Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Illegal drug

2007-03-12T20:22:08Z

MikeA:

An '''illegal drug''' is a recreational drug that has been deemed potentially harmful and therefore made illegal by a Government of a country.

==Drugs in America==

Illegal drugs in America include [[marijuana]], [[cocaine]], [[methamphetamine]], and [[heroin]].

[[Ronald Reagan]] declared a "war on (illegal) drugs" in [[1988]] with the creation of a [[drug czar]].

==Notes==

Legalization of illegal drugs, especially [[marijuana]], is a [[liberal]] political position. The 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed that a disproportionate percentage of illegal drug users were minorities. The highest rate was among American Indian/Alaska Natives, followed by persons reporting two or more races, followed by blacks/African Americans.<ref>[http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/minorities/index.html Minorities & Drugs - Office of National Drug Control Policy]</ref>

==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Illegal drug

2007-03-12T20:20:44Z

MikeA:

An '''illegal drug''' is a recreational drug that has been deemed potentially harmful and therefore made illegal by a Government of a country.

==Drugs in America==

Illegal drugs in America include [[marijuana]], [[cocaine]], [[methamphetamine]], and [[heroin]].

[[Ronald Reagan]] declared a "war on (illegal) drugs" in [[1988]] with the creation of a [[drug czar]].

==Notes==

Legalization of illegal drugs, especially [[marijuana]], is a [[liberal]] political position. The 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed that a disproportionate percentage of illegal drug users were minorities. The highest rate was among American Indian/Alaska Natives, followed by persons reporting two or more races, followed by blacks/African Americans.<ref>[http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/minorities/index.html]</ref>

==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-03-12T20:14:48Z

MikeA: /* "Controversy" */

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

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

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

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

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

== "Controversy" ==

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

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

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

Wikipedia

2007-03-12T20:09:16Z

MikeA:

'''Wikipedia''' is a free content online [[encyclopedia]] established on [[January 15]], [[2001]]. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==Controversy==

Wikipedia acceps the BCE/CE dating convention, rather than the B.C./A.D. convention, to keep with its policy of remaining a neutral web source. This has been taken to be a denial of the divinity of [[Jesus Christ]] by many Christian groups{{fact}}. Further, Wikipedia shows bias in accepting non-American spellings, despite the fact that the majority of English speakers are American{{fact}}.

==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

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

Template:Fact

2007-03-12T20:06:23Z

MikeA:

<small><sup>[[The_Conservapedia_Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]</sup></small>

Wikipedia

2007-03-12T19:54:34Z

MikeA:

Wikipedia

2007-03-12T19:52:05Z

MikeA:

'''Wikipedia''' is a free content online [[encyclopedia]] established on [[January 15]], [[2001]]. It currently has over 4.5 million articles<ref>[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia main page]</ref>, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics. Like conservapedia, it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

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

Wikipedia

2007-03-12T19:50:00Z

MikeA:

'''Wikipedia''' is a free content online [[encyclopedia]] established on [[January 15]], [[2001]]. It currently has over 4.5 million articles<ref>[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia main page]</ref>, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics. Like conservapedia, it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

===References===
<div class="references-small">
<references />

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

Bill Clinton

2007-03-12T14:32:00Z

MikeA: rv: vandalism

'''Bill Clinton''' (full name: William Jefferson Clinton) served as the 42nd [[President of the United States of America]] from 1993-2001, following [[George H. W. Bush]] and preceding [[George W. Bush]]. His election is notable as he never won a majority of the popular vote, though he won more votes than any of his opponents. He was impeached by the US House of Representatives during his second term for lying in grand jury testimony connected to the Paula Jones lawsuit. However, the US Senate voted not to remove him from office. His term also saw an increase in terrorism directed at the United States. These incidents included the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Alfred P. Murrah building bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

[[Image:billclinton.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Bill Clinton]]

Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote, capitalizing on public discontent with a weak economy and public displeasure with President [[George H. W. Bush]]'s proposed tax increases, and Ross Perot, a popular third candidate. In his first two years in office, 1993 through 1994, Clinton failed at his massive attempt to "reform" health-care in the United States by some sort of government-backed universal health-care insurance, which many conservatives felt would result in effective government control of the health care system. His approach consisted of appointing a planning committee with secret members to reshape this important sector of the economy. The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] successfully sued to force disclosure of the committee members and ultimately to defeat the program.

Clinton also signed into law the [[Violence Against Women Act]], which opened the federal courts to claims of domestic disputes between men and women, which had always been handled under state rather than federal law. A key provision of this law was later ruled unconstitutional in [[United States v. Morrison]].<ref>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZS.html</ref>

In 1994, voters expressed their high disapproval of Clinton by giving a landslide victory to Republicans in Congress, where Republicans won 49.9% of the popular vote (compared to the Democrat's 44%). This event was tagged the "Republican Revolution," and ended much of Clinton's power. He was reelected with 49.2% of the popular vote against a weak Republican candidate in 1996 ([[Robert Dole | Bob Dole]]) and a weaker "populist" candidate, [[H. Ross Perot]]. The re-election of Clinton despite the demonstrated preference of the electorate in 1994 for Republican candidates may well be due to the electorate's preference for a [[divided government]], in which the executive branch and the congress are representative of different parties, unlike the elections in 2002 or 2004. Clinton spent the remainder of his presidency combating scandals. A special prosecutor was named to investigate Clinton for allegations of impropriety in the Whitewater real-estate scandal, an investment of Clinton's in a failed real estate venture. Although nothing came out of this investigation, and it turned out that Clinton actually lost money on his investment, one of the results of the investigation was that the special prosecutor turned to investigating other Clinton activities, one of which (the [[Monica Lewinsky]] scandal) resulted in his impeachment. After a brief trial, the Senate acquitted all charges.

Under Clinton's presidency, the economy boomed, creating the largest ever budget surplus. <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/</ref>

Clinton also attempted to use the American military to kill [[Osama Bin Laden]] and [[Al Qaeda]], an action which was seen by some as an attempt to distract the nation from the [[Monica Lewinsky scandal]]. Some have also applied this criticism to his successor, George W. Bush.

Clinton devoted much time during his two terms to the peace process in Northern Ireland. He made interventions including 3 trips to Ireland during periods of stagnation in negotiations which coincided in major breakthroughs which ensured the province didn't slide back to the violence of the 70's and 80's.

Bill Clinton's wife, [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton|Hillary Clinton]], may have long sought to become president herself. She used her position of influence to obtain the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate without opposition in 2000, and was elected in this safely Democratic state. Reelected in 2006, she is now running for president in 2008.

Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff was John Podesta between 1998-2001.

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2007-03-12T14:10:59Z

MikeA:

The '''Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'''("FSM") is a parody religion invented in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/arts/design/29mons.html?ex=1282968000%26en=ee37c2cf9d5884e7%26ei=5090%26partner=rssuserland%26emc=rss But Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There? - New York Times]</ref> Although the Flying Spaghetti Monster is used by [[atheist]]s, such as [[Richard Dawkins]], as a modern version of [[Russell's teapot]], the original point was a more limited critique of [[Intelligent Design]] and the notion of "teaching the controversy" by constructing a clearly ridiculous theological system and then demanding that it get equal time.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700019.html?nav=most_emailed Verbatim: Noodle This, Kansas - Washington Post]</ref>. The [[Discovery Institute]] has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]</ref> Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians"

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Gravitation

2007-03-12T13:51:46Z

MikeA:

'''Gravitation''' is the phenomenon which attracts all objects within the [[universe]] to each other <ref>New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition</ref>. In modern physics it is explained by [[Albert Einstein| Albert Einstein's]] [[general theory of relativity]]. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by [[Issac Newton | Issac Newton's]] [[law of universal gravitation]], which is still useful in most situations.

Gravitation is responsible for the existence of the [[earth]] and [[sun]], without it, none of the [[stars]] or [[planets]] in the universe would exist, and [[life]] on earth would not be possible.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Gravitation

2007-03-12T13:50:42Z

MikeA:

'''Gravitation''' is the phenomenon which attracts all objects within the [[universe]] to each other <ref>New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition</ref>. In modern physics it is explained by [[Albert Einstein| Albert Einstein's]] [[theory of general relativity]]. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by [[Issac Newton | Issac Newton's]] [[law of universal gravitation]], which is still useful in most situations.

Gravitation is responsible for the existence of the [[earth]] and [[sun]], without it, none of the [[stars]] or [[planets]] in the universe would exist, and [[life]] on earth would not be possible.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Theory of gravity

2007-03-12T13:48:12Z

MikeA: Redirecting to Gravitation

#redirect [[gravitation]]

Gravitation

2007-03-12T13:44:59Z

MikeA:

'''Gravitation''' is the force which attracts all objects within the [[universe]] to each other <ref>New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition</ref>. In modern physics it is explained by [[Albert Einstein| Albert Einstein's]] [[theory of general relativity]]. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by [[Issac Newton | Issac Newton's]] [[law of universal gravitation]], which is still useful in most situations.

Gravitation is responsible for the existence of the [[earth]] and [[sun]], without it, none of the [[stars]] or [[planets]] in the universe would exist, and [[life]] on earth would not be possible.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Gravity

2007-03-12T13:44:44Z

MikeA: Redirecting to Gravitation

#redirect [[gravitation]]

Gravitation

2007-03-12T13:43:49Z

MikeA:

Gravitation is the force which attracts all objects within the [[universe]] to each other <ref>New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition</ref>. In modern physics it is explained by [[Albert Einstein| Albert Einstein's]] [[theory of general relativity]]. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by [[Issac Newton | Issac Newton's]] [[law of universal gravitation]], which is still useful in most situations.

Gravitation is responsible for the existence of the [[earth]] and [[sun]], without it, none of the [[stars]] or [[planets]] in the universe would exist, and [[life]] on earth would not be possible.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection

2007-03-12T13:17:50Z

MikeA:

''On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'' is a book by [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] published in 1859. It introduced the world to the theory of [[evolution]] through a process of [[natural selection]].

==External Links==

*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1228 Origin of Species, 1st Edition], available at [[Project Gutenberg]].
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009 Origin of Species, 6th Edition], available at [[Project Gutenberg]].

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection

2007-03-12T13:16:37Z

MikeA:

''On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'' is a book by [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] published in 1859. It introduced the world to [[evolution|the theory of natural selection]].

==External Links==

*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1228 Origin of Species, 1st Edition], available at [[Project Gutenberg]].
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009 Origin of Species, 6th Edition], available at [[Project Gutenberg]].

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection

2007-03-12T13:16:22Z

MikeA:

''On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'' is a book by [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] published in 1859. It introduced the world to [[evolution|the theory of natural selection]].

==External Links==

[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1228 Origin of Species, 1st Edition], available at [[Project Gutenberg]].
[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009 Origin of Species, 6th Edition], available at [[Project Gutenberg]].

Bill Clinton

2007-03-12T12:19:33Z

MikeA:

Bill Clinton

2007-03-12T12:18:15Z

MikeA:

'''Bill Clinton''' (full name: William Jefferson Clinton) served as the 42nd [[President of the United States of America]] from 1993-2001, following [[George H. W. Bush]] and preceding [[George W. Bush]]. His election is notable as he never actually applied to be president.
[[Image:billclinton.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Bill Clinton]]

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

2007-03-12T08:59:06Z

MikeA:

The '''Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)''' is a chronic disease that gradually weakens the immune system by disabling and killing "T-helper ", which normally signal other constituents of the immune system to perform their respective roles. When HIV reduces the number of T-helper cells below a certain threshold, an infected person is vulnerable to opportunistic infections and cancers that typify Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome, or AIDS. <ref>[http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/howhiv.htm]</ref>

==Transmission==
:''For more details on this topic, see [[AIDS#Transmission and prevention|AIDS transmission and prevention]]
{| class="prettytable" style="float:right; font-size:85%; margin-left:15px;"
|- bgcolor="#efefef"
! colspan=5 style="border-right:0px;";| Estimated per act risk for acquisition of HIV-1 <br />by exposure route<ref name=MMWR>{{cite journal | author=Smith, D. K., Grohskopf, L. A., Black, R. J., Auerbach, J. D., Veronese, F., Struble, K. A., Cheever, L., Johnson, M., Paxton, L. A., Onorato, I. A. and Greenberg, A. E. | title=Antiretroviral Postexposure Prophylaxis After Sexual, Injection-Drug Use, or Other Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV in the United States | journal=MMWR | year=2005 | pages=1-20 | volume=54 | issue=RR02 | url=http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm}}</ref>
|- bgcolor="#efefef"
| style="width: 100px"|'''Exposure Route'''
| align="center" style="width: 150px"|'''Estimated infections per 10,000 exposures to an infected source'''
|-
| Blood Transfusion
| align="center" | 9,000<ref name=Donegan>{{cite journal
| author=Donegan, E., Stuart, M., Niland, J. C., Sacks, H. S., Azen, S. P., Dietrich, S. L., Faucett, C., Fletcher, M. A., Kleinman, S. H., Operskalski, E. A., et al.
| title=Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) among recipients of antibody-positive blood donations
| journal=Ann. Intern. Med.
| year=1990
| pages=733-739
| volume=113
| issue=10
| id= PMID 2240875
}}</ref>
|-
| Childbirth
| align="center" | 2,500<ref name=Coovadia>{{cite journal
| author=Coovadia, H.
| title=Antiretroviral agents—how best to protect infants from HIV and save their mothers from AIDS | journal=N. Engl. J. Med.
| year=2004
| pages=289-292
| volume=351
| issue=3
| id= PMID 15247337
| format=
}}</ref>
|-
| Needle-sharing injection drug use
| align="center" | 67<ref name=Kaplan>{{cite journal | author=Kaplan, E. H. and Heimer, R. | title=HIV incidence among New Haven needle exchange participants: updated estimates from syringe tracking and testing data | journal=J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. Hum. Retrovirol. | year=1995 | pages=175-176 | volume=10 | issue=2
| id= PMID 7552482 }}</ref>
|-
| Receptive anal intercourse<sup>*</sup>
| align="center" | 50<ref name=ESG>{{cite journal | author=European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV | title=Comparison of female to male and male to female transmission of HIV in 563 stable couples | journal=BMJ. | year=1992 | pages=809-813 | volume=304 | issue=6830 | id= PMID 1392708 |format=}}</ref><ref name=Varghese>{{cite journal | author=Varghese, B., Maher, J. E., Peterman, T. A., Branson, B. M. and Steketee, R. W. | title=Reducing the risk of sexual HIV transmission: quantifying the per-act risk for HIV on the basis of choice of partner, sex act, and condom use | journal=Sex. Transm. Dis. | year=2002 | pages=38-43 | volume=29 | issue=1 | id= PMID 11773877 |format=}}</ref>
|-
| Percutaneous needle stick
| align="center" | 30<ref name=Bell>{{

cite journal | author=Bell, D. M. | title=Occupational risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection in healthcare workers: an overview. | journal=Am. J. Med. | year=1997 | pages=9-15 | volume=102 | issue=5B | id= PMID 9845490

}}</ref>
|-
| Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse<sup>*</sup>
| align="center" | 10<ref name=ESG /><ref name=Varghese /><ref name=Leynaert>{{

cite journal | author=Leynaert, B., Downs, A. M. and de Vincenzi, I. | title=Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus: variability of infectivity throughout the course of infection. European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV | journal=Am. J. Epidemiol. | year=1998 | pages=88-96 | volume=148 | issue=1 | id= PMID 9663408

}}</ref>
|-
| Insertive anal intercourse<sup>*</sup>
| align="center" | 6.5<ref name=ESG /><ref name=Varghese />
|-
| Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse<sup>*</sup>
| align="center" | 5<ref name=ESG /><ref name=Varghese />
|-
| Receptive fellatio<sup>*</sup>
| align="center" | 1<ref name=Varghese />
|-
| Insertive fellatio<sup>*</sup>
| align="center" | 0.5<ref name=Varghese />
|- bgcolor="#efefef"
! colspan=5 style="border-right:0px;";| <sup>*</sup> assuming no condom use </br>
|}
Since the beginning of the [[pandemic]], three main transmission routes for HIV have been identified:
*'''Sexual route.''' The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations. Sexual transmission can occur when infected sexual secretions of one partner come into contact with the [[rectal]], [[genital]] or [[oral]] [[mucous membranes]] of another.
*'''Blood or blood product route.''' This transmission route can account for infections in [[intravenous drug]] users, [[hemophiliac]]s and recipients of [[blood transfusion]]s (though most transfusions are checked for HIV in the developed world) and blood products. It is also of concern for persons receiving medical care in regions where there is prevalent substandard hygiene in the use of injection equipment, such as the reuse of needles in Third World countries. HIV can also be spread through the sharing of [[leaches]]. Health care workers such as nurses, laboratory workers, and doctors, have also been infected, although this occurs more rarely. People who give and receive tattoos, piercings and scarification procedures can also be at risk of infection.
*'''Mother-to-child transmission''' (MTCT). The transmission of the virus from the [[mother]] to the [[child]] can occur ''in utero'' during the last weeks of [[pregnancy]] and at [[childbirth]]. In the absence of treatment, the transmission rate between the mother and child is 25%.<ref name=Coovadia /> However, where drug treatment and [[Cesarian section]] are available, this can be reduced to 1%.<ref name=Coovadia /> [[Breast feeding]] also presents a risk of infection for the baby.

HIV-2 is transmitted much less frequently by the MTCT and sexual route than HIV-1.

HIV has been found at low concentrations in the [[saliva]], [[tears]] and [[urine]] of infected individuals, but there are no recorded cases of infection by these secretions and the potential risk of transmission is negligible. The use of physical barriers such as the [[latex]] [[condom]] is widely advocated to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV. [[Spermicide]], when used alone or with vaginal contraceptives like a [[diaphragm (contraceptive)|diaphragm]], actually increases the male to female transmission rate due to inflammation of the [[vagina]]; it should not be considered a barrier to infection.<ref name="spermicide">{{cite web |url=http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html#should |title=Should spermicides be used with condoms? |accessdate=2006-10-23 |work=Condom Brochure, FDA OSHI HIV STDs }}</ref> Research is clarifying the relationship between male [[circumcision]] and HIV in differing social and cultural contexts, however critics point out that any correlation between circumcision and HIV is likely to come from cultural factors (which govern not only whether someone is circumcised, but also their sexual practices and beliefs).<ref name=Siegfred>

{{cite journal
| author=Siegfried, N., Muller, M., Deeks, J., Volmink, J., Egger, M., Low, N., Walker, S. and Williamson, P. | title=HIV and male circumcision--a systematic review with assessment of the quality of studies | journal=Lancet Infect. Dis. | year=2005 | pages=165-173 | volume=5 | issue=3 | id= PMID 15766651

}}</ref> Even though male circumcision may lead to a reduction of infection risk in heterosexual men by up to 60%,<ref name=Williams>{{

cite journal
| author=Williams BG, Lloyd-Smith JO, Gouws E, Hankins C, Getz WM, Hargrove J, de Zoysa I, Dye C, Auvert B.
| title=The Potential Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa.
| journal=PLoS Med | year=2006 | pages=e262 | volume=3 | issue=7
| id= PMID 16822094

}}</ref> UNAIDS believes that it is premature to recommend male circumcision as part of HIV prevention programs.<ref name=WHOcircumcision>{{

cite web
| author=[[WHO]] | publisher= | year=2005
| url=http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr32/en/
| title=UNAIDS statement on South African trial findings regarding male circumcision and HIV
| accessdate=2006-03-28

}}</ref> Trials, in which some uncircumcised men were randomly assigned to be circumcised in presumably sterile conditions and others were not circumcised, conducted in Kenya[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=17321310] and Uganda [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=17321311] found that men who were uncircumcised were twice as likely to contract the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) compared with circumcised counterparts. South African medical experts are concerned that the repeated use of unsterilized blades in the ritual circumcision of adolescent boys may be spreading HIV.<ref name=Kaisercircum>{{

cite web
| author=Various | publisher=Kaisernetwork.org | year=2005
| url=http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=31199
| title=Repeated Use of Unsterilized Blades in Ritual Circumcision Might Contribute to HIV Spread in S. Africa, Doctors Say
| accessdate=2006-03-28

}}</ref>
==Treatment==

==Replication Cycle==
HIV is a retrovirus, and integrates its genetic information into the host cell's genome.

==References==
<references/>

==License==
This article contains material from [[Wikipedia]] licensed under the [[GFDL]].

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-11T13:47:35Z

MikeA: /* Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]]<BR>
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]]<BR>
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Also, I should note that the American spelling of the Austrian dynasty (Ha'''p'''sburg in America) seems like a strange case to cite in arguing against Wikipedia's supposed Anglophilia, and as a policy precedent for Conservapedia. The actual name of the dynasty is Ha'''b'''sburg. As such, most scholars (including Americans) prefer the original spelling, and I see no reason not to use this, particularly since isn't a question of transliteration or preserving a diacritical mark not used in English.

To me, this screams for a clarification. Even if Conservapedia wants its content to use American spellings, does this extend to "Americanizing" proper names and official names/titles? Would Conservapedia have the name of the ruling party in the British parliament spelled "Labor," even though its official name is "Labour"? Or, to give another example, would Slavic names like "Edvard" and "Josef" be rendered into their English equivalents "Edward" and "Joseph"? Personally, I think the rule about American spelling should not be absolute, and that formal names of individuals and organizations should be retained as much as possible, including appropriate accents and diacritical marks. I'm not saying the original names or acronyms of foreign organizations (as opposed to personal names) would have to be used exclusively, but that it would be good to include the original name in the entry as a point of reference.

For instance, an entry on the German Nazi Party could give its original German name and acronym in parentheses (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei, or NSDAP), along with an English translation (National Socialist German Workers Party). It's useful for someone who's studying a foreign language and wants to know the name in the original, and also as a means of explaining why the acronyms often used for such organizations don't always correspond exactly to the English translation.

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million miles."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)
==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people persay, but you mentioned in general its a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Considering that discussions are not polls, I don't see why this matters. I also don't really see it on Wikipedia, even though things move on a scale where this ''might'' matter in a way. The current rules pretty much cover things. If you have to add a rule, just add something like "Don't act like a total jerk." and be done with it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) <small><font color=CCCCCC>Wikipedia</font></small> is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

GNU Free Documentation License

2007-03-11T08:38:45Z

MikeA:

__NOTOC__
Version 1.2, November 2002

:Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
:51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
:Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
:of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

==0. PREAMBLE==

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.

This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software.

We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.

==1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS ==

This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein. The "Document", below, refers to any such manual or work. Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law.

A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.

A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.

The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none.

The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words.

A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque".

Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification. Examples of transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only.

The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text.

A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses following text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a specific section name mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".) To "Preserve the Title" of such a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition.

The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document. These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License, but only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has no effect on the meaning of this License.

==2. VERBATIM COPYING ==

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.

==3. COPYING IN QUANTITY ==

If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers) of the Document, numbering more than 100, and the Document's license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the copies in covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the back cover. Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of these copies. The front cover must present the full title with all words of the title equally prominent and visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition. Copying with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve the title of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be treated as verbatim copying in other respects.

If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as fit reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent pages.

If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location from which the general network-using public has access to download using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through your agents or retailers) of that edition to the public.

It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the Document well before redistributing any large number of copies, to give them a chance to provide you with an updated version of the Document.

==4. MODIFICATIONS ==

You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:

* '''A.''' Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
* '''B.''' List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
* '''C.''' State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified Version, as the publisher.
* '''D.''' Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
* '''E.''' Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.
* '''F.''' Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
* '''G.''' Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice.
* '''H.''' Include an unaltered copy of this License.
* '''I.''' Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.
* '''J.''' Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
* '''K.''' For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
* '''L.''' Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
* '''M.''' Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version.
* '''N.''' Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements" or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.
* '''O.''' Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers.
If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no material copied from the Document, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant. To do this, add their titles to the list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license notice. These titles must be distinct from any other section titles.

You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version by various parties--for example, statements of peer review or that the text has been approved by an organization as the authoritative definition of a standard.

You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version. Only one passage of Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover Text may be added by (or through arrangements made by) any one entity. If the Document already includes a cover text for the same cover, previously added by you or by arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on behalf of, you may not add another; but you may replace the old one, on explicit permission from the previous publisher that added the old one.

The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version.

==5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS ==

You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.

The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.

In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements."

==6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS ==

You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects.

You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document.

==7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS ==

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.

If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than one half of the entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on covers that bracket the Document within the aggregate, or the electronic equivalent of covers if the Document is in electronic form. Otherwise they must appear on printed covers that bracket the whole aggregate.

==8. TRANSLATION ==

Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute translations of the Document under the terms of section 4. Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special permission from their copyright holders, but you may include translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the original versions of these Invariant Sections. You may include a translation of this License, and all the license notices in the Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers, provided that you also include the original English version of this License and the original versions of those notices and disclaimers. In case of a disagreement between the translation and the original version of this License or a notice or disclaimer, the original version will prevail.

If a section in the Document is Entitled "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", or "History", the requirement (section 4) to Preserve its Title (section 1) will typically require changing the actual title.

==9. TERMINATION ==

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

==10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE ==

The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.

Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.

= How to use this License for your documents =

To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document and put the following copyright and license notices just after the title page:

:Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.
:Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
:or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
:with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
:A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
:Free Documentation License".

If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts, replace the "with...Texts." line with this:

:with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the
:Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts being LIST.

If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other combination of the three, merge those two alternatives to suit the situation.

If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to permit their use in free software.

GFDL

2007-03-11T08:38:38Z

MikeA: Redirecting to GNU Free Documentation License

#redirect [[GNU Free Documentation License]]

GFDL

2007-03-11T08:38:09Z

MikeA:

GFDL

2007-03-11T08:37:29Z

MikeA:

{{shortcut|[[WP:GFDL]]}}

__NOTOC__
Version 1.2, November 2002

:Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
:51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
:Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
:of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

==0. PREAMBLE==

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.

This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software.

We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.

==1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS ==

This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein. The "Document", below, refers to any such manual or work. Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law.

A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.

A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.

The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none.

The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words.

A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque".

Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification. Examples of transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only.

The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text.

A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses following text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a specific section name mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".) To "Preserve the Title" of such a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition.

The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document. These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License, but only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has no effect on the meaning of this License.

==2. VERBATIM COPYING ==

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.

==3. COPYING IN QUANTITY ==

If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers) of the Document, numbering more than 100, and the Document's license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the copies in covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the back cover. Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of these copies. The front cover must present the full title with all words of the title equally prominent and visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition. Copying with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve the title of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be treated as verbatim copying in other respects.

If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as fit reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent pages.

If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location from which the general network-using public has access to download using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through your agents or retailers) of that edition to the public.

It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the Document well before redistributing any large number of copies, to give them a chance to provide you with an updated version of the Document.

==4. MODIFICATIONS ==

You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:

* '''A.''' Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
* '''B.''' List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
* '''C.''' State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified Version, as the publisher.
* '''D.''' Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
* '''E.''' Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.
* '''F.''' Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
* '''G.''' Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice.
* '''H.''' Include an unaltered copy of this License.
* '''I.''' Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.
* '''J.''' Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
* '''K.''' For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
* '''L.''' Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
* '''M.''' Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version.
* '''N.''' Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements" or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.
* '''O.''' Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers.
If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no material copied from the Document, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant. To do this, add their titles to the list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license notice. These titles must be distinct from any other section titles.

You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version by various parties--for example, statements of peer review or that the text has been approved by an organization as the authoritative definition of a standard.

You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version. Only one passage of Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover Text may be added by (or through arrangements made by) any one entity. If the Document already includes a cover text for the same cover, previously added by you or by arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on behalf of, you may not add another; but you may replace the old one, on explicit permission from the previous publisher that added the old one.

The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version.

==5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS ==

You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.

The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.

In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements."

==6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS ==

You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects.

You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document.

==7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS ==

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.

If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than one half of the entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on covers that bracket the Document within the aggregate, or the electronic equivalent of covers if the Document is in electronic form. Otherwise they must appear on printed covers that bracket the whole aggregate.

==8. TRANSLATION ==

Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute translations of the Document under the terms of section 4. Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special permission from their copyright holders, but you may include translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the original versions of these Invariant Sections. You may include a translation of this License, and all the license notices in the Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers, provided that you also include the original English version of this License and the original versions of those notices and disclaimers. In case of a disagreement between the translation and the original version of this License or a notice or disclaimer, the original version will prevail.

If a section in the Document is Entitled "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", or "History", the requirement (section 4) to Preserve its Title (section 1) will typically require changing the actual title.

==9. TERMINATION ==

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

==10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE ==

The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.

Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.

= How to use this License for your documents =

To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document and put the following copyright and license notices just after the title page:

:Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.
:Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
:or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
:with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
:A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
:Free Documentation License".

If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts, replace the "with...Texts." line with this:

:with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the
:Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts being LIST.

If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other combination of the three, merge those two alternatives to suit the situation.

If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to permit their use in free software.
{{Spoken Wikipedia|GFDL_(English).ogg|2005-05-28}}

[[cs:Wikipedie:GNU_Free_Documentation_License]]
[[el:Βικιπαίδεια:GNU_Free_Documentation_License]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:Text of GNU Free Documentation License]]
[[no:Wikipedia:GNU_FDL]]
[[nn:Wikipedia:GNU_Free_Documentation_License_tekst]]
[[pl:Wikipedia:Tekst_licencji_GNU_Free_Documentation_License]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:GNU Free Documentation License]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Texten_till_GNU_Free_Documentation_License]]
[[de:Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License]]
[[eu:Wikipedia:GNU Dokumentazio Librearen Lizentziaren testua]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Teks Lesen Dokumentasi Bebas GNU]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License]]
[[ro:GNU FDL]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:Simple English GFDL]]
[[sr:Википедија:GNU Free Documentation License]]
[[uk:Wikipedia:Текст GNU Free Documentation License]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Nguyên văn Giấy phép Văn bản Tự do GNU]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:GNU自由文档许可证文本]]

[[Category:Permanently protected|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Wikipedia copyright|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Wikipedia official policy|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

2007-03-11T08:36:59Z

MikeA:

The '''Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)''' is a chronic disease that gradually weakens the immune system by disabling and killing "T-helper ", which normally signal other constituents of the immune system to perform their respective roles. When HIV reduces the number of T-helper cells below a certain threshold, an infected person is vulnerable to opportunistic infections and cancers that typify Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome, or AIDS. <ref>[http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/howhiv.htm]</ref>

==Transmission==
:''For more details on this topic, see [[AIDS#Transmission and prevention|AIDS transmission and prevention]]
{| class="prettytable" style="float:right; font-size:85%; margin-left:15px;"
|- bgcolor="#efefef"
! colspan=5 style="border-right:0px;";| Estimated per act risk for acquisition of HIV-1 <br />by exposure route<ref name=MMWR>{{cite journal | author=Smith, D. K., Grohskopf, L. A., Black, R. J., Auerbach, J. D., Veronese, F., Struble, K. A., Cheever, L., Johnson, M., Paxton, L. A., Onorato, I. A. and Greenberg, A. E. | title=Antiretroviral Postexposure Prophylaxis After Sexual, Injection-Drug Use, or Other Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV in the United States | journal=MMWR | year=2005 | pages=1-20 | volume=54 | issue=RR02 | url=http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm}}</ref>
|- bgcolor="#efefef"
| style="width: 100px"|'''Exposure Route'''
| align="center" style="width: 150px"|'''Estimated infections per 10,000 exposures to an infected source'''
|-
| Blood Transfusion
| align="center" | 9,000<ref name=Donegan>{{cite journal
| author=Donegan, E., Stuart, M., Niland, J. C., Sacks, H. S., Azen, S. P., Dietrich, S. L., Faucett, C., Fletcher, M. A., Kleinman, S. H., Operskalski, E. A., et al.
| title=Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) among recipients of antibody-positive blood donations
| journal=Ann. Intern. Med.
| year=1990
| pages=733-739
| volume=113
| issue=10
| id= PMID 2240875
}}</ref>
|-
| Childbirth
| align="center" | 2,500<ref name=Coovadia>{{cite journal
| author=Coovadia, H.
| title=Antiretroviral agents—how best to protect infants from HIV and save their mothers from AIDS | journal=N. Engl. J. Med.
| year=2004
| pages=289-292
| volume=351
| issue=3
| id= PMID 15247337
| format=
}}</ref>
|-
| Needle-sharing injection drug use
| align="center" | 67<ref name=Kaplan>{{cite journal | author=Kaplan, E. H. and Heimer, R. | title=HIV incidence among New Haven needle exchange participants: updated estimates from syringe tracking and testing data | journal=J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. Hum. Retrovirol. | year=1995 | pages=175-176 | volume=10 | issue=2
| id= PMID 7552482 }}</ref>
|-
| Receptive anal intercourse<sup>*</sup>
| align="center" | 50<ref name=ESG>{{cite journal | author=European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV | title=Comparison of female to male and male to female transmission of HIV in 563 stable couples | journal=BMJ. | year=1992 | pages=809-813 | volume=304 | issue=6830 | id= PMID 1392708 |format=}}</ref><ref name=Varghese>{{cite journal | author=Varghese, B., Maher, J. E., Peterman, T. A., Branson, B. M. and Steketee, R. W. | title=Reducing the risk of sexual HIV transmission: quantifying the per-act risk for HIV on the basis of choice of partner, sex act, and condom use | journal=Sex. Transm. Dis. | year=2002 | pages=38-43 | volume=29 | issue=1 | id= PMID 11773877 |format=}}</ref>
|-
| Percutaneous needle stick
| align="center" | 30<ref name=Bell>{{

cite journal | author=Bell, D. M. | title=Occupational risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection in healthcare workers: an overview. | journal=Am. J. Med. | year=1997 | pages=9-15 | volume=102 | issue=5B | id= PMID 9845490

}}</ref>
|-
| Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse<sup>*</sup>
| align="center" | 10<ref name=ESG /><ref name=Varghese /><ref name=Leynaert>{{

cite journal | author=Leynaert, B., Downs, A. M. and de Vincenzi, I. | title=Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus: variability of infectivity throughout the course of infection. European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV | journal=Am. J. Epidemiol. | year=1998 | pages=88-96 | volume=148 | issue=1 | id= PMID 9663408

}}</ref>
|-
| Insertive anal intercourse<sup>*</sup>
| align="center" | 6.5<ref name=ESG /><ref name=Varghese />
|-
| Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse<sup>*</sup>
| align="center" | 5<ref name=ESG /><ref name=Varghese />
|-
| Receptive fellatio<sup>*</sup>
| align="center" | 1<ref name=Varghese />
|-
| Insertive fellatio<sup>*</sup>
| align="center" | 0.5<ref name=Varghese />
|- bgcolor="#efefef"
! colspan=5 style="border-right:0px;";| <sup>*</sup> assuming no condom use </br>
|}
Since the beginning of the [[pandemic]], three main transmission routes for HIV have been identified:
*'''Sexual route.''' The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations. Sexual transmission can occur when infected sexual secretions of one partner come into contact with the rectal, genital or oral [[mucous membranes]] of another.
*'''Blood or blood product route.''' This transmission route can account for infections in intravenous drug users, [[hemophiliac]]s and recipients of [[blood transfusion]]s (though most transfusions are checked for HIV in the developed world) and blood products. It is also of concern for persons receiving medical care in regions where there is prevalent substandard hygiene in the use of injection equipment, such as the reuse of needles in Third World countries. HIV can also be spread through the sharing of leaches. Health care workers such as nurses, laboratory workers, and doctors, have also been infected, although this occurs more rarely. People who give and receive tattoos, piercings and scarification procedures can also be at risk of infection.
*'''Mother-to-child transmission''' (MTCT). The transmission of the virus from the mother to the child can occur ''in utero'' during the last weeks of pregnancy and at childbirth. In the absence of treatment, the transmission rate between the mother and child is 25%.<ref name=Coovadia /> However, where drug treatment and [[Cesarian section]] are available, this can be reduced to 1%.<ref name=Coovadia /> Breast feeding also presents a risk of infection for the baby.

HIV-2 is transmitted much less frequently by the MTCT and sexual route than HIV-1.

HIV has been found at low concentrations in the [[saliva]], [[tears]] and [[urine]] of infected individuals, but there are no recorded cases of infection by these secretions and the potential risk of transmission is negligible. The use of physical barriers such as the [[latex]] [[condom]] is widely advocated to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV. [[Spermicide]], when used alone or with vaginal contraceptives like a [[diaphragm (contraceptive)|diaphragm]], actually increases the male to female transmission rate due to inflammation of the vagina; it should not be considered a barrier to infection.<ref name="spermicide">{{cite web |url=http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html#should |title=Should spermicides be used with condoms? |accessdate=2006-10-23 |work=Condom Brochure, FDA OSHI HIV STDs }}</ref> Research is clarifying the relationship between male [[circumcision]] and HIV in differing social and cultural contexts, however critics point out that any correlation between circumcision and HIV is likely to come from cultural factors (which govern not only whether someone is circumcised, but also their sexual practices and beliefs).<ref name=Siegfred>

{{cite journal
| author=Siegfried, N., Muller, M., Deeks, J., Volmink, J., Egger, M., Low, N., Walker, S. and Williamson, P. | title=HIV and male circumcision--a systematic review with assessment of the quality of studies | journal=Lancet Infect. Dis. | year=2005 | pages=165-173 | volume=5 | issue=3 | id= PMID 15766651

}}</ref> Even though male circumcision may lead to a reduction of infection risk in heterosexual men by up to 60%,<ref name=Williams>{{

cite journal
| author=Williams BG, Lloyd-Smith JO, Gouws E, Hankins C, Getz WM, Hargrove J, de Zoysa I, Dye C, Auvert B.
| title=The Potential Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa.
| journal=PLoS Med | year=2006 | pages=e262 | volume=3 | issue=7
| id= PMID 16822094

}}</ref> UNAIDS believes that it is premature to recommend male circumcision as part of HIV prevention programs.<ref name=WHOcircumcision>{{

cite web
| author=[[WHO]] | publisher= | year=2005
| url=http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr32/en/
| title=UNAIDS statement on South African trial findings regarding male circumcision and HIV
| accessdate=2006-03-28

}}</ref> Trials, in which some uncircumcised men were randomly assigned to be circumcised in presumably sterile conditions and others were not circumcised, conducted in Kenya[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=17321310] and Uganda [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=17321311] found that men who were uncircumcised were twice as likely to contract the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) compared with circumcised counterparts. South African medical experts are concerned that the repeated use of unsterilized blades in the ritual circumcision of adolescent boys may be spreading HIV.<ref name=Kaisercircum>{{

cite web
| author=Various | publisher=Kaisernetwork.org | year=2005
| url=http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=31199
| title=Repeated Use of Unsterilized Blades in Ritual Circumcision Might Contribute to HIV Spread in S. Africa, Doctors Say
| accessdate=2006-03-28

}}</ref>
==Treatment==

==Replication Cycle==
HIV is a retrovirus, and integrates its genetic information into the host cell's genome.

==References==
<references/>

==License==
This article contains material from [[Wikipedia]] licensed under the [[GFDL]].

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

2007-03-11T08:23:37Z

MikeA: Redirecting to Human Immunodeficiency Virus

#redirect [[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]]

AIDS

2007-03-11T08:22:51Z

MikeA: Redirecting to Human Immunodeficiency Virus

#redirect [[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]]

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

2007-03-11T08:22:27Z

MikeA:

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

2007-03-11T08:22:09Z

MikeA:

The '''Human Immunodeficiency Virus''' is a chronic disease that gradually weakens the immune system by disabling and killing "T-helper ", which normally signal other constituents of the immune system to perform their respective roles. When HIV reduces the number of T-helper cells below a certain threshold, an infected person is vulnerable to opportunistic infections and cancers that typify Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome, or AIDS. <ref>[http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/howhiv.htm]</ref> It is transmitted primarily through sexual contact with an infected person, sharing of needles or syringes, and, less frequently, through transfusion of infected blood or blood clotting factors. <ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm]</ref>.

HIV is a retrovirus, and integrates its genetic information into the host cell's genome.

==References==
<references/>

HIV

2007-03-11T08:21:59Z

MikeA: Redirecting to Human Immunodeficiency Virus

#REDIRECT [[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]]

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-11T07:15:22Z

MikeA: /* Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]]<BR>
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]]<BR>
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million miles."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)
==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people persay, but you mentioned in general its a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) <small><font color=CCCCCC>Wikipedia</font></small> is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License GFDL]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-11T07:14:25Z

MikeA: /* Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]]<BR>
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]]<BR>
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million miles."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)
==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people persay, but you mentioned in general its a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) <small><font color=CCCCCC>Wikipedia</font></small> is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License GFDL]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-11T07:13:20Z

MikeA: /* Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]]<BR>
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]]<BR>
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million miles."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)
==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people persay, but you mentioned in general its a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) <small><font color=CCCCCC>Wikipedia</font></small> is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License GFDL], rather than banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Noble Eightfold Path

2007-03-10T03:47:41Z

MikeA:

Perhaps we should say "Buddhist teachings" instead of "teachings of the Buddha," because (if I am correct in my understanding of the meaning of the title "Buddha" as "enlightened one") we would appear to be endorsing one religious claim as more truthful than another. Saying "Buddhist teachings" is more neutral because it simply says that this is a particular religion's view on things, not that it is the statement of a figure we can say is objectively "enlightened." --[[User:John|John]] 22:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Changed "teachings of the Buddha," to "in Buddhism" I think this is the most neutral way to put it.[[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 22:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Noble Eightfold Path

2007-03-10T03:47:29Z

MikeA:

Talk:Noble Eightfold Path

2007-03-10T03:46:51Z

MikeA:

Perhaps we should say "Buddhist teachings" instead of "teachings of the Buddha," because (if I am correct in my understanding of the meaning of the title "Buddha" as "enlightened one") we would appear to be endorsing one religious claim as more truthful than another. Saying "Buddhist teachings" is more neutral because it simply says that this is a particular religion's view on things, not that it is the statement of a figure we can say is objectively "enlightened." --[[User:John|John]] 22:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Changed "teachings of the Buddha," to "in Buddhism" I think this is the most neutral way to put it.

Noble Eightfold Path

2007-03-10T03:45:52Z

MikeA:

In [[Buddhisim]], The Noble Eightfold Path is declared to be the way that leads to the end of suffering, and [[nirvana]].

As the name indicates, there are eight elements in the Noble Eightfold Path, and these are divided into three basic categories<ref>In the [[Pali canon]], these three basic categories (Pali: ''khandha'') are identified by the [[Bhikkhuni]] Dhammadinna in the "Culavedalla Sutta" ([[Majjhima Nikaya|MN]] 44)[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html] although in this sutta the categories are ordered: ''sīla'', ''samādhi'' and ''paññā''. These three basic categories are also similar to those articulated by the Buddha in his [[Threefold Training]], as recorded in the [[Anguttara Nikaya]]'s ''Sikkha Sutta'' ([[Anguttara Nikaya|AN]] 3:88[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.088.than.html] and AN 3:89[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.089.than.html]).</ref> as follows:

<div class="references-small">
*Wisdom (Sanskrit: ''[[prajñā]]'', Pāli: ''paññā'')
:'''1.''' Right view
:'''2.''' Right intention

*Ethical conduct (Sanskrit: ''[[sila|śīla]]'', Pāli: ''sīla'')
:'''3.''' Right speech
:'''4.''' Right action
:'''5.''' Right livelihood

*Mental discipline (Sanskrit and Pāli: ''[[samadhi|samādhi]]'')
:'''6.''' Right effort
:'''7.''' Right mindfulness
:'''8.''' Right concentration
</div>

9/11

2007-03-10T03:39:55Z

MikeA: Redirecting to September 11, 2001 attacks

#REDIRECT[[September 11, 2001 attacks]]

911

2007-03-10T03:38:18Z

MikeA: Redirecting to September 11, 2001 attacks

#redirect [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]

9-11

2007-03-10T03:34:06Z

MikeA: Redirecting to September 11, 2001 attacks

#redirect [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]

9-11

2007-03-10T03:33:07Z

MikeA:

9-11 refers to a terrorist attack on the the [[United States of America]] that occurred on September 11, 2001. This was the catalyst resulting in the [[War on Terror]]. 2,973 innocent people were killed by 19 terrorist who hijacked 4 commercial airliners. These planes were then crashed into the two [[World Trade Center]] towers [[New York City]], [[the Pentagon]] in [[Washington, DC]] and a field in [[Shanksville, Pennsylvania]].

The 2 World Trade Center towers (buildings 1 and 2) collapsed shortly after being struck by the hijacked airliners, leading to most of the fatalities suffered in the attacks, and causing severe damage to the area of lower [[Manhattan]] surrounding the World Trade Center. Later in the day, World Trade Center building 7 collapsed due to damage caused by the collapse of buildings 1 and 2.

==Conspiracy Theories==

Many conspiracy theories have sprouted up from the events of 9-11, including the "Loose Change" movies seen on YouTube. While compelling, these movies are easily disproven by experts. Rebuttals by amateurs can also be viewed on YouTube including the "Screw Loose Change" by Markyx.

Islam

2007-03-10T03:22:56Z

MikeA:

'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] religion of Abraham based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]]. Islam has grown to be the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers. The word "Islam" means submission to God. The followers of Islam are called [[Muslim|Muslims]]. Muslims practice complete monotheism, worshiping a god called [[Allah]] and believing Muhammad to be his last and greatest prophet. They live by the Koran, which they consider to be the pure and holy word of Allah. Muslims wash their hands before reading the book, which is considered complete and perfect only in the original Arabic, and burn old copies instead of throwing them away. Muslims follow the five pillars of Islam.

[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Mecca, the holy city of the Muslim's]]

===Five Pillars of Islam===

*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. The English translation is "''There is none worthy of worship except God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''"

*'''Salat (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to Allah five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All Muslims must fast during daylight hours during the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Pages from the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]

==Islam and Paganism==

Although most Muslims profess belief in a single, almighty [[Allah|God]], a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early [[Roman Catholic Church]], system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents. Some, for example, have attempted to link Allah to a moon deity, though Allah is cited in the Koran as the God of Abraham and Isaac (Judaism and Christianity). <ref>Abramahov, "Islamic Theology". Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1988. [http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Theology-Binyamin-Abrahamov/dp/0748611029/sr=8-4/qid=1172042917/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref> Others have pointed to the pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork (also practiced in Orthodox Judaism) originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the [[pig-god]] [[Jamal]]. <ref>Ibid.</ref> There is some evidence that traditional Muslim scholars have been suppressing this information as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice, which was also a part of early Judaism which ended after the Genisis story of Abraham and Isaac (e.g., at Uhud). <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref> Like all major religions, Christianity included, Islam has ill-understood and fascinating roots that modern scholarship has yet to fully plumb.

==References==
<references/>

Buddhism

2007-03-10T03:15:40Z

MikeA:

Buddhism is the fourth largest [[religion in the world]]. It is a belief system which teaches that desire causes suffering and if desire is eliminated, [[enlightenment]] and [[Nirvana]] are attained.

Legend has it that Budhism's foundations lie with an Indian prince, [[Siddhartha Gautama]], who after observing the suffering of his people, longed to discover the reason for suffering and pain. There are many accounts and theories as to the course of Gautama's life, one of which story proclaims that he went into meditation for 49 days seated under a fig tree, and after finishing his period of meditation he achieved enlightnment, and formed Buddhism.

Buddhism teaches that in order to attain Nirvana (a complete contentment, and separation from suffering), you must follow the [[Noble Eightfold Path]].

Buddha

2007-03-10T03:14:38Z

MikeA: Redirecting to Buddhism

#redirect [[buddhism]]

Noble Eightfold Path

2007-03-10T03:14:14Z

MikeA:

In the teachings of the [[Buddha]] The Noble Eightfold Path is declared to be the way that leads to the end of suffering, and [[nirvana]].

As the name indicates, there are eight elements in the Noble Eightfold Path, and these are divided into three basic categories<ref>In the [[Pali canon]], these three basic categories (Pali: ''khandha'') are identified by the [[Bhikkhuni]] Dhammadinna in the "Culavedalla Sutta" ([[Majjhima Nikaya|MN]] 44)[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html] although in this sutta the categories are ordered: ''sīla'', ''samādhi'' and ''paññā''. These three basic categories are also similar to those articulated by the Buddha in his [[Threefold Training]], as recorded in the [[Anguttara Nikaya]]'s ''Sikkha Sutta'' ([[Anguttara Nikaya|AN]] 3:88[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.088.than.html] and AN 3:89[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.089.than.html]).</ref> as follows:

<div class="references-small">
*Wisdom (Sanskrit: ''[[prajñā]]'', Pāli: ''paññā'')
:'''1.''' Right view
:'''2.''' Right intention

*Ethical conduct (Sanskrit: ''[[sila|śīla]]'', Pāli: ''sīla'')
:'''3.''' Right speech
:'''4.''' Right action
:'''5.''' Right livelihood

*Mental discipline (Sanskrit and Pāli: ''[[samadhi|samādhi]]'')
:'''6.''' Right effort
:'''7.''' Right mindfulness
:'''8.''' Right concentration
</div>

Eightfold Path

2007-03-10T03:10:27Z

MikeA: Redirecting to Noble Eightfold Path

#redirect [[Noble Eightfold Path]]

Buddhism

2007-03-10T03:09:29Z

MikeA:

Buddhism is the fourth largest [[religion in the world]]. It is a belief system which teaches that desire causes suffering and if desire is eliminated, [[enlightenmen]] and [[Nirvana]] are attained.

Legend has it that Budhism's foundations lie with an Indian prince, [[Siddhartha Gautama]], who after observing the suffering of his people, longed to discover the reason for suffering and pain. There are many accounts and theories as to the course of Gautama's life, one of which story proclaims that he went into meditation for 49 days seated under a fig tree, and after finishing his period of meditation he achieved enlightnment, and formed Buddhism.

Buddhism teaches that in order to attain Nirvana (a complete contentment, and separation from suffering), you must follow the [[Noble Eightfold Path]].