==frisbee==

Please provide this site with an entry for [[frisbee]]. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 17:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aw, '''I''' wanted ''frisbee''. :-( --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|Rob Pommer]] 17:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'll get right on that. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Handy Hints==

Here are a few examples of handy techniques. To make more sense of them, click on "edit" to see the code that produced these examples.

How to <s>strike out</s> text: Put <nowiki> <s> </nowiki> in front of the text, then <nowiki> </s> </nowiki>at the end of the text.
*Example: <nowiki>How to <s>strike out</s> text.</nowiki>
*Result: How to <s>strike out</s> text.

How to add references/citations: Put <nowiki><ref> Title of Reference [URL of reference] </ref></nowiki> The title can be put after the URL also, but it looks nicer in the reference section when it is put before the URL. The title will not be seen with the text, it will only appear in the references section if there is one.
*Example: <nowiki><ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref></nowiki>
*Result: (See the References section below.)<ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref>

How to add a reference section at the end of an article:
Put <nowiki>== References ==</nowiki> to create the heading. Then on the next line put <nowiki><references/>. </nowiki> Every page that includes citations should have a references section at the bottom.
*Example:
<nowiki>== References ==</nowiki>

<nowiki><references/></nowiki>
*Result: See below, at the bottom of the page.

*Result: (See the References section below.)<ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref>

How to add a request for a citation:
*Add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> after the section that needs a citation.

==References==
<references/>

==Fan mail==
I like your approach and your comments. I was neither homeschooled nor have I homeschooled my kids, but I was drawn to this site because I was intrigued by the idea of its being a resource where high-school-age kids could learn by writing articles, and by the idea of a resource aimed at that age group. The site has, um, multiple facets and that doesn't seem to be its most conspicuous facet, but I think it's still there, and I try to write with that audience at least partly in mind. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:54, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah, you're cool :) (what he said, plus more) [[User:Human|Human]] 22:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
==[[Billy Sunday]]==
Tooting my own horn... [[Billy Sunday]] was on the requested articles list, so I wrote it, and I found the topic quite interesting and think the article came out well. Since you'd said you enjoyed [[Mother's Day]], I thought I'd mention this one, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of evolution ==

If you want to help with the references, please write it and paste it in my talk page. I will improve the article with your name in the summary.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:31, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Engineer ==

Please see: [[Engineer]] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:24, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Feminism ==

[[Feminism]] has been unlocked. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:46, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Invitation to join Wikiproject:News==
Hsmom, since you have suggested grammar fixes to news items in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. [[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]] the Guidelines. 
Your grammar suggestions have been very helpful. I think they would be more helpful if you made grammar fixes to the articles BEFORE they're posted to the Main page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==May I just say...==

...that I find all of your edits on Talk:Main Page to be absolutely lovely and helpful. They are probably the most informed, level-headed and intelligent suggestions and viewpoints I've seen on here for a while. Many of the tenets you seem to promote in your posts have gotten me blocked here many times, however, but keep up the good work:) [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 13:13, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== Scabies article & Plagiarism ==

I could be wrong, but wouldn't the CDC info. on health issues be considered public domain? There's no copyright information on the website as far as I can see, so it should be fine to copy the information word-for-word as long as it is noted that is how the information was obtained and a link provided to the CDC page. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, yep. Here we go: [[Public domain]]: "Two examples of material in the public domain are United States government works (technically the copyright is held collectively by the American public)..." The CDC would fall under that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:33, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

This covers other edits you have made (e.g. Tourette syndrome article). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:It was not at all clear in the article that the entire thing had been copied word-for-word from the CDC site. If you are quoting long sections of text, you need to show that with quotation marks or other formatting to make it clear which parts are quoted and which parts are original. While the CDC site was named as a source, it was not indicated that the CDC page had been lifted word-for-word. In addition, a good article will draw upon several sources. Also, just because a site doesn't have a copyright notation does not mean it is in the public domain (although I agree that government works are probably public domain). Bottom line - would you accept this kind of work from a student? I wouldn't. It's dishonest. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, I agree, but I think there is a better fix than simply removing the information completely. Seems like overkill. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:42, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
::I'll see what I can do with them. I need a project anyway. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, the better fix would be to either quote the entire thing with proper attribution (which is still not ideal, IMHO), or re-write each of the articles. If you have time, go for it. I'm somewhat concerned, however, that there may be more medical articles that have been plagiarized. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:48, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Take a look at the scabies article now. As long as the medical articles are categorized, it should be easy to check them all. Other than that, I don't know if there's a way to check which pages link to websites like the CDC. But like I said, I needed a project, so I'll do this. Cheers and God bless! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Hmmm. Taking the info from another site and rephrasing it sentence-by-sentence doesn't really improve things. It certainly wouldn't fly in a decent high school class. If the article includes only information from one other site, I think it's better to just go ahead and quote it, making it clear that it is quoted (by using quotation marks, etc.) and properly citing the source. Then it's clear that you are not trying to pass someone else's work off as your own. Ideally a minimum of information will be quoted, with the reader being encouraged to read the rest of the original information at the original source. You might enjoy this lovely article about plagarism.<ref>[http://www.pahomeschoolers.com/newsletter/issue78b.htm]</ref> --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:02, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a template to flag articles suspected of (or known to be) plagiarism? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:12, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, after thinking about it a bit, I think that such a template would indeed be helpful. Of course, ideally the article would be fixed, but people don't always have the time to completely re-write an article when they notice it has been plagiarized, so using the template would be a quick option. I assume that would then generate a list of articles with suspected plagiarism? That would be useful too. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Mex ==

Thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:32, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

==Citations==
This was placed in the reason line when you inserted the "fact" template in [[Elephant]]: ''Could we at least get a credible citation for this? 'Cause it's word-for-word from another site. Which would be plagiarism. Which is deceitful and morally wrong.'' I agree with you that plagarism is morally wrong, but I've also noticed you placed a lot of similar lines in articles that you've identified as plagarism without even telling us where they came from at all. If it is plagarism, show us the source so it can be removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:33, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:In most of the cases I've found (and I'm beginning to suspect there are a horrifying number of plagiarized articles here), I've re-written the article to include the source, to provide proper attribution, and to minimize the amount of material lifted from any one source. In this particular case however, I Googled the sentence from the article and found an abundance of sites which included the sentence word-for-word. The first several sites I reviewed were not credible sources and thus were not appropriate to cite. I did not have time to review all of the potential sources and determine whether there was a credible one or not. I hope that whoever put this sentence in the article in the first place did indeed get it from a credible site - hopefully they have this article on their watchlist and will provide the source. If not, someone else will have to either find a source or remove the sentence. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:50, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
::If you see something that is plagarised, and it's clear that it is, immediately remove it. Go to the talk page, explain what you did and provide the source where it came from. The point I made above is that anyone just cannot say that such-and-such is plagarized without stating the source; all that would be is "my word against your's". If the article is public domain and has no attribution tag at the bottom or a statement such as "text incorporated from...", cite that on the talk page as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:11, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
:::<edit conflict>Thanks - I'll try to promptly remove any plagiarism I find, and I'll be careful about noting the source in my edit comments. Frankly, I often don't have time to discuss each one in detail on the talk page - I've added the notes below that should cover most situations, and I'll try to make the edit comments clear. One question - what is to be done about images that have no information about their source? I've come across several articles with pictures taken from another site without attribution, but I'm not sure how to address this. Shouldn't all images include the source and some kind of statement as to their copyright status?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:18, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are a few things here that you're possibly unaware of for the moment. The first thing is that all intellectual property created by indivuduals working directly for the U.S. government is public-domain; we can use them here as per this page: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines#Copying_from_other_sources]. But they have to be attributed as to where it came from, and the tag below has to be used on the page with the main source placed within it. Another reason this public domain stuff is here (such as the several bird articles your deleted) is to provide a guide for the editor to make improvements and/or additions that are just not in the original.

::::Pictures must be treated the same way; all should have a licence tag on it; all must identify exactly who created it, the year it was created; who or what entity owns it, and whether or not it's public domain. Because we have so many images on the site it would not be possible to go through and check every one. What you could do is to go to the image talk page, find out who uploaded it, and remind that person that the copyright or other is in question and corrections need to be made. See [[Fair use]] for further details, and you can also go to [[user:Karajou/tag template]] for more examples.

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] []}}}.
|}

Here's some examples that I did with regard to some of your questions regarding proper attribution:
*Photos that are public domain and/or U.S. Government: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Bighornsheep.JPG][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Passenger_Pigeon_062.jpg][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:ExtPassgreatauk2-jja.jpg][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:0617302.jpg][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:0821601.jpg]
*Articles from the ''Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships'', U.S. State Dept, Naval Historical Center: [http://www.conservapedia.com/USS_Grunion_%28SS-216%29][http://www.conservapedia.com/Gambia][http://www.conservapedia.com/Iowa-class_battleship][http://www.conservapedia.com/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29]

Thanks! I really like your templates - they are very nice. I will take a look at all of your examples, though it may take a few days to go through them. I have been here for a while but I am definitely still learning!

* [http://www.conservapedia.com/USS_Grunion_%28SS-216%29] - Unfortunately, I do have some concerns about this example. This article states at the bottom that "Article incorporates some text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, a work in the public domain." Unfortunately, I don't think this is adequate. When you quote from another source, you need to indicate ''which'' text is quoted, either with quotation marks or by indenting the quoted text. (This is especially important in a wiki, because later editors need to know which text is quoted and which is not so they can edit accordingly.) You also need to include a reference tag - the statement at the bottom is a good one, but it should be put in reference format. If the source is on-line, and this one is, then you need to provide a link to the source - there is no link in this article to the source material. And ideally, you need to provide an in-text reference, like "According to the US Navy Historical Center's Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, ...". I also noticed that there is information about the picture on the source page that was not included on the Conservapedia picture page: "Grunion (SS-216), off Groton, Connecticut, 20 March 1942.", and "USN photo # N-0000X-001." I think it would be wise to note this on the picture page, so that users know as much as possible about the photo.
Government articles are a great place to look for basic information when you're writing a new article. However, an article that consists solely of several paragraphs of information taken word-for-word from another site is plagiarism, even if the source article is in the public domain. (Something can be plagiarism without being a copyright violation. Everything that is legal is not necessarily ethical.) When writing a new article, the best approach is to look at a variety of sources, and integrate the information (of course including citations) into an original article. It is more work, of course, and takes longer, but it results in a better article and avoids any problems with plagiarism. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

===Response===
If at all possible, can we have an expectation of you improving the articles after you remove the plagarism? You left this line in one: "According to the US Geological Survey, Double-crested Cormorants are seabirds." A line like that belongs in ''Dick and Jane'', not here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:14, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:Well, I didn't want to leave absolutely nothing on the page. I understand that it's annoying when what appeared to be a very nice article is removed. However, once discovered, we cannot let plagiarism remain. I honestly don't have the time (or the background) to research a large number of seabirds and write articles about them. I understand that the stub that I've left is not ideal. However, it is accurate and includes a reference, in-text attribution, and quotation marks around the quoted material, which is more than can be said for what was there before. I didn't plagiarize the article in the first place, and I'm afraid I can't take responsibility to undertake a total re--write. Hopefully another editor will have the time and knowledge to do so. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:27, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::It's just a minor pet-peeve; I've hated ''Dick and Jane'' since the second grade! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:36, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Oh, I think they're kind of cute! But I do know what you mean - you were probably reading way beyond the Dick and Jane level by second grade and they probably made you read it anyway! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

==About my Plagiarism Edits==
Plagiarism is the act of passing someone else's work off as your own. It is deceitful and thus morally wrong.
I have been finding many pages which include plagiarism. In some cases, I will not have the time and/or the expertise to re-write the article, nor will I have the time to provide a detailed explanation on the article's talk page. Nonetheless, plagiarism should be removed promptly. Since I won't have the space to provide details about plagiarism in my edit summaries, I am providing further information here.
In general, I will deal with plagiarism I find by:
* Removing the plagiarized material.
* Including the apparent source of the material in my edit summary.
* Including "see my talk page" in the edit summary (if there is room).
I consider the following situations to be plagiarism:
* Material that has apparently been copied word-for-word from another site, without attribution of any kind.
* Material that has apparently been copied word-for-word from another site, without quotation marks indicating which material is a direct quote. (Often, this includes articles which consist entirely of several paragraphs of information taken from a single source.)
* Articles consisting solely of large amounts of text copied from a single source.
* Material that has been paraphrased from another site without attribution.
Note that:
* When you copy information word-for-word from another source, you need to ''both'' indicate which text is quoted (by using quotation marks or setting it off from the rest of the text in blockquote form) ''and'' provide a citation using reference tags. Ideally, you would also provide in-text attribution (e.g. "according to so-and-so").
* A citation, quotation marks, and ideally in-text attribution need to be provided ''even if the document from which you are quoting is in the public domain''. If you quote from a public-domain source, such as a US government agency's web site, you need to show where the quote came from. The reader needs to know where the information originally came from.
* If you paraphrase information from another source, ''you still need to provide a citation''. Obscuring the source of the information by paraphrasing is not an appropriate way to get around the need for citations.
* Large sections of text should not be copied, even if a citation is provided and quotation marks are used. For example, it is not appropriate to create a Conservapedia article about a particular bird or animal by copying an entire article about the creature from another web site, even if you cite the web site as a source.
An online encyclopedia written as a wiki is not particularly useful if references are not cited. Students who use any wiki encyclopedia should not rely on it as a primary source for their work; at best it provides a starting point for further research. Because of this, it is especially important to cite sources. Students need to be able to follow up on what they read here, and to verify the information by reading the credible sources we provide. It is important for them to understand where the information came from - who did the study or wrote the opinion or what-have-you - so that they can bring into their understanding of the information any inherent bias or point of view the original authors may have. In addition, citing sources helps to minimize errors and helps readers to quickly identify information that may have changed or been updated since the article was written. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

'''Can I cut-and-paste a whole article from another site?''' 
I believe that this would be unethical plagiarism. You can quote a snippet of information from another site - just be sure to include quotation marks (or set it apart from the text) to indicate which words are yours and which came from the other site, provide a reference (including site title, author, URL, and ideally date of retrieval), and ideally provide some in-text attribution. However, just putting quotation marks around the entire section does not make it ethical to copy large amounts of text from a single source. It is unethical to take an article written by someone else on another site (especially a commercial one), and copy the entire thing into an article here. When you do this, you are taking traffic away from the original site. On a commercial site, the author (or the site owner) makes an income from their writing via the ads on the site. The income is usually based on the number of pageviews and other site statistics. When you copy the entire article here, you eliminate the need for the reader to click through to the original site, thus depriving the author of appropriate compensation for their work. It's stealing, and the original author is losing income because of it. Even if the site is created by a government agency, and therefore is in the public domain, when you take traffic away from their web site, they lose pageviews, which ultimately could affect their funding and in turn the existence of the writers' jobs. Remember, the government agency is employing writers and in some cases photographers to actually create the content on their site. The appropriate way to use another author's material is to quote '''part''' of it, with a reference to the rest. You might say "Author Jane Smith, in her article ''This and Such'', argues that "whatever the quote is". <nowiki><ref>Jane Smith, ''This and Such'', retrieved 01/01/08 [URL]</ref></nowiki> As a basic guideline, if you are cutting and pasting something without integrating the material into the existing article, then you are probably plagiarizing. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:56, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

===Already noted===
I refer you to this exchange by a troll and the founder of this website: 
<nowiki>== Copied material? ==</nowiki>

''With the sourcing of [[arthritis]], [[arthralgia]], etc... I am curious as to if this conflicts with the first Conservapedia commandment:''
''# Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work.''

''While this appears to be in the public domain, what value does it have here besides pumping up the page count? These pages are often orphans - nothing linking to them, and no links from them. If this is just a start for more complete articles, do you think that the ongoing contest should be adjusted to make an improvement of existing articles worth more than creating another article that is similar in quality? The value of a wiki is in the interconnectivity of the articles - you go from one to another to another and browse and read rather than hitting on and ending there to do a new search. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:48, 2 July 2007 (EDT)''

'':We paid for work on government websites. It's ours already. It's not just public domain, but it is also bought and paid for by the public. '''So it's fine to copy unbiased material from such sites.''' Of course the entries can and should then be improved. But it helps having a start, and having a succinct explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)'' Emphasis added END QUOTE This was found [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive17#Copied_material.3F here]. I'm posting this to save you trouble both by trying to find plagiarism of '''.gov''' websites and to avoid getting "in dutch" with the Owner. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]]

== Paragraph quote ==

Is <nowiki>{{cquote}}</nowiki> template preferable to <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki>? --LiamG, 12:35, 11 October 2008

:I am not an expert in wiki markup, nor am I well-versed in Conservapedia's style standards. I'm still learning, and I'm putting notes about what I learn on my user page, in part to remind myself how to do things. I think either of the two approaches are basically fine. Personally, I like the way cquote shows the big blue quotation marks, which make it very clear that the section is a quotation. Using blockquote will set the text apart, but you've got to include some words of attribution before the quote (which of course you should do with the cquote too). I think cquote is less confusing if multiple paragraphs are quoted, because it's clearer where the quote starts and ends. But again, I'm still learning, so there may be an even better approach out there! (I'll add how to blockquote to my list - thanks for the reminder.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::My personal view is that cquote should only be used to draw special attention to a particular quote rather than encapsulate a whole article. It tends to be overused in a lot of articles and to my mind makes the page look ugly. Normal quotes are fine in the vast majority of cases. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:09, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Maybe we should for this to be addressed in the "Manual of Style"? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 17:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:::BrianCo - I agree that a quote of a sentence or two doesn't need the fancy style of the cquote markup. Like you said, normal quotes are fine in the vast majority of cases. Longer quotations should of course be used sparingly; in my opinion only when they are really significant, in which case the cquote markup would be OK, I think. Certainly it should be the rare case that an entire article would be a quote from a single source! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:01, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== surface mining ==

Hi, I wrote a new short article and referenced it to a mining website. If you have time please have a look. [[surface mine]] [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:04, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== copying from US Gov sites ==

Hsmom, we own material on US government sites. We paid for it as taxpayers, and it is public domain. Word-for-word copying from them is perfectly acceptable. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it is acceptable if it is properly indicated as a quotation and cited, right? Otherwise, aren't we being deceitful by presenting someone else's work as our own? And copying so much of a single site, word-for-word, page after page, even including the pictures, without indicating that it is quoted directly from another site, and without adding any of the Conservapedia editor's own words, seems dishonest to me. It may be legal, if the material is in the public domain, but it still seems unethical to me. I'm uncomfortable with encouraging students to do this kind of copying, when instead they could read several sites on a particular subject and then create their own nice little article about it. It takes a bit more time, of course, but not much, and they learn so much more from doing it. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:25, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:By the way, I think you made an excellent point the other day in the Trainspotting discussion, but I haven't had a chance to mention it yet! Weekend laundry is taking up my time! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:28, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your Trainspotting feedback, and I certainly recognize the demands of laundry and other chores that need to be done!

::As to copying from US government sites, I appreciate your point of view. I would have said the same thing a few years ago. But now I'm uncomfortable with any view of US government work that is other than the fact that we, as taxpayers, own it and paid for it. No attribution is required for that. If we hired and paid someone to write something for us, we would not have to attribute the work to him. Ditto for US govt. works. Indeed, I even filed a law brief once opposing an attempt by someone to prevent copying of a legal requirement. We own laws, we own court opinions, and we own US govt works. (Students aren't graded on this copying, by the way.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::"We, as taxpayers, own it and paid for it." Do you mean that the ''taxpayers'' own the material, or that ''everyone'' owns the material because the 'taxpayers' have presented it as a gift? Could I, as an American, copy and paste British government materials without citation?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 20:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Following this logic, Andy, would you approve of articles in the ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons'' using CDC statistics and information from NIH-funded research without proper citation? I doubt it. Just because something does not violate copyright law doesn't make it not plagiarism. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:11, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The situation is not as simple as that, Andy. You as American taxpayers paid for it; I as an Australian did not. Because it's in the public domain, I can legally use it, but I can't say that I paid for it. So that means two different rules depending on what nationality we are. Conservapedia itself is based in America, but its contributors are not all American, so given that Conservapedia articles are a joint effort by both Americans and non-Americans, where does that leave the principle of "we paid for it, so we own it"? It's more like "some of us paid for it, so some of us own it, but without going through the history of who added what, one would not know if it was written by someone who 'owned' it or not". (Of course that doesn't affect the ''legal'' situation, but it does affect the ''ethical'' aspect.)
::: If we hired and paid someone to ghost-write an autobiography, for example, then although the hired writer does most of the work, we have the final say and it reflects what ''we'' want. But if we hire and pay someone to write something that is ''their'' words, then it is unethical to claim it as our own. It should be obvious which case U.S. Government publications are most like. When we own the copyright of someone else's written work, that does not include the author's natural rights to have his name on it.
::: And then we have Commandment 2 that says that all copied works must be attributed. And that's much simpler than having different rules for different nationalities.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Also, if this is still an educational project, not expecting students to learn how to properly cite references is missing a huge educational opportunity, not to mention risking teaching behavior that would get them in serious trouble (and rightfully so) in any university. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:43, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::Corry - also, how to research. I think just "copy paste" doesn't require that the student read what he is writing. My teachers are old fashioned, and make us use real books most of the time, grins, cause we actually have to type out what we are "copying" (making us do lots less of it, I think). The intent of a article should be that you've read several sites and you state in your own words, what you've learned. That's the heart of both good research and good writing, isn't it?--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:22, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, that's true, JeanJacques. However, some people do not have that talent, and having gov sites to copy from is very helpful to improving this site. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 15:21, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:This is an important skill that goes beyond just research- using different sources to synthesize a viewpoint. This is a skill that some may lack, and that is exactly why it must be practiced.

:Does anybody else feel that we should make a debate page for this? This is important, and I feel like we should move off of Hsmom's talk page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::Bethany, whilst government sites might well offer useful information which is readily available, simply copying and pasting it is of no use to the person doing the pasting. I remember seeing Aschlafly write "don't read a book, write a book" somewhere and although I am not sure what you are supposed to write about if you have not read about it, the same principal applies to editing a wiki. Simply pasting in somebody else's work is not only lazy, but also unethical, if the original author is not credited, even if it is a government, or public domain, site. To be fair, you would not like it if you found out I had taken something you had written and posted it under my name, would you?
::Besides, the beauty (and half the fun) of editing a wiki is doing the research. I am neither American, nor do I know a great deal about the finer elements of American history, but I was able to put together an article on [[Thomas E. Dewey]] (who, admittedly, I thought created the Dewey decimal system, which is why I looked him up in the first place) and I learnt a great deal from doing that. It is probably not a great article on him and equally true, there are people who might lack the skill to research and write an article, but what better way to learn that skill than by trying it - and beauty number two of a wiki is even if they do struggle with their early attempts, there are editors on here who will be able to improve their entries and offer guidance.
::But to simply copy and paste for the sake of copying and pasting should be frowned on, more so if it is unattributed - regardless of the source. (Unfortunately, it only takes a quick look through some of the entries in the Dictionary category, to see just what a horror story blindly copying and pasting entires can precipitate.) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Konnichiha!'']] 17:06, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Bethany - writing a good article is not a talent, it is a skill that can be learned. Any student who intends to go to college, or to have a white-collar job, or to homeschool their own children, or to help their children prepare for college, should take the time to learn this skill. It comes harder to some than to others, but it is well worth the time it takes to learn. Not only will it make you a better writer, it will make you a more critical reader - you'll be better at asking "where does this information come from" and "who expressed this opinion" and "is this a credible source" - all important skills for any good citizen. Like [[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]] said, a wiki is a great place to learn, because there are lots of other people who can improve your article once you write it, and you can learn by observing the changes they make. Simply copying and pasting test from another site is pointless. It creates another article here, sure, but waters down the quality of the articles and devalues the site's reputation. It's no good to proudly say Conservapedia has such and such number of articles, if you've given the opposition reason to say "yeah, but many of them are just copied from somewhere else". And worse - if you've copied material from other sources without indicating that it is quoted material and where it came from, then you are opening yourself and Conservapedia up for accusations of plagiarism. I can see [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s point about US citizens owning government-generated material, but frankly I feel that the majority of college-educated people would consider it plagiarism regardless, and once you've been labeled a plagiarist, that label is almost impossible to get rid of.
:::Bethany, I encourage you to try to write an article yourself. Pick a topic you know something about. Nothing too broad like "The Revolutionary War" - something more specific, like a particular animal, or a favorite hobby like Irish dancing. Read a few books or magazine articles about it. You don't have to read an entire book - maybe you can find a book that has a few pages about your topic. A librarian can be very helpful with this. Then put the books aside and think about what you think are the most important nuggets of information. Write a phrase about each one on a strip of paper. Now think about how to arrange them - what order makes sense? Move the papers around until you like the order. Now write a sentence or two about each phrase. When you've done this, you've got the body of your article. Write a brief introduction, and perhaps a concluding sentence, and the text is done. Now go back and think about where the facts came from. Put in your references, and you're done! The first one you do may be hard, but you'll get better with practice. You'll get much more satisfaction from writing your own article than from copying someone else's words. And you'll make a much more valued contribution to Conservapedia. It's not the number of articles that's important, it's the quality - and I have confidence that you can write a good article once you've had a bit of practice. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:31, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Thank You==
...for the compliments [[User talk:Aschlafly|here]]. It is nice to see someone who agrees with me and is willing to support their ideas. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)

== Disability article ==

Hi, I created a [[Disability]] article from wanted pages. I am afraid its a bit of a pigs breakfast though. If you have time could you give it a look ? I really appreciate it. I have more to add , mainly specific disabilities and links for them. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
==1000 edits==
Congrats. Can I be nosy and ask how you count? --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 23:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Sure! When I click on "my preferences" at the top of the page, it tells me. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Ah, I have a long way to go to reach your status. You can be a roll model (actually, you are for when I disagree with someone, and want to say so, but do not want to be petty and argumentative over it. Thanks for that, by the way).--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 23:44, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Space Shuttle Endeavour

2008-11-17T16:45:41Z

JeanJacques: /* Linguistics and Generative Grammar */

[[Image:Chomsky3.gif|right|thumb|130px]]
'''Avram Noam Chomsky''' (born December 7, 1928) is a [[Judaism|Jewish]] [[Linguistics|linguist]] who is best known for his insight and writings on language, language acquisition, and the development of modern linguistics as a field of study. He is also a philosopher, an activist and a critic of modern politics. He is an institute professor & professor of linguistics (Emeritus) at the [[MIT|Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] (MIT) <ref>http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/index.html</ref>.

==Linguistics and Generative Grammar==
Chomsky developed the idea of generative grammar and "started" the linguistic discussion in the 1950's not on simply how a language is structured, but why it must be structured that way, how the speakers change the inherent structure of a given language, and what commonalities exist in all human languages - thus suggesting the nature of language itself. By placing the core of language inside the mind, biologically, Chomsky challenged the idea of the behavioral side to language acquisition, arguing that children are born with the core of language already present, possessing "Universal Grammar". The idea of language as a biological system has a direct impact on [[Philosophy of the Mind]] as well as the [[Philosophy of Identity]], topics Chomsky has also written on.

==Political Views==
He has always been very critical of [[America]]n and [[Israel]]i foreign policy and sympathizes with [[Palestine|Palestinians]] and has shown support for the terrorist organization [[Hezbollah]]<ref>http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&x_article=1151</ref>. He has also been criticized for [[anti-Semitism]].

His opponents accuse him of expressing admiration for governmental systems such as the Soviet Union, Chinese and Cambodian governments which are characterized by central control, xenophobia, and rejection of free expression, though he has openly expressed opposition to the Soviet Union and other regimes characterized by authoritarianism, arguing that they are not legitimate forms of socialism.<ref>http://chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm</ref> He also counters that he is merely pointing out the West's own crimes and not condoning authoritarian governments that the West opposes. His stated justification for this is that criticism of other authoritarian governments will do nothing except give the United States ammunition against other countries, while being able to freely ignore their own crimes, whereas criticism of his own country may bring about what he considers to be positive reform. Chomsky identifies himself as a libertarian socialist who is opposed to both neoliberalism and authoritarianism. <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19446</ref>

== Background ==
Chomsky was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of William Chomsky, a [[Russian]] immigrant, and Elsie Simonofsky Chomsky. His parents both practiced Judaism. His father taught [[Hebrew]], and published a scholarly edition of a medieval Hebrew grammar.<ref>http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/chomsky_noam.html</ref>. He received his education at the [[University of Pennsylvania]] where he studied linguistics, mathematics, and philosophy, and eventually earned his [[Ph. D.]] in 1955. Since then, he has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He previously held the Ferrari P. Ward Chair of Modern Language and Linguistics, and is now an Institute Professor.

== Anti-Semitism ==
Chomsky has been criticized for [[anti-Semitism]].<ref>http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Dershowitz.htm</ref><ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15381</ref>. In addition to his support for Hezbollah, He has stated that Jews are "the most privileged and influential part of the population", and that "Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control"<ref>http://www.variant.randomstate.org/16texts/Chomsky.html</ref>. His statements show striking similarities with classic anti-Semitism.

Chomsky has also been a vocal supporter of controversial author Norman Finkelstein, author of ''The Holocaust Industry'', who has argued that claims of anti-Semitism are used to silence critics of Israel and that the Holocaust is exploited by some Jewish institutions for their own gain.<ref>[http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=311000&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news University denies tenure to Holocaust academic], ''Mail & Guardian'', 12 June 2007.</ref>

It should be noted that both Finkelstein and Chomsky are from Jewish-American backgrounds <ref>[http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=150]</ref><ref>http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/noamchomsky2005</ref>, and that both Chomsky's parents were devout and involved in Jewish scholarship. It is unclear whether Chomsky still practices Judaism.

==Chomsky's Criticisms of the West==
Chomsky is one of the most vocal critics of the [[United States]] foreign policy. Some of his criticisms are:
#The overthrow of democratic and secular leader [[Mohammed Mossadegh]] in Iran and replacement with the Shah, a brutal dictator in 1953 (Done by the US and the UK)
#The overthrow of social democrat Jacobo Arbenz in [[Guatemala]] in 1954
#The overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende in Chile on 9/11 in 1973
#The Dirty War against the Sandinista government in [[Nicaragua]] in the 1980s
#The backing of a brutal military dictatorship in [[El Salvador]] during the same time period
#Selling weapons to a terror-state ([[Iran]]) to fund another terrorist group (The Contras). (See [[Iran-Contra Affair]])
#Selling weapons of mass destruction to [[Saddam Hussein]] during the Iran-Iraq war.
#Supporting the mujahideen which later became al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980s
#Invading [[Iraq]] in 2003 despite lack of support from the [[UN]]
#Blatant Support of [[Israel]] which Chomsky believes is a terror state despite his [[Jew]]ish ethnicity
(Source: Hegemony or Survival)

Many of his critics claim that Chomsky's books are riddled with factual inaccuracies <ref>http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf</ref>.

==Linguistic Works==

===Generative Grammar===
Noam Chomsky advocates the view that the human brain has innate ability to generate grammatical sentences, thus all utterances which is deemed sensical to the speaker is necessarily grammatical, and the only role the linguist should play is to decipher its grammatical structure. This view has been criticized by many linguists as [[nihilism|nihilistic]] in that it rejects the notion of ungrammatical sentences. Noam Chomsky also pointed to instances of infants utter grammatical sentence fragments they have not been taught before as evidence for Generative Grammar.

===Universal Grammar===
Noam Chomsky also proposed the theory that a kind of universal grammar, a grammar that underlies all human languages, is hard-wired in the human brain. Thus all human languages are fundamentally the same, with only superficial differences. This theory of universal grammar has been criticized by linguist Geoffrey Sampson as being not falsifiable, arguing that the grammatical generalizations made are simply observations about existing languages and not predictions about what is possible in a language. To this day, the search for such universal grammar has been fruitless.

For decades, Noam Chomsky and his followers have been trying to make sense of sentences such as:
<blockquote>
''Who will be easy for us to get his mother to talk to?''
</blockquote>
which are deemed to be ungrammatical by a lot of linguists; by using techniques such as linking theory, anti-c-command requirement, A-positions, Bijection Principle, weakest crossover configurations, bound variable anaphora, asymmetric linking, licensing conditions, index of a pronoun, null operator analysis, variable binding, configurational conditions, inappropriate and appropriate antecedents, etc.

== See Also ==
*[http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/publications.html List of Chomsky's Publications]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk8pxyAWTBk Chomsky Speaks about American Politics] Chomsky believes the Democrats and Republicans are a single entity
*[http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1136# Video of Noam Chomsky with Hezbollah Leaders in Lebanon]
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html The Chomsky Hoax] by Paul Bogdanor
*[http://www.grsampson.net/AGwg.html Grammar Without Grammaticality] by Geoffrey Sampson
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23543 Chomsky's New Blood Libel] by Alan Dershowitz
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXMZZCvFtlw Chomsky on Middle East Television] Chomsky speaks about American Imperialism

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Chomsky, Noam}}
[[category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Linguists]]
[[Category:Political People]]
[[category:Authors]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]

Noam Chomsky

2008-11-17T16:44:00Z

JeanJacques: linguist first, activist second.

Category:Indian Law

2008-11-17T15:44:14Z

JeanJacques: cat description

Includes Laws governing or relating to Native People, treaties, and important Judicial Opinions relating to Native Americans and issues.
[[Category:Native Americans]]
[[Category:Law]]

NAGPRA

2008-11-17T15:42:29Z

JeanJacques: Do we have a link of Kennewick?

'''Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act''' (NAGPRA) in a [[Congress]]ional Act signed into law in 1990. The law is an attempt to provide a way for native people to accomplish several things including: 1) protection of [[holy]] sites and religious burials from development without consent, 2) the return to [[tribe]]s of Native American bones and artifacts stolen from them over the last 500 years, and 3) providing more independent oversight of construction or land development sites on Indian Territory.

==Criticisms==
While in general this bill has been long overdue, and is a building block of better relations with Indian people and the US Government, it has some de-facto problems.
#At what point are ancient bones of "anthropological" interest in general, and at what point are they truly bones of a given tribe? 500 year old bones? 1000 year old bones?<ref>See Kennewick Man controversy and the small role NAGPRA played in the situation</ref> 10,000 year old bones? If a bone were found in the US, to be 1,500,000 years old, and show evidence of Alien presence, is that still a "Native American" bone? <ref> Though this example is extreme, the fact is that the law itself makes no clear distinction between bones that would clearly be the legacy of a particular tribe, and those old enough to simply be something more generally "human interest".</ref>
#Which tribe gets to say if a location can be disturbed, or of the location under construction is a religious site?
#What happens when 2 or more tribes demand access to bones and artifacts.

Like most modern human endeavors, much of this law provides quality redress of centuries of mistreatment; however, amoral lawyers, Indian leaders, and political figures can and do abuse the law for profit or power.

[[Category:Indian Law]]

Manga

2008-11-15T20:30:08Z

JeanJacques: /* Development */it's? sighs, i need to be more careful.

'''Manga''' (漫画 literally "irresponsible images") is a term for [[Japanese]] comic books, printed cartoons, and by extension, [[anime|animated features]] done in a similar style.

==Development==
Illustrated stories are an important part of Japan's historical art, as moralists, philosophers, comics and others informed their audience on scrolls with plate images depicting scenes in the story. Manga, as a distinct publishing and illustration style, began during the occupation of Japan after WWII, and the illustration of characters (many if not most manga characters are drawn with European facial features) as well as the stories themselves strongly displayed the American influence from American TV and the comic books brought to Japan by US GIs. [[Astro Boy]] was one of the first and most popular manga, and remains popular today. Throughout most of its production, Manga has targeted teen boys and young men from 8 to 18. However, since the late 70s, manga has found fans with young girls ([[shoujo]] style), older adult men ([[shonin]] style), and with more mature women.

==Style and Topics==
Distinctive characteristics include oversized eyes and tiny mouths and noses. A more detailed explanation of the various manga genres can be found under [[Anime]].

Topics range from classical manga stories of space, super heroes, and robots to stories of very adult focused high school memories (Honey and Clover), slapstick high school comedies. There is even a manga about Bread Making (Yakitate Japan), Japanese Chess (Shion no oh), and microbes (Moyshimon).

==Manga in the US==
Manga has become popular in the US, and manga about almost anything can be found.
Manga is often printed in the original Japanese language format. This means that many manga read from right to left, unlike American comics which can be confusing to those not used to it. This is done primarily to preserve the artwork from distortion by mirroring the pictures to create a western left to right orientation.

[[category:Japan]]
[[category:literature]]
[[Category:Manga]]