Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Lawrence v. Texas

2007-10-07T23:32:02Z

MichaelS:

This page has been withdrawn from Conservapedia as part of a mass removal of content added by [[user:AmesG|Ames]] pursuant to a copyright challenge brought by the same user. The challenge rests on two grounds:
#Some content was added prior to the institution of Conservapedia's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:General_disclaimer&oldid=82832 copyright policy] on 2 April 2007, and is now removed by the user's unencumbered and uncontroverted ability to control his own content in the absence of contract or waiver to the contrary.
#Some content, added after Conservapedia's copyright policy came into effect, is withdrawn under the below reasoning:

*If Ames supplied content gratuitously, he now revokes it.
*Any waiver executed by the user would have been a contract; however, the professed disclaimer asserts that it is not a contract. Ergo, no waiver was made.
*If the waiver was a contract, it fails for lack of consideration. No exchange was contemplated or made between the parties; detriment was suffered by user in the loss of copyrighted privileges, time, and effort put into text, but no compensation was received in turn. If use of the site constitutes compensation, such use was already provided free of charge prior to copyright waiver, and even prior to contribution, and past consideration is no consideration.
*If the waiver was a contract, it was procedurally unconscionable and voidable. User has no power under the agreement, and a simple contract of adhesion such as this one professes to be is voidable as a matter of public policy. As voidable, it is now void.
*If the waiver was a contract, and use of the site was acceptance, the contract was breached by Conservapedia. Conservapedia, by virtue of holding out certain guidelines and "commandments," incorporates these commandments into the the contract. These "commandments" were breached with regard to users, as user's access to the site was terminated without cause (under the commandments) in May 2007. Prior to May 2007, user had not violated the commandments. Having been breached, waiver is inoperative.
*If the waiver was a contract, Conservapedia was unjustly enriched by avowadly valuable material.

U.S. v. Virginia

2007-10-07T23:31:49Z

MichaelS:

Romer v. Evans

2007-10-07T23:31:43Z

MichaelS:

Gonzales v. Carhart

2007-10-07T23:31:37Z

MichaelS:

Rational basis review

2007-10-07T23:31:32Z

MichaelS:

Substantive due process

2007-10-07T23:31:15Z

MichaelS:

Talk:Augustus Caesar

2007-10-05T21:58:15Z

MichaelS: Please revert to pre-Ames version

==formatting fix?==
Not sure if this is just how IE is viewing it, but the wikitable on the right overlaps text in the first section making it hard to read. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

considering this is supposed to be more "americanized" than wikipedia, does it bother anyone that this article is longer than alberto gonzales's, or speaker pelosi's? just a thought...TheisonMarsh
:Not at all. An article this long, about one of the most famous of Roman emperors, is entirely appropriate.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==pic==
This pic, from Jacques, needs to be added. Thanks for adding upping it, Jacques! Could an admin unlock this article, please? It was only locked while it was on the front page.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:397px-Statue-Augustus.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The statue of Augustus Caesar, ''Augustus of Prima Porta'',]]
==Break==
Why is there a random break in the opening sentence?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:51, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

== Please revert to pre-Ames version ==

This page has been withdrawn from Conservapedia as part of a mass removal of content added by [[user:AmesG|Ames]] pursuant to a copyright challenge brought by the same user. The challenge rests on two grounds:
#Some content was added prior to the institution of Conservapedia's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:General_disclaimer&oldid=82832 copyright policy] on 2 April 2007, and is now removed by the user's unencumbered and uncontroverted ability to control his own content in the absence of contract or waiver to the contrary.
#Some content, added after Conservapedia's copyright policy came into effect, is withdrawn under the below reasoning:

*If Ames supplied content gratuitously, he now revokes it.
*Any waiver executed by the user would have been a contract; however, the professed disclaimer asserts that it is not a contract. Ergo, no waiver was made.
*If the waiver was a contract, it fails for lack of consideration. No exchange was contemplated or made between the parties; detriment was suffered by user in the loss of copyrighted privileges, time, and effort put into text, but no compensation was received in turn. If use of the site constitutes compensation, such use was already provided free of charge prior to copyright waiver, and even prior to contribution, and past consideration is no consideration.
*If the waiver was a contract, it was procedurally unconscionable and voidable. User has no power under the agreement, and a simple contract of adhesion such as this one professes to be is voidable as a matter of public policy. As voidable, it is now void.
*If the waiver was a contract, and use of the site was acceptance, the contract was breached by Conservapedia. Conservapedia, by virtue of holding out certain guidelines and "commandments," incorporates these commandments into the the contract. These "commandments" were breached with regard to users, as user's access to the site was terminated without cause (under the commandments) in May 2007. Prior to May 2007, user had not violated the commandments. Having been breached, waiver is inoperative.
*If the waiver was a contract, Conservapedia was unjustly enriched by avowadly valuable material.

Gonzales v. Carhart

2007-10-05T21:58:03Z

MichaelS:

Romer v. Evans

2007-10-05T21:57:57Z

MichaelS:

U.S. v. Virginia

2007-10-05T21:57:50Z

MichaelS:

Loving v. Virginia

2007-10-05T21:57:43Z

MichaelS:

Text of Brown v. Board of Education

2007-10-05T21:57:38Z

MichaelS:

Lawrence v. Texas

2007-10-05T21:57:32Z

MichaelS:

Rational basis review

2007-10-05T21:57:30Z

MichaelS:

Intermediate scrutiny

2007-10-05T21:57:28Z

MichaelS:

Strict scrutiny

2007-10-05T21:57:26Z

MichaelS:

Substantive due process

2007-10-05T21:57:25Z

MichaelS:

State action doctrine

2007-10-05T21:57:23Z

MichaelS:

Fourteenth Amendment

2007-10-05T21:57:20Z

MichaelS:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

----

This Amendment was passed by Congress and proposed to the states in 1866, but was not ratified by the states until 1868, and whether the ratification was proper continues to be questioned. New Jersey, Oregon and Ohio rescinded their ratification of this Amendment, and North Carolina, Louisiana and South Carolina all rejected the Amendment initially before ratifying it later.

The U.S. Supreme Court has used this Amendment to invent new rights, such as abortion and a separation of church and state, which were never intended by those who drafted or ratified it.

Conservapedia:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-04T04:26:41Z

MichaelS: /* Vote Tally */

'''Not family/student friendly!''' [[Gay_Bowel_Syndrome]]

<blockquote>
'''Gay Bowel Syndrome''', which has also been referred to a gay bowel disease, was named as an illness in 1976 by a group of [[New York City]] physicians in a private [[Proctology|proctologic]] practice and it describes a number of male [[homosexuality|homosexual]] anorectal disorders that male homosexuals are more apt to encounter. <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=578386&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/homosexual.asp</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus</ref> Glen Hastings and Richard Weber in 1993 wrote the following regarding gay bowel disease in the peer reviewed medical journal ''[[American Family Physician]]'': "The 1980s brought a recognition of gay bowel disease and its similarities to inflammatory bowel disease."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref>
The abstract for the 1976 journal article published in ''[[Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science]]'' entitled ''The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases'' describes gay bowel syndrome in the following manner:
</blockquote>

:::'''Keep''' The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] cites a 2004 article by Medscape saying that gay bowel syndrome is still a concern. More importantly, given the lethality of [[HIV]] and its connection with proctitus/gay bowel syndrome the article could save lives.[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v38n2/30832/30832.html?erFrom=-8997763093503343538Guest] I know Wikipedia would definitely censor this article because the liberal gay activists hate the term "gay bowel syndrome" and have been trying to get the medical establishment to not use the term because it strong associates homosexuality with disease. However, I do think that Conservapedia should warn its readers of the dangers of homosexual activity especially since the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:30, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Keep'''. Another instance of the corruption of "science" and the professional healtcare community to serve a politcal agenda. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete.''' Everybody already knows that homosexuals are at higher risk for HIV/AIDS and other diseases; there is no reason to belabor the point by inserting pornographic content on a website viewed by many young people. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I quoted medical journals. There is nothing pornographic about medical terminology. Also, I don't believe that homosexuals know they are at greater risk in respect to certain practices. The media certainly doesn't tell them this and mainly conservative websites and medical journals and medical websites do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete''' because it was abandoned as a term by the medical community in the 1980s. It described symptoms that were not limited to gays, not limited to the bowels, and not actually a syndrome.[[User:ConserveATory|ConserveATory]] 19:38, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::Conservatory, the term was not abandoned by the medical community. The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] cites Medscape which used the term in 2004. Also here are two other present sources which mention the term: http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?gay+bowel+syndrome and http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Gay_bowel_syndrome [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:44, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''DELETE'''*Conservative, who is your medical advisor? PalMD? Have you gone out of your mind here? Andy deleted articles like this one that Doc did! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::TK, like this one? Could you be more specific? What is wrong with directly quoting medical journals? Is there anything pornographic about quoting medical journals? Do perverts hang out in medical libraries anxiously awaiting the next Journal of the American Medical Association publication? Lets be realistic here. I am certainly not for creating pornography on Conservapedia and quoting medical journals is not pornographic. I think this is especially so since the article merely gives the effects of activities and doesn't describe those activities. Certainly we should not censor the effects of immoral activities (for example, [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] or [[AIDS]] ). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::*This is your marketing plan? Putting up Troll Bait? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:00, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''DELETE'''If something like this, this inflammatory, and this disgusting, is to be put up, it should be put up by a doctor. If Conservative can front medical credentials, keep it. Otherwise, this does nothing more than anger people. Conservapedia's (unwritten) POV shouldn't be allowed to run rampant over the "family friendly" commandment.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 20:21, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*'''DELETE''' If only the article gave some clear indication of that, Rob. But it doesn't.
Conservative, I have suffered from Irritable Bowel Syndrome in the past, and presently from Lupus. Will you also be adding scholarly articles about those maladies as well? Or is the idea here to merely be provocative, to titillate and give a wink and a nod because you have a friend, or read on some page that titles with "Gay" in them bang web hits? Given your past production, I don't see a great interest on your part on medical issues. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:37, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::TK, I was about to cite that the symptoms of gay bowel syndrome are not only suffered by male homosexuals but these symptoms are suffered disproportionately by male homosexuals like AIDS. For example, male homosexuals get parasites more often but that doesn't mean if you have parasites that you are a male homosexual. I will put that in now. I just had to finish some other things with the article to show that the term is still being used today as can be seen in the [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] article presently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:01, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*I just don't see the point, Conservative. Is it the term you object to? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete''' Not family friendly. We already know that homosexuality is wrong, we don't need to know about everything that goes on with their bowels. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:13, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*'''Delete'''' for reasons stated above. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 21:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't see how "bowels" are not family friendly. Do we have to delete a future [[diverticulosis]] article too. There is nothing not family friendly about saying that if you engage in homosexuality you can get various diseases. In fact, I would argue that telling kids this is important. The homosexual activists don't want kids to know that homosexual behavior increases disease in a significant way and I think we should tell them. I believe I showed in the article that homosexual activists don't want kids to know about [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::TK, i took your feedback. I specifically stated in the article that "gay bowel syndrome" is a condition where you get certain maladies with unusual frequency as a result of homosexual activity and that homosexuals are more apt to get this condition but that these maladies are not solely exclusive to male homosexuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal bullying of the medical establishment plus other prominent conservative websites mention gay bowel syndrome==
I dislike it when the liberals bully the medical establishment or other entities and I showed in the [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] article that the liberal homosexual activists were doing this in regard to the medical community and other entities.

A number of leading conservative websites mention "gay bowel syndrome" and here is just 3 three very prominent conservative organizations but I could come up with more.[http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5014&department=CFI&categoryid=family][http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/homosexual.asp][http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Diseases.pdf] The disease "gay bowel syndorme" can signficantly increase the risk of dying of AIDS in homosexuals. For one symptom of "gay bowel syndrome" for example it increases your chance of getting AIDS by 9 times.

The homosexual activists are bullying the medical community and reference works to not mention or discuss "gay bowel syndrome" which medical authorities still use today. I think as a conservative encyclopedia we should mention it.

The article does not say anything racy and merely quotes medical journals.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:16, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

== Vote Tally ==
I'm reading 6 to 2.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:30, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, but some people were mistaken in their criticism. The medical term is still used today and the article now reflects that. Secondly, TK was not aware that the liberal homosexual activists were attempting to suppress medical science and now the article reflects that. I do think it is fair that people give editors a reasonable amount of time to create an article and not throw out objections as an article is being created. As the final article may address those points shortly as mine clearly did. In short, if I had been given just a little more time the vote would be 4 to 4 and possibly be in my favor as one person said same as above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:37, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, we should give you time to make the article worse. Coming along nicely, I see.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:38, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:::MichealS, I believe you are a liberal that is unreasonable and your posts here and your user page shows this.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:42, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:That's an ad hominem attack, not an argument. If you have something to say, please make the argument.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:43, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I quoted medical professionals and cited them. Your request for my medical credentials was a fluff objection as the people who are cited are clearly medical professions and qualified. You clearly have an agenda and are not interested in evidence. You are unreasonable.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:46, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Your articles are all links to pay portals. Have you read every one of those sources (not just the quoted parts, mind you), as in, the whole articles? If not, I wouldn't include them. Linking w/o having read the article is a case of [[deceit]] :-O.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 00:02, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
:Isn't this the object, though? Since those are pay sites, Conservative has given a free access summary. And this single article has more educational value than all the rap, punk, and pop culture articles combined we have on this site. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:06, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but I don't trust Conservative to have accurately cited the articles. Further, I think it best that his sourcing and citation be open for critics and admirers to see. Also, it's extremely unencyclopedic to just take his word for it.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 00:11, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
*Traditional values Coaltion and Concerned Women for America are precisely the sources we should be using and linking to for articles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
::They're not medical journals. Let's see the medical journal cites. Also, here's an article that elegantly disproves creationism. You can access it [http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_QNPNQPT here], and the cited material is in the third paragraph. What, no Economist password? Oh, then just trust me.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 00:26, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
Leaving aside questions of trust, it is clear that the vote is squarely against you, Conservative, with several sysops opposing the article. I believe that unless there is a significant change to the vote tally over the next day or so, the article should be deleted. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-04T04:11:57Z

MichaelS: /* Vote Tally */

Conservapedia:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-04T04:02:03Z

MichaelS: /* Vote Tally */

Vox

2007-10-04T03:44:49Z

MichaelS: New page: '''Vox''' is the Latin word for "voice." Category:Latin phrases

'''Vox''' is the Latin word for "[[voice]]."

[[Category:Latin phrases]]

Conservapedia:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-04T03:43:12Z

MichaelS: /* Vote Tally */

Conservapedia:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-04T03:38:58Z

MichaelS: /* Vote Tally */

'''Not family/student friendly!''' [[Gay_Bowel_Syndrome]]

<blockquote>
'''Gay Bowel Syndrome''', which has also been referred to a gay bowel disease, was named as an illness in 1976 by a group of [[New York City]] physicians in a private [[Proctology|proctologic]] practice and it describes a number of male [[homosexuality|homosexual]] anorectal disorders that male homosexuals are more apt to encounter. <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=578386&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/homosexual.asp</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus</ref> Glen Hastings and Richard Weber in 1993 wrote the following regarding gay bowel disease in the peer reviewed medical journal ''[[American Family Physician]]'': "The 1980s brought a recognition of gay bowel disease and its similarities to inflammatory bowel disease."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref>
The abstract for the 1976 journal article published in ''[[Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science]]'' entitled ''The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases'' describes gay bowel syndrome in the following manner:
</blockquote>

:::'''Keep''' The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] cites a 2004 article by Medscape saying that gay bowel syndrome is still a concern. More importantly, given the lethality of [[HIV]] and its connection with proctitus/gay bowel syndrome the article could save lives.[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v38n2/30832/30832.html?erFrom=-8997763093503343538Guest] I know Wikipedia would definitely censor this article because the liberal gay activists hate the term "gay bowel syndrome" and have been trying to get the medical establishment to not use the term because it strong associates homosexuality with disease. However, I do think that Conservapedia should warn its readers of the dangers of homosexual activity especially since the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:30, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Keep'''. Another instance of the corruption of "science" and the professional healtcare community to serve a politcal agenda. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete.''' Everybody already knows that homosexuals are at higher risk for HIV/AIDS and other diseases; there is no reason to belabor the point by inserting pornographic content on a website viewed by many young people. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I quoted medical journals. There is nothing pornographic about medical terminology. Also, I don't believe that homosexuals know they are at greater risk in respect to certain practices. The media certainly doesn't tell them this and mainly conservative websites and medical journals and medical websites do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete''' because it was abandoned as a term by the medical community in the 1980s. It described symptoms that were not limited to gays, not limited to the bowels, and not actually a syndrome.[[User:ConserveATory|ConserveATory]] 19:38, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::Conservatory, the term was not abandoned by the medical community. The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] cites Medscape which used the term in 2004. Also here are two other present sources which mention the term: http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?gay+bowel+syndrome and http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Gay_bowel_syndrome [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:44, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''DELETE'''*Conservative, who is your medical advisor? PalMD? Have you gone out of your mind here? Andy deleted articles like this one that Doc did! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::TK, like this one? Could you be more specific? What is wrong with directly quoting medical journals? Is there anything pornographic about quoting medical journals? Do perverts hang out in medical libraries anxiously awaiting the next Journal of the American Medical Association publication? Lets be realistic here. I am certainly not for creating pornography on Conservapedia and quoting medical journals is not pornographic. I think this is especially so since the article merely gives the effects of activities and doesn't describe those activities. Certainly we should not censor the effects of immoral activities (for example, [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] or [[AIDS]] ). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::*This is your marketing plan? Putting up Troll Bait? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:00, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''DELETE'''If something like this, this inflammatory, and this disgusting, is to be put up, it should be put up by a doctor. If Conservative can front medical credentials, keep it. Otherwise, this does nothing more than anger people. Conservapedia's (unwritten) POV shouldn't be allowed to run rampant over the "family friendly" commandment.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 20:21, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*'''DELETE''' If only the article gave some clear indication of that, Rob. But it doesn't.
Conservative, I have suffered from Irritable Bowel Syndrome in the past, and presently from Lupus. Will you also be adding scholarly articles about those maladies as well? Or is the idea here to merely be provocative, to titillate and give a wink and a nod because you have a friend, or read on some page that titles with "Gay" in them bang web hits? Given your past production, I don't see a great interest on your part on medical issues. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:37, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::TK, I was about to cite that the symptoms of gay bowel syndrome are not only suffered by male homosexuals but these symptoms are suffered disproportionately by male homosexuals like AIDS. For example, male homosexuals get parasites more often but that doesn't mean if you have parasites that you are a male homosexual. I will put that in now. I just had to finish some other things with the article to show that the term is still being used today as can be seen in the [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] article presently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:01, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*I just don't see the point, Conservative. Is it the term you object to? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete''' Not family friendly. We already know that homosexuality is wrong, we don't need to know about everything that goes on with their bowels. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:13, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*'''Delete'''' for reasons stated above. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 21:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't see how "bowels" are not family friendly. Do we have to delete a future [[diverticulosis]] article too. There is nothing not family friendly about saying that if you engage in homosexuality you can get various diseases. In fact, I would argue that telling kids this is important. The homosexual activists don't want kids to know that homosexual behavior increases disease in a significant way and I think we should tell them. I believe I showed in the article that homosexual activists don't want kids to know about [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::TK, i took your feedback. I specifically stated in the article that "gay bowel syndrome" is a condition where you get certain maladies with unusual frequency as a result of homosexual activity and that homosexuals are more apt to get this condition but that these maladies are not solely exclusive to male homosexuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal bullying of the medical establishment plus other prominent conservative websites mention gay bowel syndrome==
I dislike it when the liberals bully the medical establishment or other entities and I showed in the [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] article that the liberal homosexual activists were doing this in regard to the medical community and other entities.

A number of leading conservative websites mention "gay bowel syndrome" and here is just 3 three very prominent conservative organizations but I could come up with more.[http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5014&department=CFI&categoryid=family][http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/homosexual.asp][http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Diseases.pdf] The disease "gay bowel syndorme" can signficantly increase the risk of dying of AIDS in homosexuals. For one symptom of "gay bowel syndrome" for example it increases your chance of getting AIDS by 9 times.

The homosexual activists are bullying the medical community and reference works to not mention or discuss "gay bowel syndrome" which medical authorities still use today. I think as a conservative encyclopedia we should mention it.

The article does not say anything racy and merely quotes medical journals.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:16, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

== Vote Tally ==
I'm reading 6 to 2.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:30, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, but some people were mistaken in their criticism. The medical term is still used today and the article now reflects that. Secondly, TK was not aware that the liberal homosexual activists were attempting to suppress medical science and now the article reflects that. I do think it is fair that people give editors a reasonable amount of time to create an article and not throw out objections as an article is being created that will address those points. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:37, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, we should give you time to make the article worse. Coming along nicely, I see.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:38, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-04T03:32:57Z

MichaelS:

What the bloody '''heck''' is this?!!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 20:20, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:This appears to be the sick pornography of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. I am disgusted and '''did not need to encounter this article'''. While we are at it, why not go ahead and have a full article describing gay sex!([[User:ErstBlenchPoet|ErstBlenchPoet]] 20:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT))
::::The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] does not describe an pornographic acts. It merely describes a medical condition which is the result of a homosexual act. Deleting [[Gay Bowel Snydrome]] would be like deleting our [[AIDS]] article. Please show me specifically where the article is pornographic. It merely quotes medical publications. By the way, liberal gay activists hate the term "gay bowel syndrome" as I demonstrated in my article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maybe you could colorize the part that demonstrates that? Because gay activists hate the term, that is why you cursed us with it? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:42, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Does the fact that gay activists hate something mean we have to like it and endorse it? Bet they abhor hate crimes, too! Maybe we should promote those? Wait, seems like you are.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 21:00, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*MichaelS, please try to keep on point! Making charged comments like that certainly isn't going to help the situation. Are you Gay and object to the malady being publicized or what? You are invited to make positive contributions, which help this site grow! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:11, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

...moving on... so why isn't this deleted yet? Looks 6 to 2 to me.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-04T03:32:27Z

MichaelS:

Conservapedia talk:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-04T03:31:23Z

MichaelS:

What the bloody '''heck''' is this?!!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 20:20, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:This appears to be the sick pornography of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. I am disgusted and '''did not need to encounter this article'''. While we are at it, why not go ahead and have a full article describing gay sex!([[User:ErstBlenchPoet|ErstBlenchPoet]] 20:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT))
::::The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] does not describe an pornographic acts. It merely describes a medical condition which is the result of a homosexual act. Deleting [[Gay Bowel Snydrome]] would be like deleting our [[AIDS]] article. Please show me specifically where the article is pornographic. It merely quotes medical publications. By the way, liberal gay activists hate the term "gay bowel syndrome" as I demonstrated in my article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maybe you could colorize the part that demonstrates that? Because gay activists hate the term, that is why you cursed us with it? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:42, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Does the fact that gay activists hate something mean we have to like it and endorse it? Bet they abhor hate crimes, too! Maybe we should promote those? Wait, seems like you are.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 21:00, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*MichaelS, please try to keep on point! Making charged comments like that certainly isn't going to help the situation. Are you Gay and object to the malady being publicized or what? You are invited to make positive contributions, which help this site grow! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:11, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

...moving on... so why isn't this deleted yet? Looks 7 to 1 to me.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-04T03:30:22Z

MichaelS:

'''Not family/student friendly!''' [[Gay_Bowel_Syndrome]]

<blockquote>
'''Gay Bowel Syndrome''', which has also been referred to a gay bowel disease, was named as an illness in 1976 by a group of [[New York City]] physicians in a private [[Proctology|proctologic]] practice and it describes a number of male [[homosexuality|homosexual]] anorectal disorders that male homosexuals are more apt to encounter. <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=578386&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/homosexual.asp</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus</ref> Glen Hastings and Richard Weber in 1993 wrote the following regarding gay bowel disease in the peer reviewed medical journal ''[[American Family Physician]]'': "The 1980s brought a recognition of gay bowel disease and its similarities to inflammatory bowel disease."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref>
The abstract for the 1976 journal article published in ''[[Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science]]'' entitled ''The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases'' describes gay bowel syndrome in the following manner:
</blockquote>

:::'''Keep''' The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] cites a 2004 article by Medscape saying that gay bowel syndrome is still a concern. More importantly, given the lethality of [[HIV]] and its connection with proctitus/gay bowel syndrome the article could save lives.[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v38n2/30832/30832.html?erFrom=-8997763093503343538Guest] I know Wikipedia would definitely censor this article because the liberal gay activists hate the term "gay bowel syndrome" and have been trying to get the medical establishment to not use the term because it strong associates homosexuality with disease. However, I do think that Conservapedia should warn its readers of the dangers of homosexual activity especially since the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:30, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Keep'''. Another instance of the corruption of "science" and the professional healtcare community to serve a politcal agenda. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete.''' Everybody already knows that homosexuals are at higher risk for HIV/AIDS and other diseases; there is no reason to belabor the point by inserting pornographic content on a website viewed by many young people. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I quoted medical journals. There is nothing pornographic about medical terminology. Also, I don't believe that homosexuals know they are at greater risk in respect to certain practices. The media certainly doesn't tell them this and mainly conservative websites and medical journals and medical websites do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete''' because it was abandoned as a term by the medical community in the 1980s. It described symptoms that were not limited to gays, not limited to the bowels, and not actually a syndrome.[[User:ConserveATory|ConserveATory]] 19:38, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::Conservatory, the term was not abandoned by the medical community. The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] cites Medscape which used the term in 2004. Also here are two other present sources which mention the term: http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?gay+bowel+syndrome and http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Gay_bowel_syndrome [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:44, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''DELETE'''*Conservative, who is your medical advisor? PalMD? Have you gone out of your mind here? Andy deleted articles like this one that Doc did! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::TK, like this one? Could you be more specific? What is wrong with directly quoting medical journals? Is there anything pornographic about quoting medical journals? Do perverts hang out in medical libraries anxiously awaiting the next Journal of the American Medical Association publication? Lets be realistic here. I am certainly not for creating pornography on Conservapedia and quoting medical journals is not pornographic. I think this is especially so since the article merely gives the effects of activities and doesn't describe those activities. Certainly we should not censor the effects of immoral activities (for example, [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] or [[AIDS]] ). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::*This is your marketing plan? Putting up Troll Bait? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:00, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''DELETE'''If something like this, this inflammatory, and this disgusting, is to be put up, it should be put up by a doctor. If Conservative can front medical credentials, keep it. Otherwise, this does nothing more than anger people. Conservapedia's (unwritten) POV shouldn't be allowed to run rampant over the "family friendly" commandment.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 20:21, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*'''DELETE''' If only the article gave some clear indication of that, Rob. But it doesn't.
Conservative, I have suffered from Irritable Bowel Syndrome in the past, and presently from Lupus. Will you also be adding scholarly articles about those maladies as well? Or is the idea here to merely be provocative, to titillate and give a wink and a nod because you have a friend, or read on some page that titles with "Gay" in them bang web hits? Given your past production, I don't see a great interest on your part on medical issues. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:37, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::TK, I was about to cite that the symptoms of gay bowel syndrome are not only suffered by male homosexuals but these symptoms are suffered disproportionately by male homosexuals like AIDS. For example, male homosexuals get parasites more often but that doesn't mean if you have parasites that you are a male homosexual. I will put that in now. I just had to finish some other things with the article to show that the term is still being used today as can be seen in the [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] article presently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:01, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*I just don't see the point, Conservative. Is it the term you object to? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete''' Not family friendly. We already know that homosexuality is wrong, we don't need to know about everything that goes on with their bowels. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:13, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*'''Delete'''' for reasons stated above. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 21:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't see how "bowels" are not family friendly. Do we have to delete a future [[diverticulosis]] article too. There is nothing not family friendly about saying that if you engage in homosexuality you can get various diseases. In fact, I would argue that telling kids this is important. The homosexual activists don't want kids to know that homosexual behavior increases disease in a significant way and I think we should tell them. I believe I showed in the article that homosexual activists don't want kids to know about [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::TK, i took your feedback. I specifically stated in the article that "gay bowel syndrome" is a condition where you get certain maladies with unusual frequency as a result of homosexual activity and that homosexuals are more apt to get this condition but that these maladies are not solely exclusive to male homosexuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal bullying of the medical establishment plus other prominent conservative websites mention gay bowel syndrome==
I dislike it when the liberals bully the medical establishment or other entities and I showed in the [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] article that the liberal homosexual activists were doing this in regard to the medical community and other entities.

A number of leading conservative websites mention "gay bowel syndrome" and here is just 3 three very prominent conservative organizations but I could come up with more.[http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5014&department=CFI&categoryid=family][http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/homosexual.asp][http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Diseases.pdf] The disease "gay bowel syndorme" can signficantly increase the risk of dying of AIDS in homosexuals. For one symptom of "gay bowel syndrome" for example it increases your chance of getting AIDS by 9 times.

The homosexual activists are bullying the medical community and reference works to not mention or discuss "gay bowel syndrome" which medical authorities still use today. I think as a conservative encyclopedia we should mention it.

The article does not say anything racy and merely quotes medical journals.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:16, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

== Vote Tally ==
I'm reading 7 to 1.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:30, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-04T01:00:51Z

MichaelS:

What the bloody '''heck''' is this?!!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 20:20, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:This appears to be the sick pornography of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. I am disgusted and '''did not need to encounter this article'''. While we are at it, why not go ahead and have a full article describing gay sex!([[User:ErstBlenchPoet|ErstBlenchPoet]] 20:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT))
::::The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] does not describe an pornographic acts. It merely describes a medical condition which is the result of a homosexual act. Deleting [[Gay Bowel Snydrome]] would be like deleting our [[AIDS]] article. Please show me specifically where the article is pornographic. It merely quotes medical publications. By the way, liberal gay activists hate the term "gay bowel syndrome" as I demonstrated in my article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maybe you could colorize the part that demonstrates that? Because gay activists hate the term, that is why you cursed us with it? Perhaps an Oxygen tank would help? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:42, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Does the fact that gay activists hate something mean we have to like it and endorse it? Bet they abhor hate crimes, too! Maybe we should promote those? Wait, seems like you are.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 21:00, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-04T00:21:58Z

MichaelS:

'''Not family/student friendly!'''

<blockquote>
'''Gay Bowel Syndrome''', which has also been referred to a gay bowel disease, was named as an illness in 1976 by a group of [[New York City]] physicians in a private [[Proctology|proctologic]] practice and it describes a number of male [[homosexuality|homosexual]] anorectal disorders that male homosexuals are more apt to encounter. <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=578386&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/homosexual.asp</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus</ref> Glen Hastings and Richard Weber in 1993 wrote the following regarding gay bowel disease in the peer reviewed medical journal ''[[American Family Physician]]'': "The 1980s brought a recognition of gay bowel disease and its similarities to inflammatory bowel disease."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref>
The abstract for the 1976 journal article published in ''[[Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science]]'' entitled ''The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases'' describes gay bowel syndrome in the following manner:
</blockquote>

:::'''Keep''' The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] cites a 2004 article by Medscape saying that gay bowel syndrome is still a concern. More importantly, given the lethality of [[HIV]] and its connection with proctitus/gay bowel syndrome the article could save lives.[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v38n2/30832/30832.html?erFrom=-8997763093503343538Guest] I know Wikipedia would definitely censor this article because the liberal gay activists hate the term "gay bowel syndrome" and have been trying to get the medical establishment to not use the term because it strong associates homosexuality with disease. However, I do think that Conservapedia should warn its readers of the dangers of homosexual activity especially since the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:30, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete.''' Everybody already knows that homosexuals are at higher risk for HIV/AIDS and other diseases; there is no reason to belabor the point by inserting pornographic content on a website viewed by many young people. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I quoted medical journals. There is nothing pornographic about medical terminology. Also, I don't believe that homosexuals know they are at greater risk in respect to certain practices. The media certainly doesn't tell them this and mainly conservative websites and medical journals and medical websites do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete''' because it was abandoned as a term by the medical community in the 1980s. It described symptoms that were not limited to gays, not limited to the bowels, and not actually a syndrome.[[User:ConserveATory|ConserveATory]] 19:38, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::Conservatory, the term was not abandoned by the medical community. The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] cites Medscape which used the term in 2004. Also here are two other present sources which mention the term: http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?gay+bowel+syndrome and http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Gay_bowel_syndrome [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:44, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''DELETE'''*Conservative, who is your medical advisor? PalMD? Have you gone out of your mind here? Andy deleted articles like this one that Doc did! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::TK, like this one? Could you be more specific? What is wrong with directly quoting medical journals? Is there anything pornographic about quoting medical journals? Do perverts hang out in medical libraries anxiously awaiting the next Journal of the American Medical Association publication? Lets be realistic here. I am certainly not for creating pornography on Conservapedia and quoting medical journals is not pornographic. I think this is especially so since the article merely gives the effects of activities and doesn't describe those activities. Certainly we should not censor the effects of immoral activities (for example, [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] or [[AIDS]] ). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::*This is your marketing plan? Putting up Troll Bait? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:00, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''DELETE'''If something like this, this inflammatory, and this disgusting, is to be put up, it should be put up by a doctor. If Conservative can front medical credentials, keep it. Otherwise, this does nothing more than anger people. Conservapedia's (unwritten) POV shouldn't be allowed to run rampant over the "family friendly" commandment.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 20:21, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-04T00:20:40Z

MichaelS: New page: What the bloody '''heck''' is this?!!-~~~~

What the bloody '''heck''' is this?!!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 20:20, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Solid South

2007-10-03T17:24:17Z

MichaelS:

There has not been a single day gone by for 7 years where we have not heard how [[Kathrine Harris]] and [[Jeb Bush]] stole the State of Florida from the [[Democrat]]s. Somebody is not being very truthful here. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:12, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
:Is NPOV a Conservapedia commandment? Let me know, and I'll get on it.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:52, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
::It's not. Explicitly not, actually, although I think the explicit part was just in the form of talk page comments. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:18, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
But Rob seems to have reverted a user's changes with the commentary "NPOV." Is that [[deceit]]?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 13:24, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Solid South

2007-10-03T16:52:39Z

MichaelS:

User talk:TerryH

2007-10-03T16:42:17Z

MichaelS: /* Conservative deceit */

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Exterrestrial Life ==

[[Extraterrestrial life]] is an excellent article. If you are interested in pursuing this topic more, I recommend that you read ''[http://www.alienintrusion.com/ Alien Intrusion]''. I'm certain that you will enjoy it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Provenance of [[Biblical criticism]] article ==

Due to the similarity of [[Biblical criticism]] and [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_criticism CreationWiki's] article, I think you should add a note to the talk page detailing its provenance.

Something along the lines of "This is a dual submission of a work of sole authorship. I am the same person as User:Temlakos on CreationWiki and this article is based on [http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Biblical_criticism&oldid=80038 this version] of the CreationWiki article, which is entirely my work." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:OK, but instead of using the Talk page, I left it at the bottom of the article itself, in its own section.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shuvuuia ==
Was this animal (listed [http://www.creationwiki.org/Feathered_dinosaur here]) a dinosaur or just a flightless bird? I can't tell...'''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 10:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:Nor can I, because someone has scrubbed the page completely.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, I put a capital "D" in "Dinosaur". That's what's so irritating; you capitalize one letter and it won't direct you to the page!!! I've changed the link; you can follow it again. It's a small "d". '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 14:32, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Found it. The abstract makes that animal just another flightless bird. BTW, I repaired the reference to make it look more professional.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::Mike Riddle claims it was a dinosaur. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 17:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, he ought to read the reference then.<blockquote>Alvarezsaurids (Shuvuuia and its allies) are either a lineage of birds or are a lineage phylogenetically close to them.</blockquote>
It couldn't be any clearer.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why do all theropods have hollow bones then? That would almost certainly relate them to birds. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 14:46, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Thank you==
thank you for rewriting my pathetic article on sherlock holmes. But did holmes really "love" irene adler?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Dr. Watson seemed to think he did. Holmes himself was far too reticent to declare this openly.
:Which is a tribute to Conan Doyle's iron point-of-view discipline: you ''never'' get inside the head of Sherlock Holmes.
:I especially wanted to set the copyright record straight, to show where matters currently stand. A ''lot'' of authors have tried to incorporate Sherlock Holmes into their stories, and those who do, need to know that somebody still owns ''some'' rights to that character. The "Copyright" reference tells whom to contact, and how.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed Block Policy....your question ==

* It is as simple as the carrot and the stick.

:It is difficult, if not impossible, to impose administrative sanctions on others without at times seeming to be arbitrary or arrogant. A person will see such actions as they do, and "facts" will not change their mind. To be limited in one's response to undesirable actions, is to tie one hand behind your back from the start. I say this because as it is now worded, so much is totally subjective, and it doesn't preclude the type of Sysop reversals of another's actions we have been seeing. "Third Party" Sysop means what? The "YEC" Sysop faction? The "Liberal" faction? Conflict resolution is also subjective. When a Sysop's actions are reversed, that erodes their authority and leads users to "shop" for like-minded Sysops. This undermines the project as a whole. You can always reach me via IM or email here, if you would like to have a dialog. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evo2 ==

Hey TerryH, I saw [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&diff=124812&oldid=124801 this] a while back, and I want to assure that I wasn't actually being sarcastic. I sometimes forget that text doesn't carry the same inflections as spoken word. I do really think it is a bad idea, since the only thing worse for the community than having sub-par articles ([[Theory of evolution]]) is having ''two'' sub-pwar articles (what Evo2 would be, completely pro-evo, for a long time). Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:You're welcome, and I accept your clarification.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== RE Private ==

OK, Now what? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== An idea ==

== An idea to build more internet traffic to conservapedia ==

Wikipedia gives the top 1,000 articles for its website as can be seen here: http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=1000&month=04%2F2007&mode=view

I think we might be able to drive more http://www.google.com and other traffic to Conservapedia if we make the following articles at Conservapedia better based on the first 100 or so most popular articles at Wikipedia:

- [[United States]]

- [[Columbine High School massacre]]

- [[World War II]]

- [[Global warming]]

- [[World War I]]

- [[Adolf Hitler]]

- [[Battle of Thermopylae]]

- [[Canada]]

- [[William Shakespeare]]

- The [[Holocaust]]

- [[Abraham Lincoln]]

- [[Jesus]]

- [[Vietnam War]]

- [[China]]

'''What do you think about starting a Conservapedia improvement drive for these articles?''' Clearly this are serious subjects that people are interested in based on Wikipedia statistics. Therefore, I believe from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia it makes a lot of sense to start a improvement drive in regards to these Conservapedia articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Link correction ==
Thanks for correcting the link. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=cur] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:17, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:You're welcome.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

for blocking Alfa papa. Wow, those vandals sure work quickly! --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
:You're welcome. Have you finished rolling back the messes he made?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Just about. That should be all, although *** and co are going to be with us for a looong time, I imagine. Oh, and he's trying to take us hostage, along the lines of 'de-sysop conservative or else'. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Here is something I put on the main page ==

[[Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Help Requested ==

I've been editing the article on [[Geocentric theory]] but my work is repeatedly being deleted and reverted, and I and my views have been insulted several times on the discussion page there. Please could you give me some advice and assistance. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Vietnam War]] ==

I disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&curid=11367&diff=143755&oldid=143738 this]. The U.S. objectives were not met in the [[Korean War]], and we most certainly did not win the [[War of 1812]], both of which occurred before Vietnam. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
: In the War of 1812, we were playing defense, and defense only. We won because the British failed to take us back into their Empire.
: As to Korea, those were not US objectives; they were UN objectives. Make sure you know what those stated objectives were.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:52, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, you're right on Korea. But in 1812 we attempted to take over Canada. Needless to say, we failed at that. And it was us who declared war, so I wouldn't call it defense. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:56, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ann Coulter ==

Why do you object to including actual quotes by Ann Coulter in an article about her? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:Because they cannot fail to have been taken out of context. Besides, I happen to know that at least one of your quotes was from another book entirely. A book that I have read, by the way.
:If you're going to quote anyone, then give the full context. Strange as it might seem to you, Ann Coulter has a reason for everything she says. When, for example, four widows start publicly those who would inhibit all efforts to prevent the murderers of their husbands from murdering other women's husbands, then they deserve the heaping of a certain opprobrium on their heads. The way you did it, made it sound as though the objects of Ann Coulter's criticisms were absolutely and entirely innocent. Which they are absolutely, positively not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::By all means then, lets add the context and allow readers to decide whether the widows in question deserved to be called "harpies" and that Ann Coulter was appropriate when she implied they ENJOYED their husbands deaths and their husbands were trying to divorce them anyway. What the hey, let's make sure we've provided the context by putting in "context" like:

::"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

::any objections? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== notice ==

Please tell others about: [[Conservapedia:New Sysops Training Page]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Monster ==

I've got another article written on a Frank Peretti book: [[Monster (novel)|Monster]]. I need some help with the analysis at the end, so any contributions you could make would be welcome. Tell me what you think (of course, if you haven't read the book, you should read it first before reading my summary) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 23:00, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bible ref2 template ==

Terry,

Your new template {{tl|Bible ref2}} doesn't work. You have copied {{tl|Bible ref}} and modified it to not display the "verses" parameter, but the code still expects the "verses" parameter and still tries incorporating it into the URL passed to BibleGateway, with the result that BibleGateway can't resolve it and doesn't display the requested chapter(s).

Also, instead of creating minor variations of templates, it is better if the one template covers several similar situations. That is, it would be better to modify {{tl|Bible ref}} to make the "verses" parameter optional (or even better, combine {{tl|Bible quote}} with {{tl|Bible ref}} and {{tl|Bible ref2}}, if that is practicable).

Do you know how to make "verses" optional, or would you like me to do that for you?

Either way, I suggest you change all your uses of {{tl|Bible ref2}} to {{tl|Bible ref}}, so that they will work once the latter is altered to accommodate that.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

:Philip:

:I will do that, as soon as someone activates the #if directive in template processing. Right now, that #if directive does not work. I had a version of Bible ref that made the verses and version parameters optional--and the processing of the #if directive assumed that the condition was always true, and it blew up every time. Which is why I have always had to specify a version, even though I wanted a default.

:Let me know, then, when the #if parameter is repaired.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:59, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::It's been working ever since I first tried it, which was a while ago now, but it must have been some time since you tried it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::I've changed the documentation of the template to use our standard format.
::Did you actually need to use the #if: syntax? For example, instead of <tt><nowiki>{{#if:{{{language|}}}|{{{language}}}|english}}</nowiki></tt>, wouldn't <tt><nowiki>{{{language|english}}}</nowiki></tt> have done the job?
::Also, I think we can get around the "1 Corinthians" limitation, but I'd like to see the #if: bit cleaned up first, if they can be.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I've compacted the code a bit; I believe that it still works. I was going to use the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions#.23switch: #switch:] parser function to convert the books with spaces into no-space versions, but the list would have to have been so long (especially if allowing for both Arabic and Roman numerals in the names) that I didn't feel that it was worth it. A better solution would be to use the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/StringFunctions#.23replace: #replace:] string function, but that doesn't seem to be installed on Conservapedia (yet?). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is with these people?! ==
What is wrong with them?! I mean come on! Get a life!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:48, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:If it's about what I think it is, then the less said about it--even on this talk page--the better.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:49, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
::Lol, I dont get you. I mean don't these vandals have something else to do, a job maybe? Just silliness.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:51, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Maybe this ''is'' their job. But certain piles are best left unstirred, if you catch my drift.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Silly job then, lets just drop it.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:58, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

*I sure am not catching any drift at all. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== Idolatry? A Question. ==

"This user believes in the Lordship of Jesus Christ alone and that all other belief systems are forms of idolatry."

Does that include Judaism? Just curious. Best, [[User:EnFrancaisSVP|EnFrancaisSVP]] 15:33, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

:Judaism is an important exception, for two reasons:

:#Most of the founding documents of Judaism are part of the foundation of Christianity.
:#The making of idols has never been part of Hebrew worship.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:33, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== sorry ==

I just checked my email now. looks like you handled it though. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

== Uncyclopedia ==
Why should we bother having a conservative encyclopedia if people are going to callously mock it [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia like this]? It's crap! I can't believe what idiots these people are. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 19:26, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:In their mocking, they only make themselves look stupid. That article is a case in point. I'm still laughing--yes, laughing--at their silliness.

:Pay them no heed, Scorpion. Eventually, no one will even remember them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:53, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Of course, there's nothing to prevent me from writing a parody of my own...[http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Gunservapedia] nobody listens though. That's they're way. Heck, on the talk page for the article I previously linked, they're even talking about vandalizing Conservapedia! That certainly doesn't do them credit! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 23:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

== [[Freedom]] ==

It was all crap, for a long time. I made a new start, but I wanted a part relating to the Bible. Would you take a quick look, and add/delete any parts not on firm Biblical footing? Of course any other additions would also be appreciated! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Terry! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:23, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== I just sent you a important email ==

I just sent you a important email. Due to the sensitivity of the important material I sent it to you privately. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== small request ==

I sent the email I sent you to about 5 or so other key people that I know are actively involved in Conservapedia. I couldn't email some important users as their email is not active (for example, sharon) Can you email blast the other sysops regarding the info I sent you since you seem to know how to email blast using the system? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== email is not working so here is the reply ==

Dear Terry,

I think the main point is that we are very shallow on footnotes. If we are going to be a concise encyclopedia it is all the more important we have footnotes and external links so people can get more info. Right now, our encyclopedia is rather unusable except for certain hot button "culture war" issues like creationism vs. evolution, abortion, etc. Citing also forces people to put down more reliable info. Sooner of later the liberals are going to do a study on Conservapedia in terms of accuracy and it is important we fix the problem now.

Do you approve of the use of the template?

Sincerely,

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:24, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, I do. Especially since it puts the page into a category that everyone--particularly every [[Sysop]]--can see, in case they might be able to help out with citations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

*Conservative, as I told you via email, I forwarded on your complete email, which varies from the above a great deal. TerryH now has your email, and comments. Please stop running around making more confusion. I am not in favor of even more templates cluttering articles. I would support adding them to a category, that would still appear on a page that we can all see, however. One hopes you have finally learned the lesson of communication. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:17, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Apartheid -Sharpeville ==
Thanks. Appreciated. [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 22:09, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:You're welcome--and that's part of what a Sysop is here for. To some, we are policemen--but to others, we are Wiki editing experts. (And sometimes we are online research consultants.)
:Did you see how I created the categories? Always preface the category name with the word "Category:"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:14, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Peretti ==

Have you read Frank Peretti at all? Right now his article on this encyclopedia's only been touched by me, so if there's anything you could add it would be very helpful. I'm also needing help on my ''[[Monster (novel)|Monster]]'' article, so if you've ever read it I need some help with the analysis at the end. Thanks '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 22:50, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== Nice block ==

Nice block at 11:17am ET. You beat me to it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:18, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deficit spending, etc. ==

- "and that last statement you made, alleging that Ronald Reagan virtually invented deficits"

My edit did not say anything of the sort. There has always been national debt, off and on, and certainly you are correct in reflecting that FDR did engage in some large-scale deficit spending. Interestingly, he was very opposed to the idea, despite the urgings of economist John Keynes to use it as a tool to end the Depression. FDR had originally run for President criticizing Hoover for engaging in deficit spending, and he later decided to pull the plug from the New Deal when he thought the Depression was ending in 36, causing the "Roosevelt recession," which basically returned the country to the depths of the Depression again. It is an undeniable fact, however, that the debt has climbed dramatically since Reagan's administration. I can back this up if you give me time to find a source, rather than jumping on me for every unsourced edit. I've been clicking around this site for a while and have found very few articles that contain any sourcing at all. Obviously you are doing the right thing by demanding a source, but I do have the facts straight, at least this time. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 18:17, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, your edit did. You said, or implied, that [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] was reluctant to engage in deficit spending, and that [[Ronald Reagan]] is solely to blame for any rise in deficit spending since he took office.
:Tell you what: find your source and post it here, in reply to this message. I will check it out, and perhaps ask for assistance.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:22, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, he didn't QUITE say that; he said that deficits have risen since the Reagan administration, which only indirectly implicates him. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:31, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::I very clearly said that FDR was among the people who are philisophically opposed to the idea that the government should have debt (strict constructionism), and he absolutely was reluctant to engage in deficit spending. He did of course decide later that it was a necessary evil. That would be worth mentioning too, I just hadn't gotten to it yet. I did not in any way state that Reagan was "solely to blame" for the rise in deficit spending. I just said "during (his) administration...." That's a span of 8 years, not a form of blame.

::Here are some numbers from the treasury dept. As you can see, the debt more than doubled during the 80's. It also rose dramatically during each major war, of course, so it would be worth mentioning that wartime presidents (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and George W. Bush) have engaged in some heavy spending.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo1.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo2.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

::Make of it what you will. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 18:44, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I make of it, just this: an article on the national debt needs to have the proper perspective. Talking about the growth of the debt during ''one administration'' is all very well, but it doesn't do the subject justice.

:::And I'm not convinced that [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] was philosophically opposed to deficit spending. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in ''The National Experience'', said that Roosevelt ''introduced'' the idea to Congress, and had to overcome [[Republican Party]] opposition in order to ram it through. Now if you have a source to contradict that, then use it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:50, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::::The proper perspective or an unbiased perspective? Everything I've said is true. If the facts are incomplete, then we should be adding the necessary facts and not removing them. This site will never get anywhere like this. Here's the very first hit I got off a Google search for Keynes begging FDR to increase deficit spending, which he didn't commit to doing on a large scale until we entered WWII:

::::http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/keynes03.html

::::It's not as thorough a source as I'd like, but it at least suffices to show that this is common knowledge. It also suggests that maybe you should give another editor the benefit of the doubt before reverting and criticizing so quickly. Or maybe you can do a quick google search and learn something for yourself, rather than assuming you know the truth based on one incomplete fact from a single source? We're looking at two sides of the same truth about FDR; why assume that just because FDR did engage in deficit spending that he was not at some point in his career politically and philisophically opposed to it? That's using bias in place of fact. That's not the purpose of Conservapedia as far as I know, but, again, I'm new here, so ''correct me if I'm wrong.'' [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:20, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Time'' magazine has a motive for misrepresentation. These days, I don't trust ''any'' mainstream-media source without corroboration. Just think "Killian Memoranda" and you'll understand why. (True, that was [[CBS]]' gaffe, and not that of Time-Warner. But I have reason to believe that the only reason why ''Time'' didn't get burned like that is that CBS beat them to the brick-wall punch.)

:::::I'd have a lot more confidence, however, in a citation from FDR's own papers, or Keynes' papers, or dual citations from sites devoted to their memories.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:40, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, it's not a ''great'' source, but it is a source, and I'm not about to start thumbing through FDR's personal letters today. I think that demanding that level of primary source documentation would be a bit inconsistent with the content of this site as a whole, however, and also quite inconsistent with your standard for your own comments, such as your patent dismissal of anything printed in a certain major national publication. The fact is, I'm right, and I know it. If you don't want to put back my edits, then I'll just have to try contributing something else. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:53, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Welcome ==

Thank you. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] 16:27, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

== Selected as Judge for the Contest ==

TerryH, you've been selected by Team1 and Team2 to judge the upcoming contest, due to start Tuesday. Geo has also agreed to judge the contest.

Hope you can accept. Your professionalism and experience will be invaluable. In Christ, [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Very well. But you'll have to familiarize me once again with the object and rules of the game.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:29, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's great! The main page for the contest is [[Conservapedia:Team contest|here]]. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 06:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Welcome as a Judge! I've created a new namespace that only Judges can access. I can't even access it. You might create a page in it like [[Judges:Contest]] (note that I cannot even create that page).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks for the welcome, fellow Judge [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 14:59, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==Protect==
I protected your talk page so the vandal won't vandalize it.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 10:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==Evolution==

Hi, Terry.

Have we pretty much decided on an editorial policy which asserts that ''no human evolution'' has taken place? This is the position held by 85% of Americans, i.e., the majority Creationist viewpoint.

If so, would it be wise (or practical) to have a series of article about ''why'' evolutionists keep promoting [[evolution]]? Or perhaps about what ''evidence'' they see in the [[fossil record]] that any evolution has taken place?

This might ruffle a few feathers, because [[Young Earth Creationists]] assert that the history of life on earth goes back less than 10,000 years - effectively denying the "mainstream" view of geology and biology about fossils. On the other hand, [[Old Earth Creationsts]] agree with geologists and biologists about the age of the [[Earth]] - as well as the extent of the history of life.

Is there a way to write about all this without offending our conservative writer base? (I'm not worried about offending liberals! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:There shouldn't be a problem with writing such, by attributing the views to YECs. By the way, I've just tonight updated [[Old Earth Creationism]] with things that OECs won't like, but by attributing to the OECs themselves (for the most part). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:14, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:Woah, Ed... where are you getting the "85% says ''no'' evolution has taken place? It would seem as though the 85% is the number that says ''at least some'' creation took place, with the number saying ''at least some'' evolution taking place being about 50-50. I'm using [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm this] poll. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not commenting on whether or not the figure is correct, but Ed did say "no ''human'' evolution", not "no evolution". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deletedpage ==

TerryH,

Please remember, when permanently protecting and deleting pages, protect and ''redirect'' to [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage]] (as opposed to using <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Deletedpage|deletedpage]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> on the page, as you currently are). Otherwise, the link to the main page will make it show up in [Special:Whatlinkshere/Main_Page this] log. We had a problem with obscene words showing up with this log earlier.

I think the best solution for this would to make contents of <nowiki>{{deletedpage}}</nowiki> changed to "<nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage]]</nowiki>. I will go do this, but please let me know if you have any objections. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:25, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:No objections. In fact, that's the best possible solution.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:26, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Wait! Hoji, I hate to tell you, but all you've done now is to create a double redirect!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::Aww, shucks. I'll go clean them up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Ah, nevermind... I see somebody fixed it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:39, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I fixed it--by reconnecting the double redirects, and ''then'' by removing the Main Page link from the text of Conservapedia:Deletedpage. Now the only way those pages show up are in the dead-end page list.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Birds ==

Wikipedia labels birds as reptiles, or at least they say that since birds supposedly evolved from "dinosaurs", that they count as reptiles. Now, I don't know about you but I think that's absolute BS. But one thing: what about all these China fossils they keep finding of dinosaurs with "branching integuments"? I hypothesize that many of these are probably just large birds that have been mistaken for dinosaurs with feathers. Come to think of it, it may be time for a redefining of the word "dinosaur". Dinosaurs are usually referring to large, reptilian animals, but now they think that some were feathered?? The fossils they find bear so much resemblence to birds that now many evolutionists are disputing whether or not they ''are'' true birds. Me, I think they're birds. The deinonychus is usually supposed to be a dinosaur, but what are the little filaments that are found on the fossils? Have deinonychus fossils been found anywhere else, without featheres? What would this mean? Probably, that either those fossils have been less well-preserved, or that the fossils in China are fakes, which is what ''I'' think. Of course, deinonychus may have been a large, ostrich-like animal. What do you think? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

*''I think'' you need to watch your foul language. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:39, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Are you TerryH? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 18:34, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually, the sysop who admonished you nearly three weeks ago concerning your language was not I, but another sysop, TK. We are colleagues.
:::On the matter at hand, I am not familiar enough with the literature on feathered dinosaurs. I suspect, however, that we will find that they are birds. That birds are a "later class of mammal" than reptiles is only an assumption, which has its basis on nothing more than speculation.
:::BTW: you really ought to take down the "vote for Pedro" part of your signature.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==Last user==
AntnyGonzo...just what is with the arrogance of people who think they can come into CP and just try to ram what they want here? It was someone else's essay he tried to alter, and he couldn't care less how he did it or how the author felt about it. He's gone as a result. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I noticed. I was about ready to block him myself. In fact, he reminded me very much of a certain user who kept altering ''my'' [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] as I was writing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Scores==

Just wondering if you know and could tell me the final scores of Team1 and Team2...Aschlafly and I are trying to figure out how close we came, and it would be a lot easier to just have the final numbers! Thanks, [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 17:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
==Perhaps==
You last vandal was merely trying to archive the main page but got blocked before being able to finish his task?
Just a thought. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 22:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:Don't give me that baloney. He wasn't even authorized to archive that page, and this was only his fourth contribution.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::Okay, chief, whatever you say Mister Sysop sir. I woulda thunk though, if he was going to blank the page he'da blanked the page and not left the last part in. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 22:46, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was just being a wiseguy--as if to say that nobody but him had anything valuable to say. That kind of cockiness doesn't go over very well. Hint, hint.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Yippie aye yo ki yay! The number one search engine in the United States ranks our theory of evolution article #5 out of all articles written on that subject ==

I just found out that the number one search engine in the United States ranks the Conservapedia Theory of evolution article #5 out of about 26 Million articles written on that subject. That is why the article is likely getting the traffic it is now getting.

Here is some background:

"Yahoo is considered the number one search engine above all other search engines. Yahoo search queries make up approximately 28% of all search engine traffic. And just in raw traffic reported by Alexa rankings, Yahoo! demolishes competitors such as Google and MSN." taken from : http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Yahoo-Optimization-Help/Search-Engines-and-Algorithms-Optimizing-for-Yahoo-Search-and-AltaVista/

I found out from Google Ad Words that the phrase "theory of evolution" is about the most popular term to find information about that subject. It is way more popular than the word "evolution". Here is www.google.com ad words: https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal

As you can see can see Yahoo ranks our "Theory of evolution" article #5: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=theory+of+evolution&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:45, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

==The Democrats==

Sir,

I do not support the Democratic Party of the United States, and quite frankly I do not know where you got that from. As for you saying my knowledge of the economic situation is lacking, I direct you to tone down the continous personal insults towards me. I have explained to you the laffer curve, and I see no reason as to why that should invoke such hostility from you. For the rest of my reply, see my talk page. [[User:Johnjoe|Johnjoe]] 09:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, you have a disturbing habit of taking things out of context (Something a lot of your co-religionists do with the Bible also):

<blockquote>
Romans 13:1-7 clearly sets forth the real ministry of human government, which is to restrain evil by force. The evil I speak of in this context is murder, theft, and fraud.
</blockquote>

I'd be interested to know how you think I think that these things should be legalised. [[User:Johnjoe|Johnjoe]] 10:20, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

How exactly have I lied to you? Will you please, for pitys sake stop using such emotionally charged language. [[User:Johnjoe|Johnjoe]] 13:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
== Medical Training ==
could you clarify the extent, result, and time frame of your medical training i.e. Are you a MD, if not why not and what are you? When did you receive your medical traiing? FYI to avoid an inevitable deflection, I will tell you up front thatI have no medical training but do hold an advanced degree (awarded 5 years ago) in a secular and liberalism imbued discipline. I currently hold a position of responsibility in a vocation that leverages this degree. [[User:RonWall|RonWall]] 12:14, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I hold the MD degree. I received it in 1985 from Baylor College of Medicine, [[Houston]], [[Texas]].
:The insights I have gained regarding creation v. evolution, I learned later.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:30, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Do you actually practice medicine? I asked because "hold the MD degree" seems oddly parsed. [[User:RonWall|RonWall]] 13:33, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::: I did practice clinical pathology for five years. Now I'm trying to launch a consulting service that also develops software for laboratories.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== [[Conservative deceit]] ==

So is there no such thing or something? :-) -[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:24, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:I will not dignify that question with an answer. Besides, that question is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. You redirected that page to the article titled "Deceit," as if to suggest that everything a [[conservative]] says is deceitful by definition.

:I warn you: I am watching your contributions now. You earned a brief block earlier today. Pull that stunt again, or anything like it, and you'll earn another block--and this time you stay blocked.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

You'd like that, wouldn't you? If you're in a debate you can't win, might as well block the opposing party! BTW, redirecting "conservative deceit" do "deceit" suggests only that conservatives may be deceitful too... but not that everything they say is deceitful. Or are you saying that everything that liberals say is deceitful?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:32, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:Don't get me started. And cease and desist your obvious contempt for the administration, or risk a block just for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

So disagreeing with a sysop is a blockable offense?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:No, but impugning his motives without warrant, and challenging his authority, are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:37, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I didn't mean to distract you from waiting for the Rapture. Should be any day now. Good afternoon & godspeed!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

User talk:TerryH

2007-10-03T16:41:47Z

MichaelS: /* Conservative deceit */

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Exterrestrial Life ==

[[Extraterrestrial life]] is an excellent article. If you are interested in pursuing this topic more, I recommend that you read ''[http://www.alienintrusion.com/ Alien Intrusion]''. I'm certain that you will enjoy it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Provenance of [[Biblical criticism]] article ==

Due to the similarity of [[Biblical criticism]] and [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_criticism CreationWiki's] article, I think you should add a note to the talk page detailing its provenance.

Something along the lines of "This is a dual submission of a work of sole authorship. I am the same person as User:Temlakos on CreationWiki and this article is based on [http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Biblical_criticism&oldid=80038 this version] of the CreationWiki article, which is entirely my work." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:OK, but instead of using the Talk page, I left it at the bottom of the article itself, in its own section.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shuvuuia ==
Was this animal (listed [http://www.creationwiki.org/Feathered_dinosaur here]) a dinosaur or just a flightless bird? I can't tell...'''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 10:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:Nor can I, because someone has scrubbed the page completely.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, I put a capital "D" in "Dinosaur". That's what's so irritating; you capitalize one letter and it won't direct you to the page!!! I've changed the link; you can follow it again. It's a small "d". '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 14:32, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Found it. The abstract makes that animal just another flightless bird. BTW, I repaired the reference to make it look more professional.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::Mike Riddle claims it was a dinosaur. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 17:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, he ought to read the reference then.<blockquote>Alvarezsaurids (Shuvuuia and its allies) are either a lineage of birds or are a lineage phylogenetically close to them.</blockquote>
It couldn't be any clearer.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why do all theropods have hollow bones then? That would almost certainly relate them to birds. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Tell me what you think]] 14:46, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Thank you==
thank you for rewriting my pathetic article on sherlock holmes. But did holmes really "love" irene adler?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Dr. Watson seemed to think he did. Holmes himself was far too reticent to declare this openly.
:Which is a tribute to Conan Doyle's iron point-of-view discipline: you ''never'' get inside the head of Sherlock Holmes.
:I especially wanted to set the copyright record straight, to show where matters currently stand. A ''lot'' of authors have tried to incorporate Sherlock Holmes into their stories, and those who do, need to know that somebody still owns ''some'' rights to that character. The "Copyright" reference tells whom to contact, and how.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed Block Policy....your question ==

* It is as simple as the carrot and the stick.

:It is difficult, if not impossible, to impose administrative sanctions on others without at times seeming to be arbitrary or arrogant. A person will see such actions as they do, and "facts" will not change their mind. To be limited in one's response to undesirable actions, is to tie one hand behind your back from the start. I say this because as it is now worded, so much is totally subjective, and it doesn't preclude the type of Sysop reversals of another's actions we have been seeing. "Third Party" Sysop means what? The "YEC" Sysop faction? The "Liberal" faction? Conflict resolution is also subjective. When a Sysop's actions are reversed, that erodes their authority and leads users to "shop" for like-minded Sysops. This undermines the project as a whole. You can always reach me via IM or email here, if you would like to have a dialog. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evo2 ==

Hey TerryH, I saw [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&diff=124812&oldid=124801 this] a while back, and I want to assure that I wasn't actually being sarcastic. I sometimes forget that text doesn't carry the same inflections as spoken word. I do really think it is a bad idea, since the only thing worse for the community than having sub-par articles ([[Theory of evolution]]) is having ''two'' sub-pwar articles (what Evo2 would be, completely pro-evo, for a long time). Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:You're welcome, and I accept your clarification.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== RE Private ==

OK, Now what? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== An idea ==

== An idea to build more internet traffic to conservapedia ==

Wikipedia gives the top 1,000 articles for its website as can be seen here: http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=1000&month=04%2F2007&mode=view

I think we might be able to drive more http://www.google.com and other traffic to Conservapedia if we make the following articles at Conservapedia better based on the first 100 or so most popular articles at Wikipedia:

- [[United States]]

- [[Columbine High School massacre]]

- [[World War II]]

- [[Global warming]]

- [[World War I]]

- [[Adolf Hitler]]

- [[Battle of Thermopylae]]

- [[Canada]]

- [[William Shakespeare]]

- The [[Holocaust]]

- [[Abraham Lincoln]]

- [[Jesus]]

- [[Vietnam War]]

- [[China]]

'''What do you think about starting a Conservapedia improvement drive for these articles?''' Clearly this are serious subjects that people are interested in based on Wikipedia statistics. Therefore, I believe from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia it makes a lot of sense to start a improvement drive in regards to these Conservapedia articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Link correction ==
Thanks for correcting the link. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=cur] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:17, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:You're welcome.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

for blocking Alfa papa. Wow, those vandals sure work quickly! --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
:You're welcome. Have you finished rolling back the messes he made?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Just about. That should be all, although *** and co are going to be with us for a looong time, I imagine. Oh, and he's trying to take us hostage, along the lines of 'de-sysop conservative or else'. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Here is something I put on the main page ==

[[Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Help Requested ==

I've been editing the article on [[Geocentric theory]] but my work is repeatedly being deleted and reverted, and I and my views have been insulted several times on the discussion page there. Please could you give me some advice and assistance. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Vietnam War]] ==

I disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&curid=11367&diff=143755&oldid=143738 this]. The U.S. objectives were not met in the [[Korean War]], and we most certainly did not win the [[War of 1812]], both of which occurred before Vietnam. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
: In the War of 1812, we were playing defense, and defense only. We won because the British failed to take us back into their Empire.
: As to Korea, those were not US objectives; they were UN objectives. Make sure you know what those stated objectives were.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:52, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, you're right on Korea. But in 1812 we attempted to take over Canada. Needless to say, we failed at that. And it was us who declared war, so I wouldn't call it defense. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:56, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ann Coulter ==

Why do you object to including actual quotes by Ann Coulter in an article about her? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:Because they cannot fail to have been taken out of context. Besides, I happen to know that at least one of your quotes was from another book entirely. A book that I have read, by the way.
:If you're going to quote anyone, then give the full context. Strange as it might seem to you, Ann Coulter has a reason for everything she says. When, for example, four widows start publicly those who would inhibit all efforts to prevent the murderers of their husbands from murdering other women's husbands, then they deserve the heaping of a certain opprobrium on their heads. The way you did it, made it sound as though the objects of Ann Coulter's criticisms were absolutely and entirely innocent. Which they are absolutely, positively not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::By all means then, lets add the context and allow readers to decide whether the widows in question deserved to be called "harpies" and that Ann Coulter was appropriate when she implied they ENJOYED their husbands deaths and their husbands were trying to divorce them anyway. What the hey, let's make sure we've provided the context by putting in "context" like:

::"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

::any objections? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== notice ==

Please tell others about: [[Conservapedia:New Sysops Training Page]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Monster ==

I've got another article written on a Frank Peretti book: [[Monster (novel)|Monster]]. I need some help with the analysis at the end, so any contributions you could make would be welcome. Tell me what you think (of course, if you haven't read the book, you should read it first before reading my summary) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 23:00, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bible ref2 template ==

Terry,

Your new template {{tl|Bible ref2}} doesn't work. You have copied {{tl|Bible ref}} and modified it to not display the "verses" parameter, but the code still expects the "verses" parameter and still tries incorporating it into the URL passed to BibleGateway, with the result that BibleGateway can't resolve it and doesn't display the requested chapter(s).

Also, instead of creating minor variations of templates, it is better if the one template covers several similar situations. That is, it would be better to modify {{tl|Bible ref}} to make the "verses" parameter optional (or even better, combine {{tl|Bible quote}} with {{tl|Bible ref}} and {{tl|Bible ref2}}, if that is practicable).

Do you know how to make "verses" optional, or would you like me to do that for you?

Either way, I suggest you change all your uses of {{tl|Bible ref2}} to {{tl|Bible ref}}, so that they will work once the latter is altered to accommodate that.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

:Philip:

:I will do that, as soon as someone activates the #if directive in template processing. Right now, that #if directive does not work. I had a version of Bible ref that made the verses and version parameters optional--and the processing of the #if directive assumed that the condition was always true, and it blew up every time. Which is why I have always had to specify a version, even though I wanted a default.

:Let me know, then, when the #if parameter is repaired.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:59, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::It's been working ever since I first tried it, which was a while ago now, but it must have been some time since you tried it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::I've changed the documentation of the template to use our standard format.
::Did you actually need to use the #if: syntax? For example, instead of <tt><nowiki>{{#if:{{{language|}}}|{{{language}}}|english}}</nowiki></tt>, wouldn't <tt><nowiki>{{{language|english}}}</nowiki></tt> have done the job?
::Also, I think we can get around the "1 Corinthians" limitation, but I'd like to see the #if: bit cleaned up first, if they can be.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I've compacted the code a bit; I believe that it still works. I was going to use the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions#.23switch: #switch:] parser function to convert the books with spaces into no-space versions, but the list would have to have been so long (especially if allowing for both Arabic and Roman numerals in the names) that I didn't feel that it was worth it. A better solution would be to use the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/StringFunctions#.23replace: #replace:] string function, but that doesn't seem to be installed on Conservapedia (yet?). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is with these people?! ==
What is wrong with them?! I mean come on! Get a life!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:48, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:If it's about what I think it is, then the less said about it--even on this talk page--the better.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:49, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
::Lol, I dont get you. I mean don't these vandals have something else to do, a job maybe? Just silliness.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:51, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Maybe this ''is'' their job. But certain piles are best left unstirred, if you catch my drift.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Silly job then, lets just drop it.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:58, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

*I sure am not catching any drift at all. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== Idolatry? A Question. ==

"This user believes in the Lordship of Jesus Christ alone and that all other belief systems are forms of idolatry."

Does that include Judaism? Just curious. Best, [[User:EnFrancaisSVP|EnFrancaisSVP]] 15:33, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

:Judaism is an important exception, for two reasons:

:#Most of the founding documents of Judaism are part of the foundation of Christianity.
:#The making of idols has never been part of Hebrew worship.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:33, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== sorry ==

I just checked my email now. looks like you handled it though. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

== Uncyclopedia ==
Why should we bother having a conservative encyclopedia if people are going to callously mock it [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia like this]? It's crap! I can't believe what idiots these people are. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 19:26, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:In their mocking, they only make themselves look stupid. That article is a case in point. I'm still laughing--yes, laughing--at their silliness.

:Pay them no heed, Scorpion. Eventually, no one will even remember them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:53, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Of course, there's nothing to prevent me from writing a parody of my own...[http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Gunservapedia] nobody listens though. That's they're way. Heck, on the talk page for the article I previously linked, they're even talking about vandalizing Conservapedia! That certainly doesn't do them credit! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 23:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

== [[Freedom]] ==

It was all crap, for a long time. I made a new start, but I wanted a part relating to the Bible. Would you take a quick look, and add/delete any parts not on firm Biblical footing? Of course any other additions would also be appreciated! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Terry! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:23, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== I just sent you a important email ==

I just sent you a important email. Due to the sensitivity of the important material I sent it to you privately. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== small request ==

I sent the email I sent you to about 5 or so other key people that I know are actively involved in Conservapedia. I couldn't email some important users as their email is not active (for example, sharon) Can you email blast the other sysops regarding the info I sent you since you seem to know how to email blast using the system? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== email is not working so here is the reply ==

Dear Terry,

I think the main point is that we are very shallow on footnotes. If we are going to be a concise encyclopedia it is all the more important we have footnotes and external links so people can get more info. Right now, our encyclopedia is rather unusable except for certain hot button "culture war" issues like creationism vs. evolution, abortion, etc. Citing also forces people to put down more reliable info. Sooner of later the liberals are going to do a study on Conservapedia in terms of accuracy and it is important we fix the problem now.

Do you approve of the use of the template?

Sincerely,

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:24, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, I do. Especially since it puts the page into a category that everyone--particularly every [[Sysop]]--can see, in case they might be able to help out with citations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

*Conservative, as I told you via email, I forwarded on your complete email, which varies from the above a great deal. TerryH now has your email, and comments. Please stop running around making more confusion. I am not in favor of even more templates cluttering articles. I would support adding them to a category, that would still appear on a page that we can all see, however. One hopes you have finally learned the lesson of communication. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:17, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Apartheid -Sharpeville ==
Thanks. Appreciated. [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 22:09, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:You're welcome--and that's part of what a Sysop is here for. To some, we are policemen--but to others, we are Wiki editing experts. (And sometimes we are online research consultants.)
:Did you see how I created the categories? Always preface the category name with the word "Category:"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:14, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Peretti ==

Have you read Frank Peretti at all? Right now his article on this encyclopedia's only been touched by me, so if there's anything you could add it would be very helpful. I'm also needing help on my ''[[Monster (novel)|Monster]]'' article, so if you've ever read it I need some help with the analysis at the end. Thanks '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 22:50, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== Nice block ==

Nice block at 11:17am ET. You beat me to it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:18, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deficit spending, etc. ==

- "and that last statement you made, alleging that Ronald Reagan virtually invented deficits"

My edit did not say anything of the sort. There has always been national debt, off and on, and certainly you are correct in reflecting that FDR did engage in some large-scale deficit spending. Interestingly, he was very opposed to the idea, despite the urgings of economist John Keynes to use it as a tool to end the Depression. FDR had originally run for President criticizing Hoover for engaging in deficit spending, and he later decided to pull the plug from the New Deal when he thought the Depression was ending in 36, causing the "Roosevelt recession," which basically returned the country to the depths of the Depression again. It is an undeniable fact, however, that the debt has climbed dramatically since Reagan's administration. I can back this up if you give me time to find a source, rather than jumping on me for every unsourced edit. I've been clicking around this site for a while and have found very few articles that contain any sourcing at all. Obviously you are doing the right thing by demanding a source, but I do have the facts straight, at least this time. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 18:17, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, your edit did. You said, or implied, that [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] was reluctant to engage in deficit spending, and that [[Ronald Reagan]] is solely to blame for any rise in deficit spending since he took office.
:Tell you what: find your source and post it here, in reply to this message. I will check it out, and perhaps ask for assistance.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:22, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, he didn't QUITE say that; he said that deficits have risen since the Reagan administration, which only indirectly implicates him. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:31, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::I very clearly said that FDR was among the people who are philisophically opposed to the idea that the government should have debt (strict constructionism), and he absolutely was reluctant to engage in deficit spending. He did of course decide later that it was a necessary evil. That would be worth mentioning too, I just hadn't gotten to it yet. I did not in any way state that Reagan was "solely to blame" for the rise in deficit spending. I just said "during (his) administration...." That's a span of 8 years, not a form of blame.

::Here are some numbers from the treasury dept. As you can see, the debt more than doubled during the 80's. It also rose dramatically during each major war, of course, so it would be worth mentioning that wartime presidents (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and George W. Bush) have engaged in some heavy spending.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo1.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo2.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

::Make of it what you will. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 18:44, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I make of it, just this: an article on the national debt needs to have the proper perspective. Talking about the growth of the debt during ''one administration'' is all very well, but it doesn't do the subject justice.

:::And I'm not convinced that [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] was philosophically opposed to deficit spending. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in ''The National Experience'', said that Roosevelt ''introduced'' the idea to Congress, and had to overcome [[Republican Party]] opposition in order to ram it through. Now if you have a source to contradict that, then use it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:50, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::::The proper perspective or an unbiased perspective? Everything I've said is true. If the facts are incomplete, then we should be adding the necessary facts and not removing them. This site will never get anywhere like this. Here's the very first hit I got off a Google search for Keynes begging FDR to increase deficit spending, which he didn't commit to doing on a large scale until we entered WWII:

::::http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/keynes03.html

::::It's not as thorough a source as I'd like, but it at least suffices to show that this is common knowledge. It also suggests that maybe you should give another editor the benefit of the doubt before reverting and criticizing so quickly. Or maybe you can do a quick google search and learn something for yourself, rather than assuming you know the truth based on one incomplete fact from a single source? We're looking at two sides of the same truth about FDR; why assume that just because FDR did engage in deficit spending that he was not at some point in his career politically and philisophically opposed to it? That's using bias in place of fact. That's not the purpose of Conservapedia as far as I know, but, again, I'm new here, so ''correct me if I'm wrong.'' [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:20, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Time'' magazine has a motive for misrepresentation. These days, I don't trust ''any'' mainstream-media source without corroboration. Just think "Killian Memoranda" and you'll understand why. (True, that was [[CBS]]' gaffe, and not that of Time-Warner. But I have reason to believe that the only reason why ''Time'' didn't get burned like that is that CBS beat them to the brick-wall punch.)

:::::I'd have a lot more confidence, however, in a citation from FDR's own papers, or Keynes' papers, or dual citations from sites devoted to their memories.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:40, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, it's not a ''great'' source, but it is a source, and I'm not about to start thumbing through FDR's personal letters today. I think that demanding that level of primary source documentation would be a bit inconsistent with the content of this site as a whole, however, and also quite inconsistent with your standard for your own comments, such as your patent dismissal of anything printed in a certain major national publication. The fact is, I'm right, and I know it. If you don't want to put back my edits, then I'll just have to try contributing something else. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:53, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Welcome ==

Thank you. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] 16:27, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

== Selected as Judge for the Contest ==

TerryH, you've been selected by Team1 and Team2 to judge the upcoming contest, due to start Tuesday. Geo has also agreed to judge the contest.

Hope you can accept. Your professionalism and experience will be invaluable. In Christ, [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Very well. But you'll have to familiarize me once again with the object and rules of the game.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:29, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's great! The main page for the contest is [[Conservapedia:Team contest|here]]. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 06:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Welcome as a Judge! I've created a new namespace that only Judges can access. I can't even access it. You might create a page in it like [[Judges:Contest]] (note that I cannot even create that page).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks for the welcome, fellow Judge [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 14:59, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==Protect==
I protected your talk page so the vandal won't vandalize it.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 10:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==Evolution==

Hi, Terry.

Have we pretty much decided on an editorial policy which asserts that ''no human evolution'' has taken place? This is the position held by 85% of Americans, i.e., the majority Creationist viewpoint.

If so, would it be wise (or practical) to have a series of article about ''why'' evolutionists keep promoting [[evolution]]? Or perhaps about what ''evidence'' they see in the [[fossil record]] that any evolution has taken place?

This might ruffle a few feathers, because [[Young Earth Creationists]] assert that the history of life on earth goes back less than 10,000 years - effectively denying the "mainstream" view of geology and biology about fossils. On the other hand, [[Old Earth Creationsts]] agree with geologists and biologists about the age of the [[Earth]] - as well as the extent of the history of life.

Is there a way to write about all this without offending our conservative writer base? (I'm not worried about offending liberals! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:There shouldn't be a problem with writing such, by attributing the views to YECs. By the way, I've just tonight updated [[Old Earth Creationism]] with things that OECs won't like, but by attributing to the OECs themselves (for the most part). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:14, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:Woah, Ed... where are you getting the "85% says ''no'' evolution has taken place? It would seem as though the 85% is the number that says ''at least some'' creation took place, with the number saying ''at least some'' evolution taking place being about 50-50. I'm using [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm this] poll. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not commenting on whether or not the figure is correct, but Ed did say "no ''human'' evolution", not "no evolution". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deletedpage ==

TerryH,

Please remember, when permanently protecting and deleting pages, protect and ''redirect'' to [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage]] (as opposed to using <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Deletedpage|deletedpage]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> on the page, as you currently are). Otherwise, the link to the main page will make it show up in [Special:Whatlinkshere/Main_Page this] log. We had a problem with obscene words showing up with this log earlier.

I think the best solution for this would to make contents of <nowiki>{{deletedpage}}</nowiki> changed to "<nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage]]</nowiki>. I will go do this, but please let me know if you have any objections. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:25, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:No objections. In fact, that's the best possible solution.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:26, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Wait! Hoji, I hate to tell you, but all you've done now is to create a double redirect!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::Aww, shucks. I'll go clean them up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Ah, nevermind... I see somebody fixed it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:39, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I fixed it--by reconnecting the double redirects, and ''then'' by removing the Main Page link from the text of Conservapedia:Deletedpage. Now the only way those pages show up are in the dead-end page list.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Birds ==

Wikipedia labels birds as reptiles, or at least they say that since birds supposedly evolved from "dinosaurs", that they count as reptiles. Now, I don't know about you but I think that's absolute BS. But one thing: what about all these China fossils they keep finding of dinosaurs with "branching integuments"? I hypothesize that many of these are probably just large birds that have been mistaken for dinosaurs with feathers. Come to think of it, it may be time for a redefining of the word "dinosaur". Dinosaurs are usually referring to large, reptilian animals, but now they think that some were feathered?? The fossils they find bear so much resemblence to birds that now many evolutionists are disputing whether or not they ''are'' true birds. Me, I think they're birds. The deinonychus is usually supposed to be a dinosaur, but what are the little filaments that are found on the fossils? Have deinonychus fossils been found anywhere else, without featheres? What would this mean? Probably, that either those fossils have been less well-preserved, or that the fossils in China are fakes, which is what ''I'' think. Of course, deinonychus may have been a large, ostrich-like animal. What do you think? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

*''I think'' you need to watch your foul language. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:39, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Are you TerryH? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 18:34, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually, the sysop who admonished you nearly three weeks ago concerning your language was not I, but another sysop, TK. We are colleagues.
:::On the matter at hand, I am not familiar enough with the literature on feathered dinosaurs. I suspect, however, that we will find that they are birds. That birds are a "later class of mammal" than reptiles is only an assumption, which has its basis on nothing more than speculation.
:::BTW: you really ought to take down the "vote for Pedro" part of your signature.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==Last user==
AntnyGonzo...just what is with the arrogance of people who think they can come into CP and just try to ram what they want here? It was someone else's essay he tried to alter, and he couldn't care less how he did it or how the author felt about it. He's gone as a result. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I noticed. I was about ready to block him myself. In fact, he reminded me very much of a certain user who kept altering ''my'' [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] as I was writing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Scores==

Just wondering if you know and could tell me the final scores of Team1 and Team2...Aschlafly and I are trying to figure out how close we came, and it would be a lot easier to just have the final numbers! Thanks, [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 17:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
==Perhaps==
You last vandal was merely trying to archive the main page but got blocked before being able to finish his task?
Just a thought. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 22:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:Don't give me that baloney. He wasn't even authorized to archive that page, and this was only his fourth contribution.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::Okay, chief, whatever you say Mister Sysop sir. I woulda thunk though, if he was going to blank the page he'da blanked the page and not left the last part in. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 22:46, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was just being a wiseguy--as if to say that nobody but him had anything valuable to say. That kind of cockiness doesn't go over very well. Hint, hint.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Yippie aye yo ki yay! The number one search engine in the United States ranks our theory of evolution article #5 out of all articles written on that subject ==

I just found out that the number one search engine in the United States ranks the Conservapedia Theory of evolution article #5 out of about 26 Million articles written on that subject. That is why the article is likely getting the traffic it is now getting.

Here is some background:

"Yahoo is considered the number one search engine above all other search engines. Yahoo search queries make up approximately 28% of all search engine traffic. And just in raw traffic reported by Alexa rankings, Yahoo! demolishes competitors such as Google and MSN." taken from : http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Yahoo-Optimization-Help/Search-Engines-and-Algorithms-Optimizing-for-Yahoo-Search-and-AltaVista/

I found out from Google Ad Words that the phrase "theory of evolution" is about the most popular term to find information about that subject. It is way more popular than the word "evolution". Here is www.google.com ad words: https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal

As you can see can see Yahoo ranks our "Theory of evolution" article #5: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=theory+of+evolution&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:45, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

==The Democrats==

Sir,

I do not support the Democratic Party of the United States, and quite frankly I do not know where you got that from. As for you saying my knowledge of the economic situation is lacking, I direct you to tone down the continous personal insults towards me. I have explained to you the laffer curve, and I see no reason as to why that should invoke such hostility from you. For the rest of my reply, see my talk page. [[User:Johnjoe|Johnjoe]] 09:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, you have a disturbing habit of taking things out of context (Something a lot of your co-religionists do with the Bible also):

<blockquote>
Romans 13:1-7 clearly sets forth the real ministry of human government, which is to restrain evil by force. The evil I speak of in this context is murder, theft, and fraud.
</blockquote>

I'd be interested to know how you think I think that these things should be legalised. [[User:Johnjoe|Johnjoe]] 10:20, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

How exactly have I lied to you? Will you please, for pitys sake stop using such emotionally charged language. [[User:Johnjoe|Johnjoe]] 13:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
== Medical Training ==
could you clarify the extent, result, and time frame of your medical training i.e. Are you a MD, if not why not and what are you? When did you receive your medical traiing? FYI to avoid an inevitable deflection, I will tell you up front thatI have no medical training but do hold an advanced degree (awarded 5 years ago) in a secular and liberalism imbued discipline. I currently hold a position of responsibility in a vocation that leverages this degree. [[User:RonWall|RonWall]] 12:14, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I hold the MD degree. I received it in 1985 from Baylor College of Medicine, [[Houston]], [[Texas]].
:The insights I have gained regarding creation v. evolution, I learned later.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:30, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Do you actually practice medicine? I asked because "hold the MD degree" seems oddly parsed. [[User:RonWall|RonWall]] 13:33, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::: I did practice clinical pathology for five years. Now I'm trying to launch a consulting service that also develops software for laboratories.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== [[Conservative deceit]] ==

So is there no such thing or something? :-) -[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:24, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:I will not dignify that question with an answer. Besides, that question is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. You redirected that page to the article titled "Deceit," as if to suggest that everything a [[conservative]] says is deceitful by definition.

:I warn you: I am watching your contributions now. You earned a brief block earlier today. Pull that stunt again, or anything like it, and you'll earn another block--and this time you stay blocked.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

You'd like that, wouldn't you? If you're in a debate you can't win, might as well block the opposing party! BTW, redirecting "conservative deceit" do "deceit" suggests only that conservatives may be deceitful too... but not that everything they say is deceitful. Or are you saying that everything that liberals say is deceitful?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:32, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:Don't get me started. And cease and desist your obvious contempt for the administration, or risk a block just for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

So disagreeing with a sysop is a blockable offense?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:No, but impugning his motives without warrant, and challenging his authority, are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:37, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I didn't mean to distract you from waiting for the Rapture. Should be any day now. Good afternoon & goatspeed!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-03T16:41:42Z

MichaelS: /* Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of [[liberal education]] and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.

::::I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.

::::Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life![[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible ==

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:

{{cquote|All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.}}

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the [[Bible]] is. Did you bother to read the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]], and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find ''one single historical incident'' that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. [[Paul]] was bitten by a poisonous [[snake]] on [[Malta]] and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of [[God]].

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of [[Jesus Christ]] after His execution--even while the [[lion]]s were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([http://www.mercola.com/]) recently stated that conventional [[medicine]] is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal [[cancer]]. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had ''no'' confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved ''cures'' through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend [[Bible|Scripture]].

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
#What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
#The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
#Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, ''res ipsa loquitor''.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

#A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when [[Jesus Christ]] Himself returns to [[earth]] to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that [[Osama bin Laden]] wants to set up, because [[God]]--in the Person of Christ--''would'' be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
#In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' ''Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States'', now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime ({{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=13}})--in all its secular inglory--are to [[parachute]] into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir [[Winston Churchill]].
#Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", [[abortion]], and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the [[Terri Schiavo|death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie,"]] compels the military to allow open [[Homosexuality|homosexuals]] to serve therein, ''et cetera ad nauseam''.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to ''me'' of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is ''in''capable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: ''Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus'' by Mary Shelley.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science ''can'' go horribly wrong, but religion ''does'' go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:
# Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
# Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
# Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
# Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
# Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Well, let [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] be sad, if that's what he wants to be.

#I repudiate the notion that I am ignoring observed fact. ''What observed fact?'' The facts that ''I'' have observed is that many proponents of evolution have committed fraud, trying to show the existence of missing links that are still missing. [[Piltdown Man]], anyone? I also observe that, for the first time, proponents of evolution think they have scored a point by declaring that evolution is not a random walk. Well, you could have fooled a lot of people who have read [[Richard Dawkins]]' books.
::I tried to stay out of this, but Darwinian evolution was never portrayed as a random walk. At least not by supporters. I hope I can stay out of the rest of your discussion, and continue watching. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
#The particularly harsh penalties in Leviticus, for example, are in the context of a particular group of people who actually ''had the privilege of having [[God]] in a sample of His Glory actually residing in their camp.'' With that privilege came a tremendous burden. You do not approach a Holy God in the wrong way. Thankfully, [[Jesus Christ]] provided a bridge--and a different mandate to His followers. We do not ''set ourselves apart'' from the world, quite as the ancient Hebrews under [[Moses]] did--but we do refuse to participate in the world's muddy customs. And that's where the "societal norms" come in: those are ways of relating to one another that have stood the test of time. The decline of those "norms" has brought nothing but grief and a constant quest for a satisfaction that never comes--or when it does, it lasts no longer than does a [[drug]] fix.
#Yes, indeed, the [[Bible]] does contain prophecies that remain unfulfilled. Chief among them is that a one-world federation will take power. But it will have nothing to do with God's army. That battle will come later--at a site that [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] once declared to be a wonderful place to have a battle. But before then--if anyone reading this seriously thinks that the [[United States of America]] has become a dictatorial regime under its current President, [[George W. Bush]], let them think again. A leader is coming who will make [[Adolf Hitler]] look like a beginner, and [[Nero]] look like a total piker. Revelation was no allegory for attacks against [[Rome]]--it was a memorandum of things to come.
#Of course the [[Bible]] explains everything. And what does it profit a man to "explore" a smelly swamp?
#As I have said before--and as the archives of this page will show--I am better qualified to talk about what modern medicine can and cannot do, should and should not do, than are some people who pretend to be champions of scientific and medical knowledge.

And as for Frankenstein--well, even Mary Shelley would have been horrified at the spectacle of [[abortion]] on demand, high-tech designer babies, "treatments" for [[cancer]] that burn your body from the inside out and end up failing anyway, and certain research orientations that are just flat-out unmentionable on a family-friendly site. I further maintain that [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]]'s confidence in science exactly mirrors that of the proud and arrogant Baron Frankenstein who decided to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" and ended up creating the eventual murderer of his wife and many of his loved ones.
----
Off of your #1, though, I wasn't aware that a few failures in the intellectual history of a movement impugned the entire thing. Of course we can cross apply that logic, and Christianity sure ends up looking pretty badly, after people like Eric Rudolph are factored in.

As for the rest, I really think enough has been said here. Your arguments have been broken down for the world to see how ridiculous they really are, and will speak for themselves, and conjure their own rebuttals in the mind of any reasonably sane person. Please enjoy your intellectually dead life.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==
Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on [[Homosexuality]]. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

User talk:TerryH

2007-10-03T16:34:51Z

MichaelS: /* Conservative deceit */

File talk:GoreFireBreathing.jpg

2007-10-03T16:33:32Z

MichaelS:

Ah, the true cause of global warming... [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:26, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

*Well, truth be known, my friend, all politicians combined produce enough hot air to catch the universe on fire! **Looks around quickly** I mean, except Putin. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:44, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm...photoshopping photos to prove a point. Now that's encyclopedic. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:32, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:So trusworthy.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

User talk:TerryH

2007-10-03T16:32:45Z

MichaelS: /* Conservative deceit */

User talk:TerryH

2007-10-03T16:24:52Z

MichaelS: Conservative deceit

Liberal hysteria

2007-10-03T15:55:41Z

MichaelS: is this version better, TK?

[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|right|300px]]
''This article is written as a [[parody]] or [[polemic|polemical]] attack.''

'''Liberal Hysteria''' is the common name for the tendency of [[Liberals]] to embrace junk science or crackpot theories that happen to coincide with their normally anti-[[United States]] bias. Examples of this hysteria can be found in the [[Global Warming]] and anything involving the [[United Nations]] disagreeing with United States policy.

Executive Order

2007-10-03T15:42:23Z

MichaelS:

'''Executive Order''' is action, which does not require the approval of the [[Congress]], by the [[President]]. The executive's ability to act by executive order is circumscribed by constitutional limits. Where the executive acts with the support of Congress, this authority is unlimited; where the President acts against the wishes of Congress, significantly less power inheres.

[[Category:United States Government]]

Liberal hysteria

2007-10-03T15:40:38Z

MichaelS:

[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|right|300px]]
''This article is written from a distinct [[conservative]] point of view, as a [[parody]] or [[polemic]] attack.''

'''Liberal Hysteria''' is the common name for the tendency of [[Liberals]] to embrace junk science or crackpot theories that happen to coincide with their normally anti-[[United States]] bias. Examples of this hysteria can be found in the [[Global Warming]] and anything involving the [[United Nations]] disagreeing with United States policy.

Liberal hysteria

2007-10-03T15:39:54Z

MichaelS:

[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|right|300px]]
''This article is written from a distinct [[conservative]] point of view, as a parody or polemic attack.''

'''Liberal Hysteria''' is the common name for the tendency of [[Liberals]] to embrace junk science or crackpot theories that happen to coincide with their normally anti-[[United States]] bias. Examples of this hysteria can be found in the [[Global Warming]] and anything involving the [[United Nations]] disagreeing with United States policy.

Exclusionary Rule

2007-10-03T15:38:08Z

MichaelS:

The '''Exclusionary Rule''' is evidence, which if obtained illegally or in an otherwise unreliable fashion, is not admissible in court.

==See Also==
*Hearsay
*Federal Rules of Evidence
[[Category:Law]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive9

2007-10-03T15:36:43Z

MichaelS: archiving. please undo if I have overstepped authority

== National Enquirer revisited ==

Okay, there still isn't a source that says that Wikipedia is "The National Enquirer of the Internet." I took a look on Google and didn't see that quote applied to Wikipedia, reputable source or otherwise. Big-A, are you still going to defend use of that phrase on this article? It doesn't help Conservapedia's reputation to have an uncited claim on this article. Thank you, [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:00, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase has to come from somewhere, invented by someone. If Wikipedia editors behave as though they're writing articles for the ''National Enquirer'' and the other supermarket tabliods, then yes someone is going to call that site "the ''National Enquirer'' of the internet". If we see the similarites, then we're going to call it exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. I've added another citation for the comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer, as examples can be easily found on the internet. In addition, many editors here feel likewise, so there is no disputing the truth of the statement about some making the comparison.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::: But no one ever said that it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet." They're just agreeing on something everyone should already know: Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. By the way, check the sources for your six-times-as-liberal example. Apparently the conservative quotient on Wikipedia is infinite. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 15:26, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You don't seem to understand what [[gossip]] is, and why it is wrong. The comparison of [[Wikipedia]] to the National Enquirer is not based on unreliability, though that is certainly a problem. It's based on their exploitation of [[gossip]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Wha?==

"Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses." I can't think of any other Wikis that don't permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. I suggest this bullet is removed. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
::[[CreationWiki]] and [[ResearchID.org]] do not allow anonymous IP address editing. Here is another Wiki that does not allow anonymous IP editing: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

==#71==
How, exactly, is this an example of bias on Wikipedia? It's a mistake on the part of the newspapers.
Oh, and I figured that, given that Archive9 doesn't actually exist, it would be appropriate to remove the link.
[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sign your posts. Or they will be removed. Please don't remove objects or links added by Administrators. You make the same mistake as #71, repeating something and blaming others for it being added merely on the strength of opinion, or in that case, the newspapers. (Edit conflict, I see you came back and signed.) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not sure I follow. How am I making the same mistake as in #71? I'm not taking something from an unreliable source and reporting it as true, I'm just asking a question. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Wikipedias built-in biases allowed for the article's creation and remaining up. Then (and yes, it was a big mistake for some reporter to be using WP as a source, something not allowed by most major papers)someone else used it, and repeated it. If Wikipedia didn't have a mobocracy the article wouldn't have stayed in place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Then shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? On a slightly unrelated note, why did your last response break my sig on my original question? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Break your sig? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::It made the linky all non-linky. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*What? I didn't unlink anything. I suggest you move on now. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't have an answer to my questions: shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? and How am I making the same mistake as in #71? If they're answered, I will be perfectly happy to move on. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Godspeed to you! Thanks for your help. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Guess that's a no. I'll be moving on now . . . [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::move on??...move on??....MoveOn is a codeword for subversive infiltration..... [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Number 71 is [[Wikipedia]]'s error that was copied by a newspaper. Why do [[liberals]] have so much trouble with accountability??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== Bias or Error? ==

*Out of the list, at least numbers 55, 56, 58, and 72 are examples of error, not bias.
:On a somewhat unrelated note, why is the "See also" section even there? It only contains one link, and the linked article doesn't exist.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: Errors are often the result of bias. Your statement that something is an example "of error, not bias" is a non sequitur. It would be like saying that something is an example of "a crime, not sin."

: Each of the points you list can be attributed to Wikipedia's [[liberal]] bias, which includes [[gossip]], [[political correctness]] and lack of rigor. But thanks for your suggestion about deleting the empty link, which I did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'll agree that errors can be the result of bias. Most of the errors on the list are. I can't see how these four are examples of bias, though.

::Also, your comparison of "of error, not bias" and "a crime, not sin" is incorrect. Crime, presumably, is necessarily sin. Error, on the other hand, is not necessarily bias. My statement also wasn't really a non sequitur, but I won't go into that.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*You have that much boredom so you are forced to quibble, Masterbratac? "Errors" uncorrected (on purpose because of idealogical bias) for long periods of time, by the senior people at WP, become facts in the minds of many. It is another form of [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't see how these four are bias. And, yes, I do have that much boredom. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you deny what a [[liberal]] is, and what [[gossip]] is, then you're not going to be persuaded that these errors result from the bias. Two of the errors result from the promotion of [[gossip]] on [[Wikipedia]]; a third error results from [[political correctness], a type of [[liberal bias]]; and the fourth error results from denial of accountability, another type of [[liberal bias]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Read my comment again. I did not deny what a liberal is, nor did I deny what gossip is. Tell me, which of these errors have which causes? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 23:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I wish I had more time to respond now, and I wish I had confidence that further discussion would be productive. I'll try to explain one and see whether you simply adhere to your already-taken position.

:::: The concept of an [[elementary proof]] is well-known in [[mathematics]] and was widely taught to top [[mathematics]] students at least until 25 years ago. Yet [[Wikipedia]] refused for months to have an entry about it, and only relented when I pointed out here that MathWorld does have an entry.

:::: Why such resistance? Because many of the recent claims of proofs, such as Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], are not [[elementary proof]]s and [[liberals]] don't want to admit that. [[Liberals]] prefer instead to claim that [[mathematician]]s today are smarter than the devoutly [[Christian]] [[mathematician]]s like [[Bernhard Riemann]] and [[Carl Gauss]]. Not so, and this omission of this entry on Wikipedia was due to [[liberal]] bias.

:::: Explained another way, [[liberals]] detest accountability, in this case the accountability of the rigorous criteria for an [[elementary proof]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::. . . I give up. If you're willing to believe something that ridiculous, there's no way I'm going to get a reasonable answer.
:::::I will say this: I believe that mathematicians today are smarter, in that they have access to more advanced techniques. However, in pure mathematical aptitude, I do not believe any modern mathematician can match the likes of Gauss, Riemann, or Euler. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 00:05, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Fine, then give up. But note that you never provided an alternative explanation for the omission of [[elementary proof]] on [[Wikipedia]], and the prolonged insistence by [[liberals]] there to continue to omit that basic concept. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I see no reason to provide an alternative to something so ridiculous that nobody could possibly believe it. Do you even read the things you write?
::::::: Also, since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to refute your claims; you have to support them. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 09:03, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm disappointed: you abandoned reasoned discourse and resorted to name-calling. [[Liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] did resist including an entry for [[elementary proof]]. I've explained why. You have not, and seem content to hurl insults that only discredit your own denial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: The only reason Wikipedia lacked such an article is because nobody bothered to create one. Now, if you had created the article, and it had been subsequently deleted, you would have a reasonable point. But you don't. You blame liberals for an omission you could have easily corrected yourself. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 17:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Masterbratac, you're in denial about [[liberal bias]]. Just look at the archives for this page and you'll see people opposing an entry on [[elementary proof]]. Look at how [[Wikipedia]] delayed and delayed long after alerted to the omission before finally relenting and creating an entry on it. Even now Wikipedia's entry is inadequate, and it omits from its Paul Erdos entry his emphasis on [[elementary proof]]s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::: If elementary proofs are such a big deal, shouldn't you just link to a reputable source that explicitly says that they are a big deal? - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::Andy, I did check those archives, and I found [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1#A_variety_of_comments|a post]] by JoshuaZ that said that he'd simply create the entry: "The lack of an article on elementary proof is disturbing and I am currently writing a draft." No fighting, no delaying. He saw it, he went to work. It's also the earliest reference to "elementary proof" I could find on the talk pages. The MathWorld stuff and the "fight" (which was not about the proof itself, but rather about its importance - something that easily counts as content discussion both here and on WP) apparently came up almost a month after the article had been created: [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Mathematics|Here]] is the discussion.
::::::::::::Put simply, I am unable to find the evidence that Wikipedia or anybody here delayed or opposed the creation of the article. Hence, I do not see the "bias" since anybody could have simply created an article - even you. Also, your "alerting" apparently was you simply posting that item on a page that was only made (in)famous in February, which is hardly "alerting" in my eyes. (If I wrote on some little-known LiveJournal about an error here, I shouldn't expect anybody to notice it.) Otherwise, please point out your attempt to create the article on Wikipedia or a talk page post where you mentioned it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::*Can you explain again what is [[liberal]] about the omission of [[elementary proof]]?
:::::*Can you name anybody who would not admit that Wiles proof is not elementary?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Bernhard Riemann]] that he used his Zeta function in an non-elementary proof of the prime number theorem?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Paul Erdos]] that he found an elementary proof for the prime number theorem? [[User:Order|Order]] 03:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Order becomes the question box here. No, I don't have to explain it again. See my edits above. Yes, many [[liberals]] do resist characterization of Wiles proof as not being elementary. Wikipedia's own entry resists it by omitting it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good on you that you answer at least a few of my questions. I admit that I can be at times a bit inquisitive. I personally do not care too much what Wikipedia says about Wiles' proof, nor that it omits ZFC. Wikipedia is good for looking up a laymans account of many mathematical concepts and their history, but it isn't exactly an authoritative source.

:::::Your statement was that many mathematicians deny the fact that Wiles proof is non-elementary. I am not sure why a mathematician would deny this fact; ZFC is fairly accepted while known to be problematic since equivalent to the well-ordering theorem. And the rest of Wiles' proof, to the extend that I know about it, doesn't strike me that elementary either. I asked you for the name of an mathematician who denies that Wiles proof is non-elementary?

::::: Unanswered, and maybe for a good reason, is what relation exists between Riemann's non-elementary proof and Erdos elementary proof of the prime number theorem, and their political and religious convictions. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia whitewashes article on man who lost Vietnam war. ==

While writing our stub for [[Robert McNamara]] I noticed that the [[Wikipedia]] article about McNamara glosses over his responsibility for losing the war. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Vietnam_War]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 15:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. ==

See [http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117] and http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ . [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for both items above (including McNamara). I'll work these into future additions after more thought and research. Feel free to suggest specific language for a concise point about these to add to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:: For the pro-evolution bias I suggest: "[[Wikipedia]]'s article on [[Haldane's Dillemma]], a serious problem for [[evolution]] downplays the difficulty the problem poses for evolution. Wikipedia refuses to add material explaining or citing work by Walter ReMine which shows how Haldane's Dilemma creates a strong speed limit on evolution.<ref>http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117 </ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ </ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma </ref> " [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::It's not a pro-[[scientific method]] bias but a pro-[[naturalism]] bias. The scientific method actually makes no reference to an exclusive focus on the physical world. Psychologists use the scientific method, even when the thoughts, feelings and intentions they study are utterly invisible.

::The pretense that science consists only of the study of the physical world is a blatant fallacy. Science encompasses far more than just the [[physical science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:07, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Because they've deluded themselves into thinking that [[creationism|this]] is science. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

:::Then suppose you tell us: what exactly ''is'' science? And where is it written that science ''ipso facto'' excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them ''a priori'' as untenable?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:::You are perhaps confusing "creationism" with Young Earth Creationism. Evolutionists often write as if they were unaware of the distinction between young earth and old earth beliefs. So I'll spell it out for you.

:::Young earth creationists limit the maximum age of the [[Earth]] to around 10,000 years, based on their faith in the [[Old Testament]]. Old Earth creationists generally accept the conclusion of geologists (and mainstream biologists) that the Earth is over 1 billion years old - and thus that [[fossils]] provide an accurate historical record of when the various species of life came into being (and sometimes went extinct, like dinosaurs).

:::Old Earth creationism is just as scientific in all respects as [[naturalistic evolution]]. It just doesn't limit causation to the physical plane, any more than archaeologists try to explain the [[Rosetta Stone]] by natural processes such as erosion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:14, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly ''is not'' falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?

::As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do. (And if you think that that is not correct, then let's have your credentials.) Evolution violates that method on multiple counts, chief among them multiple wholesale violations of [[Occam's razor]]. Those violations are far too numerous to list here, but for the sake of those who read this debate later, anyone who cares to look for them can find them.

::You still have not given a workable definition of the term ''science''. I infer from your remarks, and those of people like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]], that by your definition, "science" is that which seeks to explain the origin of the earth, and of life thereon, and all its forms, static and dynamic, ''through material processes only,'' and assumes ''a priori'' that nothing ''im''material exists. In contrast, I say that "science" uses trial and error to find the most likely explanation, be it material ''or immaterial'', for origins or processes. And if we cannot even agree on a definition of science, then we cannot agree on whether
#Wikipedia or any other body is censoring certain findings, or
#whether such censorship is appropriate.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Doctor, you should have told me I was talking to the King of England! Get over yourself.

I do not have specific credentials, neither am I particularly aware of the intricacies of the scientific world (I am a Historian, not a scientist) but what I do know beyond any shred of a doubt is creationism is not science, and you cannot possibly tell me that it is. The best any creationist can ever come up with is that 'evolution has flaws'. Well so does democracy, so does every single discovery by the human race. You would do well to find me a flawless 'theory'. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:The King of [[England]]? What--did Queen Elizabeth II die, and did her death pass unnoticed by the [[Associated Press]] or [[Reuters]] or even the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]]? And even if she had (which I don't concede), what would any member of the Royal House of Windsor have to do with this discussion?

:Now let me get this straight: you are not trained as a scientist--your calling is that of an historian instead--and yet you "know" that "creationism is not science." Now as to whether I can tell you that creationism is a science--why, of course I can. (You aren't proposing to place me under arrest for so declaring, are you?) Now whether I can make you ''understand'' that creationism is a science, or not, is entirely up to you. Close your mind, or open it, as you wish.

:As to "the best we can do"--well, I don't know what creationists you've been talking to or reading. But evolution is worse than flawed--and by ''evolution'' I mean ''the materialistic [[Theory of evolution|theory]] of life origin and development.'' That theory is a [[null hypothesis]] within the meaning of [[statistics]]. And others who work with these things every day have already calculated that the probability of life originating out of nothing, and developing as it has with no non-material guidance, is vanishingly small. Accordingly, they ''reject the null hypothesis'' and accept the alternative: intervention, by a Non-material Intervenor. And I strongly suspect that you've heard that before; you just don't want to admit it, or face its implications.

:And those implications go ''far'' beyond whether you or I are right or wrong about the origin of earth and of life hereon. They go directly to whether or not all of us are ''held accountable'' for our words and deeds. Accountability, my dear [[User:Graham|Graham]]. That's the part you can't face.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:59, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Since it seems that you need scientific credentials to join the discussion, maybe I can chip in, after all it says scientists in my job title, although it strikes me as weird that we would try to impress others with our degrees, and not with arguments.
::That said, TerryH, you do confuse the theory of abiogenisis, with the theory of evolution. Abiogeneisis, life coming into existence from a biotic predecessor, is indeed still largly unsolved. The theory of evolution explains how the genepool of a species changes over time, and how species emerge and disappear, and is fairly well understood.
::Second, your reference to the probability of life originating out of nothing, seems to imply that the theory of evolution says that the origin of species is a process guided by a random distribution. The principles of evolution are quite the opposite from a random process, and selection is the reason. It has ''mathematically'' been proven that evolution as principle is some quite different from a random walk. Since you are a scientist, look up genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
::And if you mean "random" in the meaning "without purpose", sure scientist agree, but "without purpose", doesn't let you do your calculation of improbability.
::With respect to abiogenisis, creationism doesn't explain much either. Questions that are unanswered are, where abiogenisis did happen, in a cold or hot environment, on earth, or interstellar, unanswered is which techniques were used to synthesize the first carrier of genetic information, unanswered is what this first carrier of information was, RNA, DNA, proto-RNA, etcetera. All these questions are left unanswered by Creationism, mostly because it is not intended to do so. So, it isn't really a convincing alternative to any of the ideas on abiogenisis that are around. Scientifically speaking. Creationism might give you more comfort. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Your distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is a distinction without a difference. Without abiogenesis, evolution is, frankly, a silly idea. If life had its ''origin'' through creation by an Intelligent Creator, then evolution is unnecessary.

:::Has anyone ever demonstrated the "appearance" of a new species? I defy you to name even ''one'' such example.

:::But I do not depend upon that. Distinguishing abiogenesis from evolution is a total sham. It is an admission that the totally materialistic view of nature is fundamentally flawed and untenable.

:::So you see, I do not merely criticize "evolution," or whatever you currently mean by it. I criticize what [[Charles Darwin]] himself meant by "evolution," what [[Stephen Jay Gould]] meant, and what [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]] still mean. I criticize ''materialism'', which states that no causes exist for any events beyond matter. Abiogenesis and evolution (your narrow definition thereof) are both part of evolution (the broader definition), or materialism, if you prefer. The purpose is the same: to declare that there is no [[God]].

:::I also detect that you are trying to accuse [[creationism]] of failing to identify the first cause of life. Well! This is a new angle indeed--for I had the distinct impression that the very concept of "first cause" was untenable, and that no one should ever look for a "first cause." You can't have it both ways.

:::In sum: redefining the term "evolution" is an example of moving the goalpost. I do not accept that. Everyone knows perfectly well that abiogenesis and "change over time" are part and parcel of the same thing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Abiogenis and evolution are two different things. Evolution takes place all the time, in labs, in people, in hospitals, in the wild. All you need is a self-replicating process, where informations is copied, with a certain chance of error, and a link between the information, and the frequency with which it will be copied. Also known as principle of mutation and selection, but there is more to it. Evolution as principle is quite independent from abiogenisis. Sure, without abiogenisis, there wouldn't be biological evolution, but the principles of evolution would still apply to e.g artificial evolution.
::::Abiogenisis is about how the first living thing came into being, and that is an event of the past. Evolution is at its core a principle. It can be used to explain why the gene-pool changes, but it is more general than that. And Dawkins, Gould, and Darwin were looking what happens if you apply this principle to biology. Even if the first life was created, the principles of evolution would still apply since life is a self-replicating process.
::::It is interesting that you say that you shouldn't look for the first cause. If creationism should not look for the first cause of life, and the circumstances under which it developed, then it doesn't try to answer the questions that biology asks. Fair enough, but this is not biology, nor a replacement. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::I resent your twisting of my words. I did not say that one should not look for a first cause. Your allies have said that, in this project and out of it.
:::::On the contrary, I assert that ''everything'' had a first cause. And no one has yet shown how life can emerge from non-life. That's because it is not possible.
::::::There are various model for causality, and I am not sure if everything has to have a first cause. But even if, we might just not know what the first cause is. Also, nobody has proven that life cannot emerge from non-life, it just seems that in the last 50 years nobody has proven that it can. Problem is that the creationist story doesn't explain either how life emerged from non-life. It doesn't tell you what was the nature of the first life, in which environment it thrived, etc. Even the failed attempts of the last 50 years to explain abiogenisis made a better attempt to explain this.
:::::::Explain what? The creation account simply says that God brought everything into being, fully formed--and working perfectly. Things didn't go sour until [[Adam and Eve]] ate an [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|apple]].
:::::::The burden of proof rests on the [[Atheism|atheists]] in this case, simply because the atheists need to explain how a thing could have happened against astronomical odds.
::::::::First, your reference of "astronomical odds" shows that think that evolution is random process. Evolution is not a random walk. But this is just a technical mistake that is commonly made; mostly due to confusion what "random" means.
::::::::Secondly, and more important, the burden of proof lie as much with the creationists. If they want explain biology, they better explain it. Simple saying that He just-did-it, makes it a just-so story. It doesn't answer any of the scientific questions, like why different animals have different kind of eyes, why he made so many different kinds of beetles, etcetera. Just because he liked it that way? That is not useful answer. It doesn't explain neither how, where, and why life emerged as we observe it today. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:07, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:How is evolution not a random walk? If it is not random, then it is guided, and if it is not guided, then it is random. I mention that ''only'' to show the weakness in your argument. I ''do not'' accept the notion that one species, consisting of individuals that can mutually breed, arises out of another.
:In any event, [[Statistics|statisticians]] quote odds all the time--to show that a [[null hypothesis]] is untenable, and that one must accept as valid the notion that a given difference is relevant and/or that intervention is taking place.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Evolution is not a random walk, because you have selection. You are just confusing the different meaning of the word "random" again. I'll say it again, go check evolutionary and genetic algorithms, and see for yourself that their behavior is proven to be different from a random walk. One difference is e.g. that solution of and genetic algorithm will converge to a local optimum, while a random walk will not. Look up the proofs. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Has anyone shown conclusively that your genetic algorithms have any basis in fact? Has anyone watched them in action? Have you the slightest scintilla of tangible evidence to support those algorithms? I predict not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry, Terry, to bring this point up, but you brought it yourself into the discussion that you are a scientist. As scientist you should know basic tools such as Google scholar, or other online libraries. It would take you exactly 3 seconds to find the literature on "Genetic Algorithms". The book "Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning", by David Goldberg is a classic, and the first hit on Google Scholar. Do your research before you make such bold claims.[[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---
:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.
::::::In deed atheists have to explain it to complete that part of the the history of life.
:The above is a signal admission, by you, that atheism cannot offer a complete history of life without explaining how life arose from non-life without [[God|Divine]] or other intervention. Some atheists have tried to fudge the issue by postulating an [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|earlier generation]] of [[Extraterrestrial life|beings from another star or galaxy]] that fired a brace of missiles hither and yon, one of which missiles crashed on earth and gave rise to all life hereon, including us. But that merely shoves the problem back another step--for how did this earlier generation come to be? I now learn that even [[Francis Crick]] had to abandon that theory, perhaps after too many people laughed at him for proposing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheisms really isn't about abiogensis. And I always thought that religion wasn't about abiogenesis either. Atheism doesn't explain why we are able to ride a bicycle either, and neither does religion. And the much of mechanics of bicycling is also still a mystery. Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that atheism is science is atheism. As a note aside, Panspermia isn't quite dead, just earlier versions of it. But the whole panspermia discussion is kind of irrelevant. Not quite sure if the core of your religion is to explain unknown scientific facts, but its certainly not the core of atheism. The core of atheism is that doesn't belief in the existence of a deity. Full stop. If you want to have a deity to explain gaps in scientific knowledge away, you are (1) arguing for the "god of the gaps", and (2) actually not explaining anything scientific. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Abiogenesis can only have had to happen in a Godless universe. Therefore, [[atheism]] ''requires'' abiogenesis in order to be tenable. So what happens? Evolutionists ''assume'' abiogenesis ''a priori''. They also assume that all life arose out of one species of virus. That is what the textbooks said or implied when I was in high school and undergraduate college. That is, therefore, what was being ''taught'' in high school and college in my day. And that is what is ''still'' being taught in high school and college, by every account that I have seen.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*Abiogensis can also happen in a universe with a creator. Theistic evolutionists believes this.
::::*Atheism didn't came up to explain abiogensis, atheism arose because the the answers that religion gave to all kind of questions were considered disappointing, inconsistent, irrational, or circular. Of course, if you are literate in science it increases the odds that you are no longer satisfied with the religious explanations.
::::*You were taught science is high-school, not atheism. New scientific finding can shows that a textbook is incorrect, because school textbooks do not contain internal infallible truth. And at some point these textbooks should be updated, although it might take some time. Sometimes it also easier to teach something that isn't quite right, like Newtonian mechanics, rather than start with the currently best theory of quantum mechanics. But that said, science textbooks can and should be changed if our knowledge changes, sure. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how long shall I have to wait until I see high-school textbooks drop the [[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] drawings, for example, though even many of Haeckel's contemporaries laughed at those?
:::::For that matter, the whole reason for such blistering political controversy--not to mention lawsuit after lawsuit--that we see today is the proposal to revise textbooks to remind people that just maybe [[Charles Darwin]] didn't have as full an understanding as his followers pretend that he had.
:::::As [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] pointed out above, your problem, which you share with people like Dawkins and Gould and Scott and others, is that you ''restrict'' science to the ''material'' world. Nothing exists except matter. The trouble is that matter can't explain everything, and you know it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sure. You also need some mathematics. But anyway, even if matter doesn't explain everything, the religious alternative explains even less. But as I already said before, the honest thing in these situations would be to admit that you simply don't know. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::You asked before why this issue keeps the people busy, and now you mention textbooks. Let me give my view on it. This whole discussion is not about the science of abiogensis and evolution, but it is part of the culture ware in the US, and in particular about who is calling the shots in US schools. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::That is why the creationist arguments are flawed. Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen. This is how the creator set up life. Whatever the creating cause might be. Arguing in contrast that the principle is impossible is a folly, since on principle it works. This is why theistic evolutionist and also IDers do not reject evolution, but say say that evolution is insufficient to explain everything. And one of the things that is currently unexplained is abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:18, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Have I got this straight? Even if [[God]] exists, He is Unnecessary? Remember that we do not even agree on what the word ''evolution'' connotes--because men like you insist on moving the goalpost every time men like us get close.
::::::::No, that is not what I said. I said even if he exists, and even if had made the first life, evolution will still happen. Remember, evolution is a principle that applies to certain self-replicating processes, and life is one of those. Life could have been differently, such that a creator would have to manufacture each and any new living being from scratch, but it happens to be the case that life self-replicates. I can't help it. I am not moving the goal post, the problem is that you don't seem to know what evolution entails a principle, and that abiogenisis is a singular event in the past. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:The [[Hell|aitch-eeh-double-hockey-stick]], that's not what you said. In any event, your continued assertion, without proof, that evolution is "a principle," evades the issue of ''why'' people tout evolution so loudly, and suppress creation. And to the extent that species change, they change only for the worse, not better. The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] tells how. The [[Bible]] tells why--because [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] has come into the world. Therefore, evolution, by the new and watered-down definition you now stand by, is a consequence of ''sin''.
::*It is really almost exactly what I said. I said first "Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen", and later "even if he exists, (...) evolution will still happen".
:::*Unless you can show me one definition of the word ''evolution'' upon which ''all'' scientists, or even all ''proponents'' of the concept "evolution," agree, your sentence above is operationally meaningless.
::::Biological evolution is the change in the genepool from one generation to the other due to a stochastic process that involves mutation and selection. All scientists agree on that. And in computer science an mathematics you assume additionally that you have a self-replicated process, and that the genetic influence is linked to the frequency with which it appears in the next generation. And that definition has been fairly stable since the early 70s as well. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::For evolution to happen it is irrelevant how it began. As long as it is self-replicating. If humans would manage to bring life to mars, it would certainly evolve on Mars, even if humans are long gone. And if you want proof that life is self-replicating, go visit a farm.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:15, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Irrelevant? On the contrary, the beginnings of life are far more material (pardon the pun) and far more relevant than you would have us believe.
:::::::It took me awhile to understand what you meant by a self-replicating process. But now you have to show two things:
:::::::1. That life consists of only ''one'' self-replicating process. In life, you have several--indeed, hundreds, each conforming to a different "kind."
:::::::: It doesn't have to be one, it could be more than one. It happens to be the case that we only observe one type of life on earth, the one based on DNA. And hence the idea arose, that they all might have a common ancestor. But for evolution to happen you can have in principle multiple kinds of life competing. No problem. It just happens that in practice we don't. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::2. That one "kind" ''ever'' gave rise to another, radically different kind. Going back to those lectures I had, and again I have seen no updates worthy of the name: the evolutionistic paradigm that I was taught, stated that a [[gene]] is a mutated [[virus]], that [[mitochondria]] and [[chloroplast]]s were originally independent organisms, and that ''all species'' more complex than viruses (with the possible exception of sponges) derived from [[coelenterate]]s. All [[protist]]s, [[plant]]s, and [[animal]]s--they all came from one kind, the coelenterates. Now ''that'' you can't show. And my proof? Evolutionists speak of "missing links"--hypothetical species intermediate in form between two species that are known. Guess what? ''The missing links are still missing''. Of course they are. You can't find a never-was. And none of your mathematical algorithms will find a single piece of tangible evidence to suggest that they ever existed.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Sure, the mathematical foundation won't tell you where to look for missing links in biological evolution. So what? You mentioned yourself that probabilistic and stochastic explanations predict averages, and not particulars. But it will tell you that the missing links that creationist are looking for, something like half cow half man, doesn't exist. This kind of missing link is nothing but a creationist strawman. It also tells you that at no stage the successor was radically different. It tell you that you make best progress if the changes are moderate. And some of the missing links that science was looking for they did find. Do you really want to tell me that you faith depends on such a benign event as a person digging up a fossil in Canada that is somewhere in-between land and sea mammal? [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.
::* The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply, because life is not a closed system.
:::* I've heard that canard before. Better minds than either of us have already disproved it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Saying that you've heard it before doesn't prove that it not true. The second law really applies to closed systems. Or do you want to argue that life is a closed system? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::: That doesn't matter. You cannot divorce life from the rest of the universe. The ''universe'' is not merely closed; it is ''isolated''. Abiogenesis would have been ''impossible'' under such a system. Life is too ordered, and too well-informed, for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::Glad that you admit that life is connected to the rest of the universe. Life is very orderly indeed, but e.g. the fusion of hydrogen in the sun leads to such a big increase in entropy, that every decrease on earth accomplished by life can easily be offset. You would be right is the life would have taken over the universe, but as far as we know it confined to small pockets, on the scale of the universe.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:30, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Well then, tell me this: if increased energy alone were sufficient to reduce entropy in another part of the universe, then why couldn't a [[tornado]] rip through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747? And that's no joke. See Perloff, James, ''Tornado in a Junkyard: the Relentless Myth of Darwinism'', Refuge Books, 1999. ISBN 0966816005.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: This is the good old creationist argument from improbability. Which, confuses random walks again with evolution. And also claims that science beliefs that life came about in an event similar to your tornado. Which it doesn't. To give your example some credit, is shows indeed that increased energy alone is not sufficient for life to emerge. Otherwise the universe would be run over by life. But the amounts of energy consumed by life to sustain itself is sufficient to disprove the claim that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. And that was the contested point.[[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.
:::* Of course sin does not appear in any of the (ever-changing) definitions of evolution. Because they who ''write'' (and rewrite) the definitions reject the very concept of sin. Or rather, they define sin differently: sin, to them, is anything that stands in their way.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::No, there were also people, Christians, who do accept notion of sin, who were also writing scientific definitions. Problem is that even they didn't have a use "sin" in their scientific definitions. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::What you say is that they aren't Christains. That's cool, but now I am faced with to kinds of Christians, and one kind of them claims that the other is dishonest about their beliefs. You might be right about their dishonesty, but I don't see why I should choose either side.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:19, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Now ''I'' have to admit that "why you should choose" is beyond the scope of this page. But it's a matter of supreme importance to each and every living soul, because the eternal destiny of an unsaved soul is a horror that I wouldn't wish on my worst earthly enemy. [[Jesus Christ]] came to earth to pay, in full, the penalty for [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]]. There's just one catch, though--if you don't believe in [[God]] and don't believe in sin, then...!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::::So, essentially you believe not because you've got arguments, but because you are scared by torture, pain, and hellfire? This is a reasonable position if you live in North Korea. Faced with a deity who punishes people for all kinds of reason know and unknown, and who is much smarter than us, I think it is a folly to try to deceive him and pretend to believe. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I can confidently predict that I will never explain abiogensis either. I am a computer scientist. And I can also confidently predict that I will never prove that evolution works as a mathematical principle. That has already been done in the last century. No need to do it all over again. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:I do not accept that claim.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::You don't need to accept that claim, you can look up the proof. And it has been proven whether you like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It has not, because as I said above, no one has shown that these "algorithms" work in the wild.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Since its all mathematics it applies to all self-replicating processes. If you want to show that it doesn't work in the wild, you have to show that there are active processes preventing it from happening. I haven't seen any argument by you that goes into this direction. You always argument that evolution is a random walk, and that is false. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Excuse me, but you have not even shown anything about a self-replicating process. You have not defined that term, and this is the first that I have heard about any of this. And after learning about the fraud that [[Ernst Haeckel]] committed with his fudged embryo drawings, I am not going to accept ''anything'' at face value from an evolutionist without hard and fast corroboration. You're going to have to lay out your entire case, and perhaps the best place to do that is in an Essay.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::I amazed that you didn't know about self-replicating processes, and I'm glad that I could provide you with this new insight. And if you want to learn more, I pointed you to a handbook. I am more than happy to write an essay, if you promise me to first read the handbook.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:19, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Merely because, without abiogenesis, atheism cannot answer the question, "If there is no [[God]], then where did we come from?"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheism isn't about abiogensis, so they probably don't care much. Its up to science to find an explanation if they can. And the explanation that God did it, isn't much of an explanation either. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::You admit, then, that [[atheism]] and materialistic "scientism" are closely allied. Atheism turns to what they call science--but which, again, I call materialistic scient''ism''--to explain that without which atheism would fail. It has been doing that ever since Darwin. Without Darwin, there would have been no [[Karl Marx|Marx]]--he who called religion "the [[Opium|opiate]] of the people."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::* There is an overlap in people between materialistic science and atheism. Sure, and the the more you know about science, the more likely is you reject religious explanations as insufficient. But hey are still different. As pointed out on this site, there are religious scientists, and I can add that there are atheists that aren't scientists.
::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.
::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::How odd--in the Sixties, scientism confidently expected to find all the answers, that it was just a matter of time. The broader name for this kind of thinking was [[modernism]]. Now we have [[postmodernism]], which is the cop-out of all time. Don't cop out on me, Order--that would be unworthy of you.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sure, I am skeptical, because there might be problems that are to big for humans to comprehend. That aside, you seem to think that abiogensis means that that somewhere and at sometime something arose from nothing? Science always explains something new by a material process, and none of its attempts to explain abiogenesis said that something came from nothing. This might be limiting, but that are the rules of the game. And how does intelligence solve this anyway? I have seen many intelligent people, but regardless of how intelligent they were, few were able to create matter and molecules from nothing. Maybe you can explain, how intelligence, without the use of tools and existing material, can create something material? Order 07:07, 1 October 2007
---

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''

Why don't we just get you a crown and get it over with?

Anyway, back to the point. Just because something cannot be readily explained right now (IE, the Big Bang, where did it come from?) doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation for it. This is similar to the belief that the sun orbits the earth - there was no other logical explanation for it. When evidence emerged that this wasn't so, people were repressed by the forces of superstition (Religion)

The one last thing which science cannot adequately explain and which allows religion its last dying breath is that of the Big Bang. Human beings cannot get our heads around the concept of infinity... Its a natural reaction. You cannot say to me that there isn't a big teapot orbiting Jupiter. Therefore is it wise to say there is in fact a big teapot orbiting Jupiter? Is it wise to make this baseless claim, simply on my perilously unbacked claim that there is, in fact, a teapot orbiting Jupiter? perhaps someday when we advance the notion of space exploration we can then definately prove whether there is a teabag in Jupiter once and for all. But just because we cannot explain there isn't a teabag orbiting Jupiter right now, doesn't mean we should believe that there is a teabag orbiting Jupiter.

P.S- Whats all that rubbish about accountability about? We're just having a discussion. Chill. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:First of all, if anyone is being pompous, you are. You continue to bandy the phrase ''scientific method'' as if it were inherently superior to religion. And--pardon me, but I thought you knew what you were talking about, until you admitted that you are not even trained as a scientist. I, on the other hand, have been so trained. And in that sense, I know more about the scientific method than you can possibly know.

:And second--you bring up the Big Bang as though ''that'' were a proved fact, too. Not only is it ''not'' proved, but ''it could not have happened'' as commonly described. Something ''did'' happen, six thousand years or so ago (by clocks and calendars on earth, that is)--but what that something was, did not conform to conventional descriptions of the Big Bang in any way, shape or form. So don't ask me to explain that which did not happen and could not have happened.

:Finally, all this is beside the point. I have consistently asked you to provide a definition of the word ''science'' that allows you to claim that [[God]] either does not and did not exist, or else is Superfluous. You have persisted in, as far as I can tell, assuming the consequent--or rather what you ''hope'' is the consequent.

:PS: The accountability I speak of is for all your actions, on-line and off-. I am accountable, too. So I recognized that [[Jesus Christ|Someone]] settled that account about two thousand years ago. Of course, part of recognizing anyone for settling your account is realizing that you ''have'' an account to settle...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:TerryH, Where did I say the Big Bang is a proven fact? I'm simply throwing idea's here... I don't know all the answers but maybe if we throw around enough we questions we might get an answer, together. The point of my argument was that just because we do not have a valid explanation for say, the Big Bang, doesn't mean that it isn't entirely possible. Kind of reminds me of a man called Gallileo all those years ago who said some crazy things...

By the way, I've calmed down. I had a cigarette. If you've any more questions just ask, and chill! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::You ''cited'' the Big Bang as ''the'' evidence that disproved creation. That could be true ''only'' if the Big Bang were a proved fact. Since it isn't, it can't disprove creation.

::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wrap up ==
Terry, this discussion has to many loose end to be meaningful. Also we are just repeating part of the entire evolution/atheism debate all over again. If we want to do that we should go to the appropriate articles.

My summary of where we stand right now is
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism can live alright with gaps in knowledge. Everybody has to live with the fact that there are more things that we don't know than things that we do know. Regardless of faith or the absence thereof.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is "God". You disagree with my response that "God" isn't a good answer to the unsolved scientific questions.
I hope we can agree to disagree on this. Or did I forget something? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:You did forget a number of things, chief among which is that I am under Divine orders, per {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=28|verses=19-20}}, to spread the Truth and oppose error and falsehood wheresoever I find it.
:About those "algorithms"--a commentator named Jim Manzi mentioned them in an essay published in the current issue of ''National Review''. He states that if those algorithms work at all, then they show that, because evolution is not random after all, one cannot assert ''a priori'' that [[God]] does not direct it. Fine, except for one crucial element that we never even considered: time. Evolution, as you currently define it, takes far more time than the earth has been around.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::I was telling you all the time that evolution wasn't random. Glad that you finally got it. And if you would have read the literature on the algorithm, you would have noticed that there a faster optimization algorithms around. This observation isn't exactly news. Evolution itself is the process without a director. But you can, as theistic evolutionists and IDers do, claim that a creator at some places stepped in and accelerated the process. But unless you specify where, when and how this creator did it, you still didn't explain anything, but you seek refuge with your creator in some unspecified unknowns. Which is even more vague than hiding in some known unknowns, like abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Terry, hi, new user here. So you do realize that that argument is circular?
#Evolution would disprove special creation.
#However, evolution disproves special creation, which is true.
#Ergo, evolution is false.
It's either circular, or you're making one huge assumption. You're aware of this?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:35, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Evolution doesn't disprove anything, because no one has proved evolution. No one seems able even to define it. How do ''you'' define it? If someone defines it as change that can happen to a species over time, then evolution says nothing about special origin. But you just implied that evolution ''implies'' that all species derive from one, whose origin remains a mystery. Which is it?
:Also, I repudiate the charge of [[circular reasoning]]. I know about how long the [[earth]] has existed, and it's not the billions of years that would be required.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Evolution doesn't imply that all came from one? Who claims that? Didn't I say the opposite. It has just been observed to be the case that all life we know is DNA based. This discussion start to become repetitive. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm sure you do "know" that. How?

Moving on, evolution is, like you said, the change over time between and among species. It disproves ''special'' creation (special, meaning, each species individually), but you're quite right in that it doesn't imply abiogenesis... evolution does not speak itself to the origin of that first speck of life. Rather, it assumes it's there. So I've defined it.

Also, I feel that some of the problem might be from the false dichotomy created by creationary debaters, who distinguish between "macro-" and "micro-" evolution, even though one implies the other. And the punctuated equilibrium/gradualism debate, which concerns the rate of instant acceleration (think of it as the second & third derivatives of evolutionary change), has also been misconstrued by the same, in a [[deceit|deceitful]] attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill. I'd be happy to explain both of these in more detail if it clears up your definition; I feel like many of the "points" creationary debaters think they have are actually either misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, or deliberate deceit created in an attempt to delude the public, and undermine confidence in science.

As a final note, of course evolution is never "proven." No scientific theory is ever "proven," since new evidence will always emerge to require adaptation of theories. All that we can ask is that a scientific theory reflect the present evidence, and contemplate the inclusion of future evidence... a test which evolution passes with flying colors.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:44, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:The "wrap up" was intended to continue the discussion at an appropriate place. Sorry, that I forgot to mention that you act under divine orders. The rest of you argument is captured by my point that you think that science has to explain everything, otherwise atheism falters. I still think that this nothing more than a strawman. The discussion with you is cumbersome, since keep arguing against positions that you think think I should take, but which I don't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Order, from looking at your other edits (which I admire) I think we're on the same page, and I just want to make sure that the "you" you're debating isn't me, but is in fact TerryH :-). Is that right? Also, hello!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 00:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

My last remarks was intended to be general in nature, and addressed mainly Terry. I can't see any reason to continue a discussion in which I repeatedly hammered the point that evolution isn't random, to arrive a point where Terry says "Gotcha, you admitted that evolution isn't random". Hence, a second attempt to wrap up. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:49, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
===Second attempt to wrap up ===

My second summary of where we stand is
* You believe that science claims to explain everything, which it doesn't. I claim that science knows that that it doesn't explain everything, so i don't see the problem.
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism is about the rejection of religious beliefs, and not about some scientific argument.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is "God". I think that "God" as an answer doesn't address any of the unsolved scientific questions.
* You believe to be are under divine order. I believe that this argument from authority doesn't make your claims any stronger.

If you want to convince me, you shouldn't point to gaps in my knowledge; they are plenty. I do not even know the complete science of riding a bicycle. Pointing out more unknowns doesn't really undermine my position.

I might be wrong, but I get the impression that you think that your alternative explains everything. Rather than pointing at my lack of knowledge, you should for a start explain why it is possible to bicycle, or to tackle another partly unsolved problem, what causes lightning. But we should do it in the articles on [[Bicycles]] and [[Lightning]]. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:49, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

All right, [[User:Order|Order]] and [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]], here is ''my'' summary of this exercise in talking at each other:

MichaelS has just set forth every reason why I am unalterably opposed to evolution. To him (and, I presume, to Order), nothing will suffice except a declaration that change ''within'' species implies change ''from species to species'' and that ''[[God]] is not necessary'' to the process in any manner whatsoever. So much for grand attempts at compromise. I invite everyone to read those edits and judge for him/herself.

Yes, I know how long the earth has been around. The [[Bible]] states in detail how long certain men lived, and how old they were when they had sons. Add it all up and you get about 6,010 years. I have discussed [[Biblical chronology dispute|here]] the three points of scholarly dispute that might make a difference, perhaps, of a hundred or so years either way. Not millions of years, as evolutionists demand.

Very well, then. This discussion is at an end--and I hope that all attempts from my side at compromise will now come to an end, because they are absolutely futile.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:This reply confuses me. Your understanding of "compromise" is hilariously warped. You can't "compromise" on scientifically observed facts. You can't say, "I think the value of ''g'' is 9.3 m/s^2," and expect me to reply, "fine, let's settle this and agree on 9.5 m/s^2, that's a fair compromise." You can't stipulate away observed facts, and expect the world to change by ''fiat''!! If a "compromise" in this sense is to have any meaning, it would have to be an agreement to make a good faith effort to examine and reply to the evidence in favor of each other's position.

:But, you fail even to make this sort of "compromise." Rather than evaluating the arguments put forward, and replying to the arguments in an attempt to better understand them, you espouse your warped definition of "compromise," re-state your position, and then say, "well, I tried." Actually, you didn't. You just ignored countervailing evidence, and walked away when it suited you.

:I invite you to make a good-faith effort at understanding and replying to our arguments. They do, after all, go unanswered. As to the age of the earth, I'll start by making a good-faith reply. The first "scholarship" espousing an age of the earth of 6000 years is a pre-modern Latin text from the 1300s. Tragically, the arguments haven't changed much since then, as you prove, Terry. Let's assume that adding up the ages of the people in the Bible would get you a full account of history. You're still dealing with a document that is unreliable for the veracity of the matter which you're asserting. I do not discount the Bible as a spiritual text, but as a scholar of ancient documents, I do discount it as a (1) scientific or (2) historical document. ''No'' historical document is reliable enough to base a scientific theory on, without corroborating physical evidence. Trying to shoehorn the Bible into the framework of a historical document is absurd when the initial readers had different understandings of time, society, culture, politics, etc., that make a direct 1:1 correspondence absurd.

:Further, the Bible at no time says "this is the entire history of mankind, with no gaps in the account." If it did, your argument would become slightly ''less'' absurd. But the Bible at no point evinces an intent to capture all of human history within the four corners of the document, and to assume as much is to assume your conclusion!

:So there's another good faith argument on my part. Let's see yours. Please do not use rhetoric and hurt feelings to get you out of your duty to analyze and reply to the arguments asserted.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:01, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]], everything you say above is false.
::I have seen ''no'' "scientifically observed facts." All I've seen is a bunch of [[propaganda]] and not a little bit of fraud masquerading as "scientifically observed fact." Hypothetical "algorithms" do not add up to hard evidence that any species arose out of another, much less the long and involved "special descent tree" that is still printed in biology textbooks to this day. No one has ever ''observed'' domestic [[cat]]s "descending" from [[lion]]s or [[tiger]]s, for example.

::Don't talk to me about "unreliable" documents. In the [[Bible]] we have a Document that has been preserved with the best accuracy of any document in history. And corroborating evidence? How about sedimentary rock found at high altitudes? How about the very finding of [[Nineveh]], capital of [[Assyria]], at a time when the general community of [[Archaeology|archaeologists]] denied the very existence of Assyria? And how about this: did you know that [[Jesus Christ]] is the Best-attested Figure in all of recorded history?

::You accept either all of the Bible, or none of it. No compromise is possible.

::The [[Bible]] does indeed say, "Every word written Herein is properly instructive in any application." ({{Bible ref|book=II_Timothy|chap=3|verses=15-17}})

::Good faith? You don't know the meaning of the phrase.

::Now then: I'll readily acknowledge--indeed, avow and boldly declare--that I have not been seeking compromise. But others, including many whom I know and respect, have. In remarking about the futility of compromise with those who insult Divine Intelligence and set God's Word at nothing, I was addressing them, not you. And you have just provided additional evidence, the quality of which I could not hope to obtain.

::So long, then. This has been very educational, instructive, and demonstrative.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Terry, I answered you [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Answer_to_TerryH.2C_re_universal_applicability_of_the_Bible here].-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 15:41, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Terry, I wasn't aware that you were trying to come to a compromise, but an glad that we could in the end agree that evolution isn't a random walk. This is already much more than anybody could hope for, and for the rest we probably have to agree to disagree. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:37, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==

Apparently an example of bias on Wiki is that it has no entry for "liberal" (it redirects to "liberalism"). One would note that the non-existent article on "conservative" redirects to "conservatism". It's common practice on Wikipedia to point directly to a philosophy rather than to its practitioners to avoid clutter. The liberal page, if it existed, would merely read as "one who practices the philosophy of liberalism. (See Liberalism)".

Why is this bias?[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*It would not be a [[deceit]] if that is what they did. But they don't, do they? And how can you speak for one million editors and say that is how it would be? Or stay, for that matter. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm also confused. Conservative, communist, fascist, libertarian, feminist, etc... all redirect to their philosophies, so how can it be said that this shows bias on Wikipedia's part? Besides, it looks like Wikipedia has actually changed it now and appears to include various definitions of liberal, including the articles Social Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 15:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::: The term is "[[liberal]]". [[Wikipedia]] can try all it wants to redefine it, but [[Wikipedia]] is only discrediting itself. And in Wikipedia's silly new terminology, does it admit that [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in the classroom? I doubt it. You can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Liberal has a lot of different meanings Aschlafly, depending on the time period and country of origin. Wikipedia isn't creating it's own list of words out of thin air. Go visit Wikipedia, type in liberal, and see the terms for yourself. While you're at it, go to the article Modern American Liberalism, which is on the liberal disam. page, and it lists many of the views of the liberals that you are thinking of. The article is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_American_Liberalism here]. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 21:03, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: The [[Wikipedia]] entry you reference is a lie. It conceals how [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded abortion and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[school]], for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Liberals are not united in their beliefs. The Wikipedia article on liberalism mentions that "liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances." How clear can you get? They're not being biased. You may wish that the article included more criticism toward liberals, and no doubt liberals would like the article on "Conservatism" to be more negative, but WIkipedia's internal processes smooth out the edges of personal opinion to keep both articles factual.
:::::: I know many liberals and while a portion support "taxpayer-funded abortion" and censorship of prayers, many do not (a small minority of my liberal friends would support prayer censorship of any religion). It is unbiased to report that liberal philosophy "generally supports" something. It would be equally unfair to attempt to attempt to portray conservatives as gun nuts or fascists because most are not. As a libertarian conservative, I would hate to be lumped in with the fringe weirdos within my philosophy.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 23:50, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: At least 95% of [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]]. You'd be hard-pressed to identify counterexamples. It's a [[deceit]] to describe what a [[liberal]] is and to leave that out, as [[Wikipedia]] does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: Read the article. Wikipedia doesn't leave it out. Read the whole article. Wikipedia is not hiding the information that the Democratic party in America generally supports state-funded abortion, but to state that "liberals believe such-and-such" or "Republicans believe such-and-such" is labelling and unfair. Again, I know many liberals (even university professors) who do not support abortion.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I read the article, and Wikipedia leaves out both. And I doubt you know any [[liberals]] who don't support censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]]. I'm skeptical that you know [[liberals]] who are university professors who oppose legalized [[abortion]]. Post their names and let's see if they've stated that position publicly. I doubt it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Archibald, you are dodging the point, whether due to misunderstanding or as a conscious debating tactic only you can say. The point is that Wikipedia doesn't have a [[Liberal]] article. It thus seemingly denies the very existence of liberals.

Your tangent about the lack of perfect unity among liberals is irrelevant. They still exist, just as for example Creationists still exist, despite an almost perfectly even division into Young Earth & Old Earth factions.

Your other tangent about the historical changes in the meaning of the term ''liberal'' is also irrelevant. You surely know that Mr. Schlafly is talking chiefly about contemporary U.S. liberals.

A comprehensive article on [[Liberal]]s would address the scope and breadth of meaning. It would also assure even liberals like you that you exist! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:02, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-03T15:36:32Z

MichaelS: archiving

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of [[liberal education]] and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.

::::I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.

::::Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life![[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible ==

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:

{{cquote|All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.}}

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the [[Bible]] is. Did you bother to read the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]], and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find ''one single historical incident'' that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. [[Paul]] was bitten by a poisonous [[snake]] on [[Malta]] and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of [[God]].

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of [[Jesus Christ]] after His execution--even while the [[lion]]s were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([http://www.mercola.com/]) recently stated that conventional [[medicine]] is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal [[cancer]]. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had ''no'' confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved ''cures'' through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend [[Bible|Scripture]].

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
#What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
#The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
#Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, ''res ipsa loquitor''.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

#A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when [[Jesus Christ]] Himself returns to [[earth]] to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that [[Osama bin Laden]] wants to set up, because [[God]]--in the Person of Christ--''would'' be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
#In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' ''Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States'', now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime ({{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=13}})--in all its secular inglory--are to [[parachute]] into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir [[Winston Churchill]].
#Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", [[abortion]], and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the [[Terri Schiavo|death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie,"]] compels the military to allow open [[Homosexuality|homosexuals]] to serve therein, ''et cetera ad nauseam''.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to ''me'' of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is ''in''capable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: ''Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus'' by Mary Shelley.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science ''can'' go horribly wrong, but religion ''does'' go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:
# Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
# Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
# Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
# Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
# Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==
Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on [[Homosexuality]]. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archives

2007-10-03T15:35:51Z

MichaelS: oops

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

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archives

2007-10-03T15:35:39Z

MichaelS: archiving