkel
|-
|Area
|137,858 sq. miles
|-
|Population (2006)
|82,310,000
|-
|GDP (2006)
|$3.045 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2006)
|$36,975
|-
|}

'''Germany''' is a federally organized [[Democracy]] in Western [[Europe]] with a population of about 82.4 million. The capital is [[Berlin]].

As Europe's largest economy and second most populous nation, Germany is a key member of the continent's economic, political, and defense organizations. The central German bank, the [[Bundesbank]], has historically been the most influential force within the financial markets of the European Union.

==History==

The emergence of Germany as a nation in its own right came later than for most European powers. The German-speaking areas of Europe had historically been parts of diverse other nations, among them [[Prussia]], [[Austria]], and the [[Holy Roman Empire]], along with numerous smaller principiates.

===Early Germanic Tribes===
The first distinct Germanic tribes emerged around 100BC in northern Germany, and are usually thought to have migrated south from [[Scandinavia]]. From there, the tribes continued to expand, coming in contact with the [[Celts]] of [[Gaul]] in the west, and Slavic tribes to the east. However, not much is known about the early Germanic people due to the lack of a written language. Most of what is known is due to contact with the [[Roman Empire]] and archaeological digs. To the rest of the world, the Germanic tribes inhabited a region known as [[Germania]], Latin for "Land of the Germans".<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html Medieval Sourcebook Tacitus: Germania]</ref> Soon, the Germanic people began low-intensity coflict with the Roman Empire, climaxing at the [[Battle of the Teutoburg Forest]]. From this point, the Germanic tribes began winning battles against the Romans. In 410AD, The Germanic tribes assisted the [[Visigoths]] under [[Alaric I]] in sacking the city of [[Rome]].<ref>[http://www.vinland.org/scamp/grove/kreich/chapter7.html The Sack of Rome]</ref> This was a blow to the Western Empire, but not a killing one as the capital had moved to Ravenna in 402 AD. But in 476 AD, dissatisfied German mercanaries led by Odoacer captured Ravenna and deposed Emperor Romulus Augustulus. Since Odoacer refused to assume the title of Emperor, this date is generally considered to be the official end of the Western Roman Empire.<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/65/od/Odoacer.html]</ref>

===The Holy Roman Empire (843–1806)===

The medieval German empire originated from the division of the [[Carolingian Empire]] in 843, and was known as the ''Holy Roman Empire''. It gradually expanded through the addition of Lorraine, Saxony, Franconia, Thuringia, and Bavaria, and the German king was crowned [[Holy Roman Emperor]] of these regions in 962. Under the reign of the [[Salian]] emperors (1024–1125), the Holy Roman Empire absorbed northern [[Italy]] and Burgundy. The edict of the Golden Bull in 1356 provided the constitution of the empire; it established the election of the emperor by seven Prince-Electors, each of whom ruled one of the more powerful principalities or archbishoprics. Notably, one of these Electors, George Louis the Elector of Hanover (1660-1727), was recruited by the heirless [[Great Britain]] in 1714 to become its king, taking the name George I.

===The Reformation===

In 1517, [[Martin Luther]] wrote his [[The 95 Theses|95 Theses]] questioning the [[Roman Catholic Church]], an act which began the [[Protestant Reformation]]. A separate [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]] church was acknowledged as the new sanctioned religion in many states of Germany in 1530. Religious conflicts known as the 30 Years War pitted Protestant German states against Catholic one, and devastated the former Empire. The [[Peace of Westphalia]] (1648) ended religious warfare in Germany, but the empire broke down into numerous independent principalities. From 1740 onwards, the dualism between the Austrian [[Habsburg Monarchy]] and the [[Kingdom of Prussia]] dominated German history. In 1806, the ''Imperium'' was overrun and dissolved as a result of the [[Napoleonic Wars]].

===Nationalism===

It was not until after the fall of French Emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] in 1814 that the [[German Confederation]], a loosely-organized league of 39 states, began to lay the ground for nationhood. Numerous conflicts between these sates marked the first half of the nineteenth cenrury, and it was not until [[Otto von Bismarck]]'s ascension as Prime Minister of [[Prussia]] in mid-century that something resembling the modern sense of "Germany" came into being. Austria was, however, not a part of this new [[North German Confederation]]. After the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war in 1871, the German Empire was formally proclaimed, under [[Wilhelm I]], with its capital in [[Berlin]].

European power struggles immersed Germany in two devastating World Wars in the first half of the 20th century and left the country occupied by the victorious [[Allied powers]] of the [[USA]], [[UK]], [[France]], and the [[Soviet Union]] in 1945. With the advent of the Cold War, two German states were formed in 1949: the western [[Federal Republic of Germany]] (FRG) and the eastern [[German Democratic Republic]] (GDR). The democratic FRG embedded itself in key Western economic and security organizations, the [[EC]], which became the [[European Union]] (EU), and the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), while the Communist GDR was on the front line of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. The decline of the USSR and the end of the [[Cold War]] allowed for German unification in 1990. Since then, Germany has expended considerable funds to bring Eastern productivity and wages up to Western standards. In January 1999, Germany and 10 other EU countries introduced a common European exchange currency, the [[euro]].

== Economic Overview ==

Germany's affluent and technologically powerful economy - the fifth largest in the world in [[PPP]] terms - showed considerable improvement in 2006 with 2.7% growth. After a long period of stagnation with an average growth rate of 0.7% between 2001-05 and chronically high unemployment, stronger growth has led to a considerable fall in unemployment to about 8% at the end of 2006. Among the most important reasons for Germany's high unemployment during the past decade were [[macroeconomic]] stagnation, the declining level of investment in plant and equipment, company restructuring, flat domestic consumption, structural rigidities in the labor market, lack of competition in the service sector, and high interest rates. The modernization and integration of the eastern German economy continues to be a costly long-term process, with annual transfers from west to east amounting to roughly $80 billion. The former government of Chancellor [[Gerhard Schroeder]] launched a comprehensive set of reforms of labor market and [[welfare]]-related institutions. The current government of Chancellor [[Angela Merkel]] has initiated other reform measures, such as a gradual increase in the mandatory retirement age from 65 to 67 and measures to increase female participation in the labor market. Germany's aging population, combined with high chronic unemployment, has pushed social security outlays to a level exceeding contributions, but higher government revenues from the cyclical upturn in 2006 reduced Germany's budget deficit to within the EU's 3% debt limit. Corporate restructuring and growing capital markets are setting the foundations that could help Germany meet the long-term challenges of European economic integration and globalization.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html] CIA World Factbook</ref>
==Government==
===Executive Branch===
Germany has a President as [[Head of State]]. However real power is exercised by a Chancellor.
The current Chancellor is [[Angela Merkel]].

==Famous Germans==
*[[Pope Benedict XVI]]
*[[Ludwig van Beethoven]]
*[[Albert Einstein]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Daniel Fahrenheit]]
*[[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]]
*[[Henry Kissinger]]
*[[Martin Luther]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]
*[[Friedrich Schiller]]
*[[Richard Wagner]]
*[[Otto von Bismarck]]
*[[Adolf Hitler]]
*[[Wernher von Braun]]

==War on Terror==
Germany currently contributes troops to the NATO-led operation in [[Afghanistan]], but did not support the invasion of [[Iraq]]. Due to that country's opposition to the invasion of Iraq, Germany (along with [[France]]) was labeled by the New York Post as the "Axis of Weasel".<ref>[http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0103/0103axisweasel.htm Problems for the Axis of Weasel]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Countries]]

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-25T01:15:47Z

JamesK:

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-23T15:00:44Z

JamesK: Fixed text size

'''Note:''' an alternative version of this article is currently being written [[User:Hojimachong/Dinosaur|here]]. This is not an attempt to usurp [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

==Modern Day Dinosaurs==

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...

::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=11&division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==No mention of popular documentary==

Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?

==How absurd!==

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French. There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper "foreign" spelling of words. Because it's not a dumbed-down version. Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE. How is that a rationalized "improvement"? Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters? And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So, so horribly wrong, Sureal, but don't sweat it. We are descended from amniotes, therefore we are amniotes, we are descended from vertebrates, therefore we are vertebrates, we are descended from mammals, therefore we are mammals, etc. down the classificatory tree for life. [[User:RedDedNedHed|RedDedNedHed]]~~

:::Does that make me a Prokaryote? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 18:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's impossible to take this page seriously. Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously. However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that "according to evoutionary scientists" is allowed, but not "according to creatiionists" is not mentioned once.

::The above comment represents exactly what I am talking about - liberalism will 'creep in' to this article if we don't stop it, and soon. Please, Conservative, lock this article after you have finished editing it as you see fit. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:56, 21 March 2007 (PST).

==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.

:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Oi Vey==
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article. 95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans. They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased. Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas. I forgot we can't include those. Seriously, someone fix it. It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark. Obsurd.)

(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)

:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Needed Corrections==
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles. Note that not all dinosaurs were large.

== Are you scared to be wrong? ==

Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.

:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all. Amazing what animals do to survive. On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection as of 3/19 ==

Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts. Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source? Should we put that somewhere? And then you "protected" the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Eh? They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it. There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts. I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with "vandalism" having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wonder when I'll get banned next. Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article. [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent? And in your answer, I don't want the site "Answers In Genesis" to come up once. Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Conservative! You have work to be done here! The Godless are denying You! Edit, then lock! [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:58, 21 March 2007 (PST).

== Farce ==
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...

== Experience with Dinosaurs ==

I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.

==Conservative POV?==

While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section "Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism" is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Quote Mining==
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.
''') reads as such:

"It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''"

In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative, have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocked ==

Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.

I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Were my edits wrong? I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact. Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think she meant things Conservative regards as "wrong". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the "(?)" part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=51774&oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the "Violations of conservapedia fact policy" comment in the left version and the "These are not facts! *delete delete delete*" edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material. I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with "propaganda" or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and "evolutionary" views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article's getting worse ==

All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)

:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis. The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==More quote mining==

The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:

"Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds."

"Conservative's quote-mined paragraph"

"Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight."

THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Google search a sentence? I included the link to the full article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote. They are '''"probing". ''' The devil is in the details. Creationism is still the best answer. Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded. You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: "Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''." Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Maybe we could add something about..==

Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''"The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth".'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!

Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Question! When you say "keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased", do you mean as "entirely un-biased" as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is "entirely false" or as "entirely un-biased" as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==

The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a "fact" that is not a fact.

Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:

I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said when I composed: "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their "facts" the phrase "according to evolutionary scientists". I protected the article until they agreed to do that.

'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. '''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate?

The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.

The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the following sentence a fact? "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." Or is it scientists opinion? Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587 The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating "facts" when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring. Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise. If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." yes? no? Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken. One little disclaimer followed by "fact" after "fact" after "fact" after "fact" is totally unacceptable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then "fact" after "fact" after "fact". You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hope you remember, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your "cited" (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the [[Theory of evolution]] article. I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like "creationist assert" or "Opponents of the evolutionary position assert" etc etc. It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent a bit)
:What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what "can be in" and what "must go out". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given. I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with [[CreationWiki]] to copy material like "classification" for animal/plant articles. We then could cite the material and [[CreationWiki]] would get more traffic. It is a win-win scenario. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I hate to nitpick, but to answer [[user:Conservative]]'s earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event '''''is''''' a fact. Facts are provable by evidence. Creationism is an opinion informed by faith. Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way. Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 & 6. Also, I really think we should either stop citing [[CreationWiki]] - it's not a primary source. Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that [[user:Conservative]] didn't actually read should go.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== Loch Ness Monster ==

Wait... really? We're going with the Loch Ness Monster? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, good grief. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You have a problem with this? I saw an excellent documentary on cable abotu the Loch Ness monster, and it was clear there has been a massive cover-up of this wonderful, Biblical creature's existence. If only we can finally capture enough evidence about it, I'm convinced the LNM could be a missing link that would finally blow the evolutionists arguments out of the water. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:38, 21 March 2007 (PST).

:::If only you could find it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, but it's had millions of years to practice hiding. Just a minute - should that be thousands?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about an article on how the Loch Ness Monster was domesticated by Piltdown Man? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestion for intro==

May I create a "sandbox" for alternative versions of the intro?

[[/intro]]

This has often worked at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:You mean like [[Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft]], which we tried here with not much success? It ''could'' work well. What would be needed is a sysop

::*with a claim, accepted by the community, to be in charge of the article;
::*not personally heavily involved in editing it or otherwise ego-involved in the article;
::*committed to the concept of judging consensus, and updating the protected page in a timely way to reflect consensus wordings as they are are reached. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" ==

I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors. Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless. Guess I'm wrong? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate.

:Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to [[The Eagles]]). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us.

:I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are '''hard''' to reach. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes this article inherently different from anything else? Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem. Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex. Lastly, your analogy fails. When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn. By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate. We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I should break it down for you. Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense. Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page. 2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page. 3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.

Try to keep up. Slow minds keep right. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough. Besides, I got a good laugh out of that last.

:I take it, you'd like the Dinosour article to be unprotected. Well, so would I. How do we go about requesting this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] (in general, [[:Category:Conservapedia maintenance]] is a good place to look for things like this). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 10:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: "Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up". So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles:
#Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.
#Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.
And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: Why only those two? What makes those two so special? Why don't you present the Native American or Ancient Greek or Hindu approaches to the creation of the world and how they each account for dinosaurs. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::I Wouldn't have a problem with that, of course. I only chose those two because this site is biased towards Christian YEC and they were the two "sides" currently in dispute. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Wouldn't that then be a better subject for comparative creation theories? (The different creation theories made up about 4 weeks in the comparative religions class I took in high school). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes it would ideally, but I can't see that happening on this site at the moment. I was just trying to make a suggestion that would break the deadlock in the short term --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: [[user:Conservative|Cons]], can we get the words "evolutionary" taken out of the science part of the article? It does nothing but make it sound like it was written by a three-year-old. If you want to convey the point, "I don't believe in evolution," please think of a good disclaimer.-
: Also, could this compromise also apply to the [[Theory of evolution|anti-evolution polemic article]] that we also fight about? [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Creationist Scientists Perspective" ==

Part of the edit war involved someone removing "Creationist Scientists Perspective" and replacing it with "Creationist Perspect". I see no reason why this should be done. This is part of the conflict that is keeping the page locked although it is a minor one. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:I think it might have something to do with the fact that creationism does not fit with commonly accepted definition of science... namely the natural explanation part of it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed replacement language for Loch Ness monster material==
Pursuant to [[User:Conservative]]'s suggestion [[User_talk:Dpbsmith#Compromise._I_put_a_link_for_you|here]]:

I propose that the paragraph currently reading
:Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster.
be replaced with this sentence:
:Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref>
Any pro-and-con stuff about the existence of Nessie can be worked out in the [[Loch Ness Monster]] article. No more needs to be said in [[Dinosaur]] other than to mention it briefly, if it all.

Mind you, I personally do not think there is any good reason to mention the Loch Ness monster in ''this'' article whatsoever, but ''if'' it were real and ''if'' it were a plesiosaur then, OK, it would be an example of dinosaurs and humans coexisting. (And if Barney were real he, too... oh, never mind...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== The DNA-argument ==

I just don't get it. After I read the linked article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp),
i didn't know if the author was serious. He explains correctly that Jurassic Park is just fictional and I think every scientist (pro- or contra-evolution) would agree with that but on the other hand he tries to use the "DNA-aspect" to show that evolutionist are in the minor-evidence-position in the dicussion about the age of dinosaur-fossils. I don't think that there is any evolutionist who ever wanted to publish a theory like "we have some base-pairs of dinosaur-DNA and now we really build a Jurassic Park"!
Additionally I can't accept his statements about the fresh dinosaur bones. If you read his text properly you will see that the unfossilized bones are found in Alaska and Canada. Precisly on the northern slope of Alaska and on Bylot Island in Canada. Uh, wait...what can you find there? Yep, permafrost - which includes the words permanent and frost. So what could keep a good old dinosaurs bones fresh for millions of years? Keeping them frozen for millions of years, perhaps.

P.S.: Oh yeah, the point with these large amount of really reliable dinosaur sightings. Should we discuss the large number of UFO sightings and Elvis sightings in the same sentence?
If I think about it, maybe all these sightings are true and there are lots of elvis-faced-dinosaurs who come in their UFOs to spend the summer holidays near Loch Ness?

:Wow, not going to lie, I thought that article might have been a parody at first. This article tries to associate psuedoscience in a '''fiction''' movie to real science and "evolutionists." The author's arguments are simply ridiculous, and I have a hard time taking this seriously. As much as I disagree with Creationism, seeing the beauty and the awesomeness of nature and life (esp. after my recent afternoon at the aquarium), I can understand the argument that this universe must have a creator. However, articles such as this take every bit of respect I have for Creationism and rip it apart. Please, as a service to yourselves, Creationists, don't cite or refer to such articles. They're not going to help your case in anyone's eyes but your own. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==To User:Conservative==
I was going to put this on your Talk page, but apparently it is currently protected ??!! I thought you were suggesting that the paragraph in [[Dinosaur]] be replaced with "a link," i.e. a short sentence linking to [[Loch Ness Monster]], and that all of the details on whether it does or does not exist and whether it is or is not a dinosaur could then be presented there. That seemed very sensible to me, and I proposed specific language above. However, you haven't followed through, and based on what you say on my Talk page all I can say is that obviously I misunderstood you and I do not grasp what you want as a replacement for the incoherent paragraph that is there now. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please add this to the article ==

Please add this material to the article:
----

In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in evolution, which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' author and page reference to be supplied</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.

----

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

Cretaceous-Tertiary Mass Extinction

2007-03-23T00:33:50Z

JamesK: Has nothing to do with evolution

Meteor Impact which most scientists claim occurred about 65 million years ago at the end of the [[Cretaceous Period]]. The secular scientific community widely believes it to have resulted in the extinction of all non-avian dinosaurs.

[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:United Kingdom

2007-03-23T00:10:50Z

JamesK: /* Currency */ Slight correction

'Great Britain' redirects automatically to 'United Kingdom.' This is incorrect as the two terms are not interchangeable. The former is strictly the name of the Island which comprises the Mainland of England, Scotland and Wales, whereas the United Kingdom, is the name of a country, who's territory extends over many islands, including Northern Ireland. There should be a seperate article for 'Great Britain.'

:It is true that this difference needs to be made clear in the entry -- but there seems little sense in having a separate entry for two such overlapping entities! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

That's a fair point I suppose!
Consider it done : )

==Currency==
Not changed the article text but I'm 99% sure that while English money is legal tender in Scotland, NI et al the reverse isn't true - can anyone confirm this & if so amend the article appropriately? [[User:Tracy C Copeland|Tracy C Copeland]] 13:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:The paragraph, as it is, is ok and correct - you could expand it if you wanted to, but the situation's a little complex:
:*Bank of England coins are legal tender throughout the UK.
:*Bank of England notes are only legal tender in England and Wales (and possibly Channel Islands & Isle of Man).
:*Channel Islands & Isle of Man notes and coins are only legal tender those jurisdictions.
:*Scottish & NI notes aren't legal tender anywhere.
:*So no notes are legal tender in Scotland & NI at all.
:But "legal tender" doesn't really mean anything. All the forms of currency are perfectly acceptable anywhere in the UK - you'd have a hard time convincing a court that you had a right not to accept Scottish notes (for payment of debt) just because they aren't "legal tender". I got this information from [http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/about/faqs.htm here], [http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_7.html here] and [http://www.royalmint.com/RoyalMint/web/site/Corporate/Home/Corp_faq.asp here] --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Anthem==
Wales is the only country of the UK to have an official national anthem. Scotland hasn't ("Flower of Scotland" is definitely not official), England hasn't, and "God Save the Queen" is not even the official anthem of the UK. [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 15:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:United Kingdom

2007-03-22T23:56:55Z

JamesK: /* Currency */ Legal tender

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2007-03-21T22:15:08Z

JamesK:

==General questions==
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

: You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)

''7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts...'' - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, we don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2007-03-21T22:14:49Z

JamesK: /* General questions */

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2007-03-21T22:04:01Z

JamesK:

Talk:Google

2007-03-21T16:53:46Z

JamesK: /* Google Bombs & Miserable Failure */

Can this be that same Google which submitted willingly to censorship by the oppressive, godless, communist regime in China? {{unsigned|Cas194}}

:I think you probably would too if it put an extra $50 million straight into your pocket. Besides, most internet-savvy Chinese are good at using Proxies. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:22, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Google has a liberal bias? That's like accusing a hammer or a wrench of having a liberal bias; The google search engine is just a tool. -- [[User:brewer13210|Todd]]

Ya i agree with Todd. Sounds funny that a search engine has liberal bias on it. i think that needs to be taken out. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the hammer or wrench is causing damage to something [[conservative]] then it has a [[liberal]] bias.
::"And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship;" (Exodus 35:31)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 11:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
If no one can find a citation for the liberal bias soon then yes, it should be removed. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

ok? what has the bible verse gotta do with google. and also if you punch it in practically every website with the words of the search come up. that is not liberal bias. it is what is on the websites that is liberal. google is just helping you find what you need. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Google Bombs & Miserable Failure ==

Since this section had got increasingly messy and didn't make sense anymore I rewrote it.

(Edit, thanks for the correction [[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]]) --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 12:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Google

2007-03-21T16:37:38Z

JamesK: /* PageRank Algorithm */

'''Google''' is a popular [[Internet]] [[search engine]]. The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref> Google also owns [[YouTube]], the home made [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] are suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

==History==
===Founding===
Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref>

===Google Goes Public===
===Growth===
===Purchase of Smaller Parties===

==PageRank Algorithm==
Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is it's '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to it's constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040614/news_mz1b14google.html Dropping 'Google-bombs']</ref>

*'''"Miserable Failure"''': For nearly two years, searching "miserable failure" (or even just "miserable", or "failure") in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm 'Miserable failure' links to Bush]</ref> This was orchestrated by [[Democrat]] party supporters in late 2003, as part of the 2004 Presidential election. However, at times, [[Conservative]] supporters were able to shift the phrase to [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Michael Moore]].
*'''"Waffles"''': Also as part of the 2004 Presidental election, Conservative supporters managed to link the term "waffles" to the official website of [[John Kerry]].
*'''"French Military Victories"''': Searching for this term directs you to a Google page giving no matches, and asking if meant "French military defeats?".

On January 25, 2007, Google claimed to have modified their PageRank algorithm to lessen the likelihood of future Google bombs<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Information technology]]

Talk:Google

2007-03-21T16:35:32Z

JamesK: Google Bombs & Miserable Failure

Can this be that same Google which submitted willingly to censorship by the oppressive, godless, communist regime in China? {{unsigned|Cas194}}

:I think you probably would too if it put an extra $50 million straight into your pocket. Besides, most internet-savvy Chinese are good at using Proxies. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:22, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Google has a liberal bias? That's like accusing a hammer or a wrench of having a liberal bias; The google search engine is just a tool. -- [[User:brewer13210|Todd]]

Ya i agree with Todd. Sounds funny that a search engine has liberal bias on it. i think that needs to be taken out. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the hammer or wrench is causing damage to something [[conservative]] then it has a [[liberal]] bias.
::"And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship;" (Exodus 35:31)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 11:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
If no one can find a citation for the liberal bias soon then yes, it should be removed. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

ok? what has the bible verse gotta do with google. and also if you punch it in practically every website with the words of the search come up. that is not liberal bias. it is what is on the websites that is liberal. google is just helping you find what you need. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Google Bombs & Miserable Failure ==

Since this section had got increasingly messy and didn't make sense anymore I rewrote it. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 12:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Google

2007-03-21T16:33:41Z

JamesK: /* PageRank Algorithm */Added ref

'''Google''' is a popular [[Internet]] [[search engine]]. The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref> Google also owns [[YouTube]], the home made [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] are suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

==History==
===Founding===
Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref>

===Google Goes Public===
===Growth===
===Purchase of Smaller Parties===

==PageRank Algorithm==
Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is it's '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to it's constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040614/news_mz1b14google.html Dropping 'Google-bombs']</ref>

*'''"Miserable Failure"''': For nearly two years, searching "miserable failure" (or even just "miserable", or "failure") in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm 'Miserable failure' links to Bush]</ref> This was orchestrated by [[Democrat]] party supporters in late 2003, as part of the 2004 Presidential election. However, at times, [[Conservative]] supporters were able to shift the phrase to [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Michael Moore]].
*'''"Waffles"''': Also as part of the 2004 Presidental election, Conservative supporters managed to link the term "waffles" to the official website of [[John Kerry]].
*'''"French Military Victories"''': Searching for this term links to a Google page giving no matches, and asking if you may meant "French military defeats?".

On January 25, 2007, Google claimed to have modified their PageRank algorithm to lessen the likelihood of future Google bombs<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Information technology]]

Google

2007-03-21T16:28:56Z

JamesK: /* PageRank Algorithm */ Rewrite

'''Google''' is a popular [[Internet]] [[search engine]]. The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref> Google also owns [[YouTube]], the home made [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] are suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

==History==
===Founding===
Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref>

===Google Goes Public===
===Growth===
===Purchase of Smaller Parties===

==PageRank Algorithm==
Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is it's '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to it's constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.

*'''"Miserable Failure"''': For nearly two years, searching "miserable failure" (or even just "miserable", or "failure") in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm 'Miserable failure' links to Bush]</ref> This was orchestrated by [[Democrat]] party supporters in late 2003, as part of the 2004 Presidential election. However, at times, [[Conservative]] supporters were able to shift the phrase to [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Michael Moore]].
*'''"Waffles"''': Also as part of the 2004 Presidental election, Conservative supporters managed to link the term "waffles" to the official website of [[John Kerry]].
*'''"French Military Victories"''': Searching for this term links to a Google page giving no matches, and asking if you may meant "French military defeats?".

On January 25, 2007, Google claimed to have modified their PageRank algorithm to lessen the likelihood of future Google bombs<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Information technology]]

Talk:Google

2007-03-21T15:06:14Z

JamesK:

Wikipedia

2007-03-21T10:17:58Z

JamesK: copyedit

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established by [[Jimbo Wales]] and Larry Sangers on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis Incorporated, a pornographic venture funded by Jimbo Wales. Then in 2003, Jimbo Wales created the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit charity with himself as president, to oversee the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia.

==Wikipedia and Bias==
Wikipedia has been accused by Conservapedia of containing biased entries. The article detailing allegations of these is found here: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia aims to represent a neutral point of view - a neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle - but there are several articles that do not represent this neutral point of view. This happens partly due to Wikipedia's open nature, although there are on-going attempts to ensure that bias is clearly identified or altered where necessary. Wikipedia is also accused by some of having "ingrained" liberal bias{{fact}}. Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia in its bias, as Conservapedia defines itself as "a conservative encyclopedia", aiming to represent the views of the right therefore purposefully having a bias.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Wikipedia

2007-03-21T02:04:24Z

JamesK: /* Wikipedia is not Bias */ Aarrghh!

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==Wikipedia is not biased==
Having a site that is called Conservapedia is bias. Obviously something any intelligent person could see is that Conservapedia approaches everything from a conservative point of view, thus the bias. Wikipedia, on the other hand, approaches everything with a neutral point of view and sticks to it. Plus who in their right mind would use this site for serious purposes? It's just asking for vandalism!

This site was made by a ridiculous person who has a closed-minded and very narrow thinking process.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-21T00:43:40Z

JamesK: /* Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" */ sp

==Modern Day Dinosaurs==

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...

::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=11&division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==No mention of popular documentary==

Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?

==How absurd!==

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French. There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper "foreign" spelling of words. Because it's not a dumbed-down version. Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE. How is that a rationalized "improvement"? Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters? And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's impossible to take this page seriously. Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously. However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that "according to evoutionary scientists" is allowed, but not "according to creatiionists" is not mentioned once.

==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.

:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Oi Vey==
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article. 95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans. They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased. Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas. I forgot we can't include those. Seriously, someone fix it. It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark. Obsurd.)

(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)

:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Needed Corrections==
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles. Note that not all dinosaurs were large.

== Are you scared to be wrong? ==

Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.

:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all. Amazing what animals do to survive. On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection as of 3/19 ==

Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts. Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source? Should we put that somewhere? And then you "protected" the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Eh? They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it. There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts. I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with "vandalism" having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wonder when I'll get banned next. Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article. [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent? And in your answer, I don't want the site "Answers In Genesis" to come up once. Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Farce ==
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...

== Experience with Dinosaurs ==

I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.

==Conservative POV?==

While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section "Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism" is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Quote Mining==
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.
''') reads as such:

"It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''"

In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative, have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocked ==

Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.

I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Were my edits wrong? I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact. Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think she meant things Conservative regards as "wrong". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the "(?)" part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=51774&oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the "Violations of conservapedia fact policy" comment in the left version and the "These are not facts! *delete delete delete*" edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material. I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with "propaganda" or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and "evolutionary" views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article's getting worse ==

All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)

:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis. The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==More quote mining==

The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:

"Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds."

"Conservative's quote-mined paragraph"

"Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight."

THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Google search a sentence? I included the link to the full article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote. They are '''"probing". ''' The devil is in the details. Creationism is still the best answer. Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded. You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: "Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''." Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Maybe we could add something about..==

Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''"The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth".'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!

Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Question! When you say "keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased", do you mean as "entirely un-biased" as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is "entirely false" or as "entirely un-biased" as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==

The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a "fact" that is not a fact.

Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:

I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said when I composed: "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their "facts" the phrase "according to evolutionary scientists". I protected the article until they agreed to do that.

'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. '''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate?

The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.

The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the following sentence a fact? "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." Or is it scientists opinion? Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587 The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating "facts" when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring. Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise. If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." yes? no? Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken. One little disclaimer followed by "fact" after "fact" after "fact" after "fact" is totally unacceptable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then "fact" after "fact" after "fact". You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hope you remember, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your "cited" (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the [[Theory of evolution]] article. I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like "creationist assert" or "Opponents of the evolutionary position assert" etc etc. It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent a bit)
:What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what "can be in" and what "must go out". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given. I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with [[CreationWiki]] to copy material like "classification" for animal/plant articles. We then could cite the material and [[CreationWiki]] would get more traffic. It is a win-win scenario. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I hate to nitpick, but to answer [[user:Conservative]]'s earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event '''''is''''' a fact. Facts are provable by evidence. Creationism is an opinion informed by faith. Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way. Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 & 6. Also, I really think we should either stop citing [[CreationWiki]] - it's not a primary source. Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that [[user:Conservative]] didn't actually read should go.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== Loch Ness Monster ==

Wait... really? We're going with the Loch Ness Monster? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestion for intro==

May I create a "sandbox" for alternative versions of the intro?

[[/intro]]

This has often worked at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" ==

I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors. Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless. Guess I'm wrong? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate.

:Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to [[The Eagles]]). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us.

:I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are '''hard''' to reach. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes this article inherently different from anything else? Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem. Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex. Lastly, your analogy fails. When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn. By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate. We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I should break it down for you. Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense. Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page. 2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page. 3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.

Try to keep up. Slow minds keep right. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: "Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up". So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles:
#Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.
#Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.
And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: Why only those two? What makes those two so special? Why don't you present the Native American or Ancient Greek or Hindu approaches to the creation of the world and how they each account for dinosaurs. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::I Wouldn't have a problem with that, of course. I only chose those two because this site is biased towards Christian YEC and they were the two "sides" currently in dispute. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Wouldn't that then be a better subject for comparative creation theories? (The different creation theories made up about 4 weeks in the comparative religions class I took in high school). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes it would ideally, but I can't see that happening on this site at the moment. I was just trying to make a suggestion that would break the deadlock in the short term --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-21T00:43:08Z

JamesK: /* Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" */

==Modern Day Dinosaurs==

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...

::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=11&division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==No mention of popular documentary==

Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?

==How absurd!==

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French. There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper "foreign" spelling of words. Because it's not a dumbed-down version. Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE. How is that a rationalized "improvement"? Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters? And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's impossible to take this page seriously. Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously. However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that "according to evoutionary scientists" is allowed, but not "according to creatiionists" is not mentioned once.

==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.

:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Oi Vey==
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article. 95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans. They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased. Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas. I forgot we can't include those. Seriously, someone fix it. It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark. Obsurd.)

(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)

:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Needed Corrections==
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles. Note that not all dinosaurs were large.

== Are you scared to be wrong? ==

Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.

:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all. Amazing what animals do to survive. On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection as of 3/19 ==

Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts. Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source? Should we put that somewhere? And then you "protected" the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Eh? They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it. There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts. I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with "vandalism" having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wonder when I'll get banned next. Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article. [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent? And in your answer, I don't want the site "Answers In Genesis" to come up once. Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Farce ==
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...

== Experience with Dinosaurs ==

I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.

==Conservative POV?==

While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section "Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism" is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Quote Mining==
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.
''') reads as such:

"It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''"

In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative, have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocked ==

Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.

I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Were my edits wrong? I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact. Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think she meant things Conservative regards as "wrong". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the "(?)" part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=51774&oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the "Violations of conservapedia fact policy" comment in the left version and the "These are not facts! *delete delete delete*" edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material. I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with "propaganda" or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and "evolutionary" views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article's getting worse ==

All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)

:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis. The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==More quote mining==

The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:

"Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds."

"Conservative's quote-mined paragraph"

"Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight."

THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Google search a sentence? I included the link to the full article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote. They are '''"probing". ''' The devil is in the details. Creationism is still the best answer. Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded. You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: "Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''." Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Maybe we could add something about..==

Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''"The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth".'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!

Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Question! When you say "keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased", do you mean as "entirely un-biased" as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is "entirely false" or as "entirely un-biased" as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==

The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a "fact" that is not a fact.

Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:

I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said when I composed: "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their "facts" the phrase "according to evolutionary scientists". I protected the article until they agreed to do that.

'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. '''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate?

The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.

The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the following sentence a fact? "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." Or is it scientists opinion? Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587 The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating "facts" when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring. Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise. If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." yes? no? Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken. One little disclaimer followed by "fact" after "fact" after "fact" after "fact" is totally unacceptable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then "fact" after "fact" after "fact". You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hope you remember, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your "cited" (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the [[Theory of evolution]] article. I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like "creationist assert" or "Opponents of the evolutionary position assert" etc etc. It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent a bit)
:What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what "can be in" and what "must go out". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given. I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with [[CreationWiki]] to copy material like "classification" for animal/plant articles. We then could cite the material and [[CreationWiki]] would get more traffic. It is a win-win scenario. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I hate to nitpick, but to answer [[user:Conservative]]'s earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event '''''is''''' a fact. Facts are provable by evidence. Creationism is an opinion informed by faith. Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way. Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 & 6. Also, I really think we should either stop citing [[CreationWiki]] - it's not a primary source. Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that [[user:Conservative]] didn't actually read should go.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== Loch Ness Monster ==

Wait... really? We're going with the Loch Ness Monster? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestion for intro==

May I create a "sandbox" for alternative versions of the intro?

[[/intro]]

This has often worked at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" ==

I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors. Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless. Guess I'm wrong? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate.

:Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to [[The Eagles]]). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us.

:I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are '''hard''' to reach. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes this article inherently different from anything else? Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem. Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex. Lastly, your analogy fails. When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn. By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate. We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I should break it down for you. Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense. Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page. 2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page. 3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.

Try to keep up. Slow minds keep right. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: "Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up". So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles:
#Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.
#Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.
And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: Why only those two? What makes those two so special? Why don't you present the Native American or Ancient Greek or Hindu approaches to the creation of the world and how they each account for dinosaurs. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::I Wouldn't have a problem with that, of course. I only chose those two because this site is biased towards Christian YEC and they were the two "sides" currently in dispute. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Wouldn't that then be a better subject for comparative creation theories? (The different creation theories made up about 4 weeks in the comparative religions class I took in high school). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes it would ideally, but I can't see that happening on this site at the moment. I was just trying to make a suggestion that would break the dedlock in the short term --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-21T00:33:51Z

JamesK: /* Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" */

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-21T00:23:31Z

JamesK: /* Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" */

==Modern Day Dinosaurs==

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...

::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=11&division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==No mention of popular documentary==

Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?

==How absurd!==

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French. There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper "foreign" spelling of words. Because it's not a dumbed-down version. Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE. How is that a rationalized "improvement"? Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters? And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's impossible to take this page seriously. Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously. However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that "according to evoutionary scientists" is allowed, but not "according to creatiionists" is not mentioned once.

==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.

:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Oi Vey==
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article. 95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans. They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased. Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas. I forgot we can't include those. Seriously, someone fix it. It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark. Obsurd.)

(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)

:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Needed Corrections==
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles. Note that not all dinosaurs were large.

== Are you scared to be wrong? ==

Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.

:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all. Amazing what animals do to survive. On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection as of 3/19 ==

Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts. Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source? Should we put that somewhere? And then you "protected" the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Eh? They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it. There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts. I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with "vandalism" having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wonder when I'll get banned next. Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article. [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent? And in your answer, I don't want the site "Answers In Genesis" to come up once. Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Farce ==
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...

== Experience with Dinosaurs ==

I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.

==Conservative POV?==

While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section "Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism" is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Quote Mining==
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.
''') reads as such:

"It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''"

In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative, have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocked ==

Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.

I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Were my edits wrong? I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact. Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think she meant things Conservative regards as "wrong". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the "(?)" part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=51774&oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the "Violations of conservapedia fact policy" comment in the left version and the "These are not facts! *delete delete delete*" edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material. I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with "propaganda" or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and "evolutionary" views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article's getting worse ==

All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)

:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis. The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==More quote mining==

The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:

"Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds."

"Conservative's quote-mined paragraph"

"Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight."

THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Google search a sentence? I included the link to the full article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote. They are '''"probing". ''' The devil is in the details. Creationism is still the best answer. Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded. You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: "Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''." Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Maybe we could add something about..==

Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''"The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth".'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!

Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Question! When you say "keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased", do you mean as "entirely un-biased" as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is "entirely false" or as "entirely un-biased" as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==

The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a "fact" that is not a fact.

Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:

I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said when I composed: "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their "facts" the phrase "according to evolutionary scientists". I protected the article until they agreed to do that.

'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. '''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate?

The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.

The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the following sentence a fact? "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." Or is it scientists opinion? Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587 The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating "facts" when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring. Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise. If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." yes? no? Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken. One little disclaimer followed by "fact" after "fact" after "fact" after "fact" is totally unacceptable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then "fact" after "fact" after "fact". You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hope you remember, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your "cited" (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the [[Theory of evolution]] article. I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like "creationist assert" or "Opponents of the evolutionary position assert" etc etc. It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent a bit)
:What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what "can be in" and what "must go out". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given. I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with [[CreationWiki]] to copy material like "classification" for animal/plant articles. We then could cite the material and [[CreationWiki]] would get more traffic. It is a win-win scenario. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I hate to nitpick, but to answer [[user:Conservative]]'s earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event '''''is''''' a fact. Facts are provable by evidence. Creationism is an opinion informed by faith. Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way. Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 & 6. Also, I really think we should either stop citing [[CreationWiki]] - it's not a primary source. Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that [[user:Conservative]] didn't actually read should go.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== Loch Ness Monster ==

Wait... really? We're going with the Loch Ness Monster? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestion for intro==

May I create a "sandbox" for alternative versions of the intro?

[[/intro]]

This has often worked at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" ==

I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors. Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless. Guess I'm wrong? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate.

:Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to [[The Eagles]]). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us.

:I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are '''hard''' to reach. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes this article inherently different from anything else? Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem. Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex. Lastly, your analogy fails. When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn. By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate. We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I should break it down for you. Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense. Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page. 2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page. 3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.

Try to keep up. Slow minds keep right. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: "Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up". So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles:
:1. Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.
:2. Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.
And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Google

2007-03-20T22:13:16Z

JamesK: rv - ref does not mention any accused "liberal bias"

'''Google''' is a popular [[Internet]] [[search engine]]. The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref> Google also owns [[YouTube]], the home made [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] are suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

==History==
===Founding===
Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref>

===Google Goes Public===
===Growth===
===Purchase of Smaller Parties===

==PageRank Algorithm==
Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is it's '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to it's constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.

==="Miserable Failure" Incident===
For nearly two years, searching "Miserable Failure" in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref> Many ideas have been debated, though this was most likely due to the regular use of the PageRank system. Due to this incident (the biography remained the top result for over two years), Google has been accused (baselessly) of having a [[liberal]] bias.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Information technology]]