Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?

2007-04-21T16:54:02Z

Myk:

''Moved from [[talk:Main Page]]''

==The Poem Criticism on the Main Page...==

Really isn't needed. We shouldn't be pushing an agenda when 32 innocent lives were just taken. Wouldn't the space be better spent with prayers, and links to sites which will help students grieve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to go to great lengths to read something into the poem that isn't there. It also seems a bit tasteless under the circumstances. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 03:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pathetic ... I would have thought caring christians as the admins claim to be would be above this sort of trash. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 03:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The "Poem" is an ode to secularism and minimizes their demise by equating their tragic deaths with other causes and tragedies, involving one thousand times the number of people. Such tactics are often used by Holocaust denial groups, and is certainly not worthy of a supposedly great University. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus Christ, now you compare them to holocaust deniers! You and Andy sicken me. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's a crappy poem, but using it score cheap points is not in good taste.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 07:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::{{remove personal remark|You little fanatics.}} You use a poem - admittedly poor, but written from the viewpoint of those writing it - in a feeble attempt to push your own agenda. It's appalling. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 07:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

In the notes in brackets
Andy seems to be critiquing the [[politics]] of the "poem".
The poem is a feeble attempt
on the part of VTech's English Department
to use the tragedy as a [[hook]]
to hang their liberal agenda on.
Andy's just calling them out on this.
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::*{{remove personal remark|Nematocyte, take a few days to wash your mouth out with soap. On me.}} This is a site on the Web, not a life and death situation. {{remove personal remark|If you are sick, try some Pepto.}} --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The poem is a political, self-serving rant by a University that should have taken meaningful steps to prevent this massacre. The English Department that educated this killer should be scrutinized and this poem is the best place to start. Ideas do matter, and unless the mistakes are identified here than the sacrifice of innocent lives will inevitably and needlessly occur again. We owe to the victims and to future students to look critically at the University's role in allowing this massacre to happen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

So, there is an student at VT english department who mourns his fellow students and decides to write a poem for them. Rest of the department honors the victims by publishing it on their web page. Then there is Conservapedia, which instead of mourning or respecting the feelings of the survivors starts to bash the poem as too liberal and not christian enough. This kinda sickens me. Im not even going to say anything more about the critisism itself, exept what does it matter, even if the writer was an liberal atheist, arent they allowed to mourn and write about their feelings? Do you really think she wrote it to be an political statement? What if others would act the same? If you where one of the survivors, would you like to read some atheist bashing your poem written to the wictims to be too christian or mayby pushing concervative agenda? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:The "poem" expressed many political opinions and very few feelings. I do not see how it could even be considered [[poetry]], other than the fact that it was formatted as [[blank verse]].

:Moreover, not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. The incident was the "expression" of feelings of rage by a very disturbed individual. Must we "approve" of his expression as an [[art]]istic act? <s>Get real, mister.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please tell me you just didnt try to say that we should criticise the people who don't mourn the way we want, as we would criticise the killers homicidal rampage? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't say that. I said that not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. Suppose someone hates you. Would you feel obliged to "validate" their feelings? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is an poem, written by an student who might have been there at the time of the shootings, very least she knew some of the people killed. You take her poem, try to find hidden liberal agenda from it, for example the mentioning of elephants and ivory... Give me a break, you really think she wrote the poem to help the wildlife?, and then without even knowing her religios views you bash her for not mentioning God or including a prayer. And then you justify it by saying that her attempt to show her grief isn't an opinnion worth respecting? That is just outrageous. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, re an earlier post on this, you're not entitled to degrade the quality of this site either... but anyways. This is not about how "good" the poem is. This is not about whether or not its "political." What this '''''is''''' about is how it's tacky & tasteless to start bashing VT for what they clearly see as an attempt to express their mourning! I don't care if it's political, or good poetry, but they deserve respect & compassion, not politicization. Criticizing them is another of Andy's attempts to score points off of a tragedy. I'll close by saying that making fun of grieving children is a new low, even for the Schlafly family.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this ''Trustworthy Encylopedia'' sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Shame on Liberals for politicizing the VTech incident. Can they sink much lower than to exploit a senseless tragedy to score [[partisan]] points? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, the "liberals" aren't politicizing this! We're explicitly ''protesting'' the politicization! Now, Andy, either you pull this poem criticism from the main page, or I'll e-mail Virginia Tech's English department to tell them about your gross insensitivity, ignorance, and baseless hatred.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Kind of strange that the very ones who whine and complain about demanding free speech here would attempt to stifle it by protesting a self-serving poem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It's obviously legal to be a hateful bigot. I'm not saying it's illegal for Andy to put things like that on the front page. I'm saying that he should exercise his discretion as a compassionate (we hope) human being and limit his legal rights according to general rules of decency. There's a difference that many people misunderstand and apparently, Karajou, you're one of them. Andy, please pull the poem critique, or I will alert VT, and I bet they won't be happy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong answer, AmesG, and I've never been a bigot. From the continued posts I've seen from you over the past few months I cannot tell whether you're a highly educated man or a whining child who refuses to act like one...and now this "pull the poem or I'm going to tell" garbage. Go ahead and notify them. They're already in hot water for giving a lunatic a pass to kill. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, you say that they express political points in their poem? I didn't know it was now overly liberal to mention that millions have died from AIDS, which is easily preventable. Or that those without fresh water could perhaps be given some. -{{unsigned|Hojimachong}}-12:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Karajou, I think? It's the educated one. I'll give Andy a chance to reply first. I never called you a bigot, I called Andy a bigot.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, AmesG, I'm going to call you a four-letter word, and that word is '''GONE''', as in I want you to pack up and leave this site. I'm fed up with your self-serving rants, your attitude, your high-and-mighty self righteousness, your repeated attempts to force an alien ideology down our throats, and the babyish name-calling when you don't get your way. '''LEAVE'''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This is disgusting. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This is the most disgusting thing I've seen printed on this site, and that is saying something. The fact that Andy could print something like that is understandable... he has his agenda to push and doesn't care who gets pushed with it. But the fact that "Christians" like Ed Poor, TK, and Karajou would so quickly jump to his defense is nauseating. Have fun with your little hate spewing toy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Quality

2007-04-20T02:44:13Z

Myk: self revert... gave myself another headache

Here is a survey of ten random pages:

:5 good articles: 1, 2, 3. 8, 10
:2 stubs: 4, 7
:1 useless: 5
:2 sabotage: 6, 9

:: This is interesting, but leaves questions unanswered. How does this compare to Wikipedia? What type of sabotage was it? 5 good articles out of 10 is probably better than Wikipedia, in my experience.

:::See [[Wikipedia:Quality]]. My ten-page survey of them turned up ZERO good articles but 5 'fair' ones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Ah, I see now. The random entries are listed below for us, and you list the ones for Wikipedia on its Quality page. Well done!!! We do far better than Wikipedia!

:::: In fact, I'm going to post a comparison from your good work on other pages so that others will be sure to see it. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia: judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article. That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Biblical criticism]]==
2000 words
Looks encyclopedic

==[[Violin]]==
300 words
Main authors: bobtexas, ebdpk, dpbsmith

==[[James Ussher]]==
<s>Was it copied from Wikipedia?</s> (original work)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

:I assure you, it was not. I did not even consult the Wikipedia version, because the last time I had seen it, it contained a section essentially holding Ussher's chronology up to ridicule.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:15, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, sorry, I already checked it - forget to remove the question. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Clothes]]==
16 words
Items worn on the body meant for the creation of warmth and comfort in various environments.

==[[Privilege for a Private Corporation]]==
130 words
legal mumbo-jumbo

==[[Help ma Boab]]==
A euphemism employed by the Transhadrial to avoid blasphemy.
(vandalism)

==[[Colony]]==
10 words
A nation's settlement in a conquered or previously unsettled territory.

==[[William Remington]]==
440 words
RobS
(his spy series)

==[[Disarmament treaties]]==
26 words
Position favored by Liberals who see it as a way to reduce the possibility of war but opposed by conservatives who feel that it weakens countries.

==[[George Orwell]]==
520 words (180 are quotes)

Conservapedia:Quality

2007-04-20T02:33:45Z

Myk:

[[/take2]]

Here is a survey of ten random pages:

:5 good articles: 1, 2, 3. 8, 10
:2 stubs: 4, 7
:1 useless: 5
:2 sabotage: 6, 9

:: This is interesting, but leaves questions unanswered. How does this compare to Wikipedia? What type of sabotage was it? 5 good articles out of 10 is probably better than Wikipedia, in my experience.

:::See [[Wikipedia:Quality]]. My ten-page survey of them turned up ZERO good articles but 5 'fair' ones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Ah, I see now. The random entries are listed below for us, and you list the ones for Wikipedia on its Quality page. Well done!!! We do far better than Wikipedia!

:::: In fact, I'm going to post a comparison from your good work on other pages so that others will be sure to see it. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia: judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article. That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Biblical criticism]]==
2000 words
Looks encyclopedic

==[[Violin]]==
300 words
Main authors: bobtexas, ebdpk, dpbsmith

==[[James Ussher]]==
<s>Was it copied from Wikipedia?</s> (original work)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

:I assure you, it was not. I did not even consult the Wikipedia version, because the last time I had seen it, it contained a section essentially holding Ussher's chronology up to ridicule.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:15, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, sorry, I already checked it - forget to remove the question. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Clothes]]==
16 words
Items worn on the body meant for the creation of warmth and comfort in various environments.

==[[Privilege for a Private Corporation]]==
130 words
legal mumbo-jumbo

==[[Help ma Boab]]==
A euphemism employed by the Transhadrial to avoid blasphemy.
(vandalism)

==[[Colony]]==
10 words
A nation's settlement in a conquered or previously unsettled territory.

==[[William Remington]]==
440 words
RobS
(his spy series)

==[[Disarmament treaties]]==
26 words
Position favored by Liberals who see it as a way to reduce the possibility of war but opposed by conservatives who feel that it weakens countries.

==[[George Orwell]]==
520 words (180 are quotes)

Botany

2007-04-19T19:06:15Z

Myk:

{{stub}}

'''Botany''' is the study and classification of [[plants]] and [[flowers]].

[[Category:Botany| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Science]]

Scrabble

2007-04-19T01:51:09Z

Myk: /* Gameplay */

'''Scrabble''' is an American [[board game]] invented by Alfred Mosher Butts in 1948. The purpose of the game is to make words using a set number of letter tiles on a 15 x 15 square board. Scrabble is arguably more popular than [[Monopoly (board game)|Monopoly]] and is played in over 175 official tournaments per year.

==History==
Alfred Mosher Butts invented the Scrabble crossword game in its current form in 1948 based, at least in part, on his previous games Lexiko and Criss Cross Words. He purportedly determined the frequency of the letter tiles in the game by counting letter usage in the New York Time. He began by selling them individually by mail order until he partnered with James Brunot and his newly formed Production and Marketing company.

The game struggled in its early years until sales began dramatically increasing in 1952. The game was purchased by Selchow & Righter in 1971. Following the windfall created by [[Trivial Pursuit]], and its subsequent crash, Selchow sold their properties to Coleco Industries in 1986. Coleco was subsequently acquired by Hasbro in 1988 and Scrabble has remained with them since.

Jim Kramer, a 48 year old proofreader from Roseville, Minnesota, is the reigning United States Scrabble Open champion (2006). <ref>[http://www.scrabble-assoc.com/cgi-bin/player.pl?given=Jim&surname=Kramer&exact=1 Jim Kramer Profile] at www.ScrabbleAssociation.com</ref>
==Gameplay==
The game consists of a bag, a set of tiles, and a board divided into a 15x15 grid. The tiles are each marked with one letter and a point value (except for two blank 'wildcard' tiles). The tiles are placed in the bag; each player removes 7 of them; the first player uses his or her tiles to form a word and places it on the board, either horizontally or vertically, intersecting the middle square. The player then draws more tiles from the bag, replacing the ones just played. The points on the tiles are totalled up and any (because the middle square is a 'double word score' square) doubled; that's the player's score for this turn. Play then rotates around the board with each player attempting to play his or her tiles to form words; after the first play, each word must use at least one tile already on the board.

Any tiles in direct contact with each other, either horizontally or vertically, must form valid words. If a single play forms multiple words (one horizontally and one or more vertically, or vice versa), points for all the formed words are awarded.

The following is a valid game after two plays:

T
SMALL
L
K

The following board position would not be permitted:

MICE
PRETZEL

MP, IR, and CE are not words, so MICE cannot be put on top of PRETZEL.

Playing all 7 tiles is called a 'bingo' and gives a 50 point bonus.

Certain marked squares double or triple the score for the whole word or just for the letter on that square.

Play ends when one player is out of tiles and no tiles remain in the bag. The player with the most points wins.

Certain squares double or triple the score for the whole word or just for the letter on that square.

==Sources==
*[http://www.hasbro.com/scrabble/home.cfm?page=history Scrabble History] - at www.Hasbro.com
*''Word Freak'' by Stefan Fatsis, 2001, Penguin Books

==References==
<references/>
[[category:board games]]

Talk:Scrabble

2007-04-19T01:50:06Z

Myk: /* UR */

==UR==

My apologies, I think it's a difference between American Scrabble and British Scrabble, and since this is Conservapedia we should obviously play by American Rules. But FYI, here is a list of 2 letter words including UR: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~rjackman/
[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:My fault... I thought most of the British 2s were included in the latest OSPD. I think the greater issue is probably that we can come up with a better example that doesn't actually have so many two letter words. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 21:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks

2007-04-19T01:47:57Z

Myk: /* Rewrite, et al */

== Rewrite ==

I'm going to take a swing at this... bear with me. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK, I added a very terse timeline of events sourced from a combination of CNN's timeline and the FBI press release. I just included the key events of what happened... not the response during the day. Selective inclusion of the response could be perceived as partisan and total inclusion of everything... well... that'd be plagiarism. I also gave the most recent estimates for casualties I could find.

:I ''did not touch'' the "conspiracy theories" or "events following 9/11" as those are both way too political for liberal old me. My personal opinion is that the "events following" section should be a ''little'' bit more fleshed and written in a more encyclopedic tone... the immediate result was the [[War on Terror]] which has its own article. I also think that the "conspiracy theories" section needs a lot less space but possibly a link to another article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:17, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh... and I have an idea for an additional section which I may tackle unless someone does it first.

*"Planning and Execution"
*"Emergency Response"
*"Subsequent Health Issues"

:Any others? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I really wanted to go to bed... we seem to have lost the talk history in the BORF page move vandalism... I could only save the section I was editing and so still had in my browser cache. There wasn't much in here and I think the edits I made are pretty vanilla. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK... I added a section about the economic impact and the consequences on US policy. The economic impact can stand some significant increase from someone who understand the ins and outs better than I do. The consequences on US policy should remain brief as most will lead to their own articles. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:No one wanted to take a swing at it so I just cut the Conspiracy Theories section down to "Conspiracy Theories exist / are easily disproven" and the Popular Mechanics article. If people want to expound on the conspiracy theories, I would suggest creating a new article for it, and linkt to it from here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::I have one suggestion on the conspiracy section: rather than say "easily disproven," maybe "comprehensively disproven" would be a better term. Easily sounds more like opinion, while comprehensively is not only more neutral, but also more powerful. Just a thought.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Done and done. Next time, feel free to edit away. Those conpiracy theorists give me the heebie jeebies. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Added video link==
The Internet Archive has news broadcasts from the major networks for Sept 11-13, and I added a link in the source section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Smashing!!--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I moved them from the source section to the new "Additional Information" section as those links weren't used to help source the article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's rather interesting to watch the first clips from each of the networks; just another news day, then they're not sure what's going on with the first tower explosion, then the reactions as the second tower gets hit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Rewrite, et al==
I'm not going to do a re-write of Myk's re-write, but (this is constructive criticism, mind you) I feel it is rather weak. So, my suggestion is to arrange in new subheadings, and fill them with the detail required. The subheadings are in this order:

*Introductory paragraph
*'''Prelude'''
**This subheading describes the events and situations which led to 9/11, up to the arrival at the airport of the terrorists.
*'''The first plane'''
*'''the second plane'''
*'''the third plane'''
*'''the fourth plane'''
::I'm sure these subheadings will be changed in favor of, say "United Flight 73", etc, but you want where the flight originated from, number of passengers onboard, and which target it hit. Special attention should be paid to the flight that hit the wheatfield in Pennsylvania, as there was an attempted take-over by the passengers. The way I presented it here is that it infers to the first target hit, then the second, the third, etc.
*'''The Targets'''
**'''World Trade Center One'''
**'''World Trade Center Two'''
**'''The Pentagon'''
**'''The White House?'''
:This can go into detail on each one, as to when they were hit, number of people killed, in the case of WTC when each tower collapsed. I put a question mark by the White House, as it may have been a target, but the plane involved went down near Shankville, PA.
*'''Immediate reaction'''
:What the country was doing within hours of the attacks: the military on alert; all flights canceled, with those in the air ordered to land; the scrambling of fighters, the evacuation of the White House and Capitol, etc.
**'''President Bush's reaction'''
:Bush was in a school in Florida, engaged in a reading assignment for kids when he was told the news of WTC. Then he was on a flight not to Washington, but to a base in Louisiana.
*'''Identity of the terrorists'''
:Mohammed Atta should be the only one mentioned, plus a brief history of where he was in the Mid East in connection with his training; plus the indentity of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.
*'''Afghanistan'''
:Bush ordered Mullah Omar to turn over bin Laden and dismantle his training camps or face armed attack, which of course happened.
*'''Aftermath'''
:This can be further divided in conquest of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban; alleged connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq; heath issues relative to WTC; the plans for rebuilding the WTC; repairs to the Pentagon; memorials, etc.

What do you think? It leaves no room for the heebie jeebies concerning conspiracy nuts! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Be my guest, Karajou. I never wanted to be the sole author of the piece, just wanted to set up the framework. But saying it's rather weak... not tactful. Or constructive for that matter. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it was meant to be constructive, as well as something that you could take advantage of. I wasn't about to take over the article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*Yes, Karajou, please emulate Myk's endless and trademarked tact! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::TK, i find that comment rather weak. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

TK, I am not interested in mindless or trademarked tacts; the only thing I have done was offer a suggestion. To me, this article belongs to Myk, and nobody else. Give him the chance, the means, and the opportunity to make it better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's a wiki, Karajou, it belongs to everyone. That's how wikis work. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Karajou, I was supporting what you said. It was sarcasm. Myk, you are 100% wrong. Not all Wiki's work the same way, nor are they intended to, according to the options the software gives site owners. Such all-encompassing statements are not only "weak" they are misleading. More precise would have been "That's how I prefer wiki's to work" or "That's how other wiki's work that I have used." --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::TK, please give me an example of a wiki where articles are all proprietary. Why must you argue every little point? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 21:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks

2007-04-18T21:37:44Z

Myk: /* Rewrite, et al */

Scrabble

2007-04-18T21:35:49Z

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-17T04:06:30Z

Myk: /* Pornography's Role!? */

{{debate}}
I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Um...might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only leathal when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.
:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Scrabble

2007-04-13T21:38:41Z

Myk: /* Gameplay */

'''Scrabble''' is an American [[board game]] invented by Alfred Mosher Butts in 1948. The purpose of the game is to make words using a set number of letter tiles on a 15 x 15 square board. Scrabble is arguably more popular than [[Monopoly (board game)|Monopoly]] and is played in over 175 official tournaments per year.

==History==
Alfred Mosher Butts invented the Scrabble crossword game in its current form in 1948 based, at least in part, on his previous games Lexiko and Criss Cross Words. He purportedly determined the frequency of the letter tiles in the game by counting letter usage in the New York Time. He began by selling them individually by mail order until he partnered with James Brunot and his newly formed Production and Marketing company.

The game struggled in its early years until sales began dramatically increasing in 1952. The game was purchased by Selchow & Righter in 1971. Following the windfall created by [[Trivial Pursuit]], and its subsequent crash, Selchow sold their properties to Coleco Industries in 1986. Coleco was subsequently acquired by Hasbro in 1988 and Scrabble has remained with them since.

Jim Kramer, a 48 year old proofreader from Roseville, Minnesota, is the reigning United States Scrabble Open champion (2006). <ref>[http://www.scrabble-assoc.com/cgi-bin/player.pl?given=Jim&surname=Kramer&exact=1 Jim Kramer Profile] at www.ScrabbleAssociation.com</ref>
==Gameplay==
The game consists of a bag, a set of tiles, and a board divided into a 15x15 grid. The tiles are each marked with one letter and a point value (except for two blank 'wildcard' tiles). The tiles are placed in the bag; each player removes 7 of them; the first player uses his or her tiles to form a word and places it on the board, either horizontally or vertically, intersecting the middle square. The player then draws more tiles from the bag, replacing the ones just played. The points on the tiles are totalled up and any (because the middle square is a 'double word score' square) doubled; that's the player's score for this turn. Play then rotates around the board with each player attempting to play his or her tiles to form words; after the first play, each word must use at lesat one tile already on the board. Any tiles in direct contact with each other, either horizontally or vertically, must form valid words. If a single play forms multiple words (one horizontally and one or more vertically, or vice versa), points for all the formed words are awarded.

The following is a valid game after two plays:

T
SMALL
L
K

The following board position would not be permitted:

TUNA
PRETZEL

TP and UR are not words, so TUNA cannot be put on top of PRETZEL.

Playing all 7 tiles is called a 'bingo' and gives a 50 point bonus.

Certain marked squares double or triple the score for the whole word or just for the letter on that square.

Play ends when one player is out of tiles and no tiles remain in the bag. The player with the most points wins.

Certain squares double or triple the score for the whole word or just for the letter on that square.

==Sources==
*[http://www.hasbro.com/scrabble/home.cfm?page=history Scrabble History] - at www.Hasbro.com
*''Word Freak'' by Stefan Fatsis, 2001, Penguin Books

==References==
<references/>
[[category:board games]]

2007-04-13T19:09:42Z

Myk:

Conservapedia talk:Userboxes

2007-04-13T17:53:39Z

Myk:

Everyone who makes a userbox, please add it to the Index, if you can! And please add any I missed, too...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Great job Colin. The rest is in your capable hands. Sleep well!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for fixing the formatting, Philip! I couldn't figure out how to do that. Again, thanks! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:59, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:A word to the wise - if you want all your userboxes to line up nice & pretty, make sure that the pictures are 45px wide, and that the text is centered (using <nowiki><center></nowiki> tags).-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

How about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Babel#How_to_get_Babel_boxes_to_work_on_other_Wikipedias copying over the Babel Templates] from Wikipedia so we can have language userboxes as well? I wouldn't mind doing the work if necessary. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

i dont know how to make these. maybe some one can help? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I have imported some of the necessary code for language userboxes - see [[Conservapedia:Babel]] and [[Template:Babel]]. All that is necessary now is to copy over the actual language templates, which will likely take a while. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there any way somebody could make an OEC box like the YEC one that exists now? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 13:52, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's already there, MD. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-13T17:46:29Z

Myk: /* Current Alerts */

This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise.
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia: Vandalism alert]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
#The 6 random hex digit sock perp is back: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|AppliedFaith}} -trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=104416][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=104363], "sexual activity is always impure, even when conducted within marriage."
#{{user|Homeschool mom}} lays it on too thick - suspected parodist
#{{user|GofG}} useless edits - warned
#{{user|Vyngarsson}} - 11 April 2007, trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=prev&oldid=99990] for a good example. Another example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=103140&oldid=101324]
#{{user|Phiattiangel}} - 11 April 2007, trolling.
#{{user|Cooperstown4}} - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
#{{user|Zac4213}} - Was my block too hasty?
#{{user|Jaques}}- Many recent edits very similar to Wikipedia and use exact same pictures, See [[Whale]] and [[Plankton]].

===Dealt with===

#[[User:AnonymousLegion]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
#[[User:Mjc12]] - blocked by Conservative
#{{user|Polarbear}} - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by [[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
#TK blocked [[User:Cheney123|Cheney123]] (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
#[[User:Theelephant]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
#*18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)

Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex

2007-04-13T16:37:14Z

Myk: /* Point of view */

This article is in desperate need of more references. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 13:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:And desperate need of work. This article is lacking in any real information and cites questionable sources. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, should be titled Tyrannosaurus '''REX'''--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually it is ''Tyrannosaurus rex''. The genus name is capitalized the species name is not. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::When I posted that the article was just entitled Tyrannasaurus, with no rex at the end. I changed it to capital just for the title convention of having words capitalized.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Reverts? ==

Why can't we include the creationist view on T. Rex? My edits keep getting reverted.
:Write your edit here to see what's wrong and cite all sources. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can't we have some images of a t-rex eating people in a natural history museum? I think that would be a major improvement. (ha ha) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is brilliant! Don't change a thing!--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 16:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Protected==

I protected this version because it did not lack citations and gave the most information. Please discuss what should and should not remain. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:One citation repeated three times is not equal to three citations. Try looking at this, careful it has '''bigwords''' in it. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547| Gut contents from a cretaceous tyrannosaurid.] --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add more citations, but they kept getting deleted! Here's a great one: [http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/t-rex-hunter-or-scavenger.html SCAVENGER!]--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is complete and utter nonsense. One line explains what it is, the rest is devoted to arguments for creationism. Can it be unlocked so that real facts can be added to it instead of pure speculation and creationist propaganda.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The current article makes no sense. Please reopen so we can add factual information.[[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 17:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist propoganda? Noted Hadrosaur expert Jack Horner [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_%28paleontologist%29 Sorry this is the best thing I could find] thinks they were scavengers, not carnivores.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you understand the situation there, CF, they don't want "facts" they want '''"their facts"'''. And BTW, there CW, jackals are carnivores '''and''' scavengers. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:It actually doesn't say that Jack Horner believed they were scavengers, it says he revitalized the theory that they may have been, but it was never a major research focus for him. And even if he did believe it, that's still just one person. What do the majority of paleontologists think? Especially the ones who specialize in T-Rex. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Horner wrote several articles on the subject. Look it up.

Horner, J.R., (1994). Steak knives, beady eyes, and tiny little arms (a portrait of Tyrannosaurus as a scavenger). The Paleontological Society Special Publication 7: 157-164.

Stop speaking without knowing what your talking about.

And by the way, the jackel has strong front legs, reliable teeth and is fast, so it can be a predator.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why not give those sources then? Instead of one which didn't support your argument at all? Either way, there's more paleontologists with other opinions. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. This is true. The jackal can be a predator, that also scavenges. Do you think that "scavenger" and "herbivore" are synonyms? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The line "" Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals."" is pure speculation or an over active imagination. It is not a fact that can be verified. Besides that, crocodiles have existed since or before dinosaurs (I'm not an expert), which as we know are currently carnivores.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:How can you be sure of that? Stop adding ''your'' facts and look at the actual facts. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::@Scorpionman - We can look at fossil records, sediment layers, carbon dating which all point to the same fact that crocodiles have existed for a very long time. They are not ''my'' facts but the accepted facts of the vast majority of the worlds zoologists. I.E. they are the ''actual'' facts as they stand. Besides, what exactly makes you so sure that what's in the bible has any truth to it at all? You are being asked by the bible to believe fairy tale stories like Noah's flood which are ludicrous. If you really think about these stories logically they make no sense at all.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh? And evolution asks you to believe that we, animals, plants, earth, even the entire UNIVERSE came about by pure chance! Come on, if that's not a fairy tale I don't know what is. It makes a lot more "logical sense" to believe that there's an Intelligent Designer here. Your comments prove to me that you really know little to nothing of the Bible, that you've just read some biased evolutionist's view of it. Read it for yourself; it makes a lot more sense if you do that. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 09:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Then perhaps you should also believe Scientology's story of Xenu and his Thetons. Why not?(I'm NOT a Scientologist btw.) Because its just as likely and provable as the Bible stories. Evolution does not ask us to believe the Earth/Universe came about by pure chance, evolution has nothing to do with the origin on the Universe. The diversity of life comes from tiny incremental steps through natural selection ( a simple logical process ). The origin of life on Earth is unlikely yes, but all it needed was one chance to start then it could sustain itself (in the same way that fire can). --[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is not based only on random chance. DNA being mutated, recombining improperly, or undergoing transcription errors are random. But those changes are then either removed from the population, or are kept through natural selection. Natural selection is definitely NOT random.

::@Scorpianman - If the universe being created by an explosion and natural selection over a few billion years is fairy tale, surely you don't want me to believe that some supernatural being, that can't be seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled, or detected in any way, and was written about in a book by somebody a few thousand years ago which could have been complete fiction, which was then translated (however accurately or inaccurately), has not ever communicated to anyone, yet was bored one day and decided to make the universe and everything in it? And then for some strange reason he needs everyone to pray all the time and give churches money and read stories or he'll put them in a fiery pit of doom called hell? Which, cannot be proven or detected in any way either? But if they do do that, he'll bring them to heaven? Which, also cannot be proven or detected? And he decided to place things on Earth in such a way that they disproved him creating the Earth completely? What an odd, odd fellow. Even if he did exist, which I don't think, and will never think he does, I'm not sure I'd want to follow blindly behind someone who has such strange requests. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

This article should now be available for editing by registered users. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 14:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Ugh==

To the person who added the last information...again - The writing was NOT cited before, hence the deletion, now it is, but with a single biased source which does not include each possible perspective. Now it's locked, despite being horribly short. Do not state the T-Rex as being a slow vegetarian as fact, it's speculation and there is more than one view. "If some of the dinosaurs we find killed by the Flood did eat meat, they were probably scavengers (like vultures) that lived off the bodies of large dead animals." is not necissarily correct either. I, for one, don't believe there was a great flood, and that they were actually killed by a meteor. It's also possible that they ran out of food. Either way, you cannot state something like that as fact. And they weren't "probably" scavengers, that is just one point of view, from one particular group of scientists. Also the sentence "Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals." is ridiculous. They can't be sure of anything, it's a clear bias. You know, as long as I'm critiquing the article, I might as well go through all of it. "The Tyrannosaurus was originally thought to be a carnivore. However, this assertion directly contradicts the statements in the Bible that all animals were herbivorous before sin was introduced to the world." - not relevant, many things contradict the bible that are not incorrect. "Recent evidence has backed up the idea that many of the Dinosaurs like the T-Rex once thought to be meat eaters are actually vegetarians. New research suggests that the Tyranosaurus would not be able to move very quickly. [1] So most other dinosaurs, being fast moving creatures, could have easily gotten away from him." Most other dinosaurs weren't quick, some were, some were very very slow. "Also, the teeth of the Tyranosaur are not well rooted in the Dinosaur's mouth, meaning it seems they could have snapped off easily in a battle.[2] Many have compared his teeth to those of the vegetarian spider monkey." Who are the many? But anyway, the teeth are still strong enough to bite through flesh. "Also, Tyranosaur's front legs were insufficient for attacking any other Dinosaurs." - Irrelevant, they didn't use their front legs to attack other dinosaurs, they used their jaws. Last two points discussed above. Include more than just one pro-creationism source and you might find some more accurate information. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't agree that they were mere herbivores, but please don't associate this with ''all'' creationits; after all, CreationWiki believes that they were scavengers as well as carnivores. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's funny that you'd ask that considering some of your previous comments regarding liberals and athetists and their beliefs. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Herbivorous? ==

While Tyrannosaurs were no doubt herbivorous ''before'' the Fall, I don't think it makes sense to believe that they were ''afterwards''. T-rex had a forward-facing eye, which suggests that it would be easier for the dinosaur to see its prey more easily, rather than having to cock its head to look at it. Please read this article by [[CreationWiki]]: [http://www.creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurs] And also read the one by Wikipedia, just don't pay attention to all that "Cretaceous Period" and "Million years ago" nonsense, but it does have a good section on killer vs. scavenger. I'm sure they did scavenge meat if they found it, but they certainly seem adept hunters. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Redirect oddity? ==

First of all: I love the article, it's really hilarious. Especially the last line. That one made my day.

But on a somewhat more serious note, what is the accepted main article? Right now, the ''article'' page for "rex" redirects to "Rex", but the ''talk'' page for "Rex" redirects to "rex". It's a minor thing, but still. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Do we mean NOW? ==
I notice the the (locked) article says ..(they) "'''are''' actually vegetarians" and that Scorpioman says "they certainly '''seem''' adept hunters." Errrr.... We do know they are dead - don't we? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:Apparently, you and I do, but they're not quite sure. See [[Dinosaur]] and its sources, especially [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, well. I've seen the conservapedia article before, but I hadn't clicked the link you provided. It's hard to make a reasoned intelligent response really. There's so little connection to reality. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sid, don't be absurd. Of ''course'' we know they're dead. Stop trying to insult us. But since you're going to be so picky, shall I say "It certainly seems that they ''were'' adept hunters"? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, stealthily sneaking up on an unsuspecting CABBAGE! [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 11:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'll gladly include you in the list of people who know they're dead, but quite a few people here and out there seem to argue that they might still exist. Or at least they try to spread as much doubt as possible. My usage of "they" had been somewhat broad, though. Honest apologies for that. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then somebody should change this locked article so that it reads "were actually vegetarians". It'll still be wrong, but at least that little bit of grammar would be correct. You might want to change the bit about the teeth as well. As far as the "they believe" and "we believe" stuff is concerned - I note that the Dinosaur article talks about creationists believing that dinosaurs "still roam the earth today". I'm afraid I don't know you - could you tell me who you speak for when you say "we"?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Maybe YEC folks think we were ALL born yesterday? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Far weirder thing is that the first sentence states that they ''were'' carnivorous while the entire rest of the article argues that they ''weren't'' carnivorous. Like, make up your mind, please? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

== Bible ==

''"Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals."''

Aren't all Christians Bible-believing? Or am I mistaken and there are some Christians that don't believe in the Bible, Jesus and God.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

You are mistaken. Most Christians, including catholics, eastern orthodox, and mainline protestants respect the bible, but do not take it as literal truth. The loud evangelical literalists in the states are the minority of Christians. Though Conservapedia is built for the wacky fringes, not for conservatives as I had previously thought.

Perhaps we should rename it to "whackopedia", though that name may be taken by a different sort of project!

:"Whackopedia" sounds like a great title of a parody of Wikpedia, although there already is one: [[Uncyclopedia]]. [[User:Scorpion|Scorpion]][[User_Talk:Scorpion|talk]] 14:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article Protection==

I unlocked this article earlier in the hopes of a well-written, accurate entry being created. If the "evolutionist"/creationist text keeps being replaced without accurate sources, this article will be protected again. I don't support the locking of articles, but if need be, it will be done. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diet ==

I've added a section on tyrannosaur's diet. If anything is missing, feel free to add. Most of it is there already, but if there are some other aspects about this creature's diet that need to be there, please add them in. [[User:Scorpion|Scorpion]][[User_Talk:Scorpion|talk]] 14:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Did not Live?? ==

I see that there is a line under the alternative theories which states the animal: "either did not live, or that they lived at the same time as humans at some point in history." While I can (just about)imagine somebody believing that they co-existed with humans - are there really people who simply refuse to believe they existed at all? The bones come from ... where? in this case? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:<s>That section needs reworking because it doesn't make sense at the moment</s>.
:Ok I've done it now. I left that view in that they didn't exist - YECs used to have that opinion, though I couldn't find a decent source for it. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 17:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::I've never heard that argument put forth by anyone. [[User:Scorpion|Scorpion]][[User_Talk:Scorpion|talk]] 18:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hojimachongtalk, you broke a Conservapedia rule. It is not a fact there is very little evidence. ==

Hojimachongtalk, you broke a Conservapedia rule. It is not a fact there is very little evidence. That was the reason for the rollback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Erm, OK, which rule was broken, and what ''scientific'' evidence is there that T-rex lived about 6,000 years ago? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Everything you post must be true and verifiable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:11, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::'''''IT IS TRUE'''''. Me saying that there is not scientific evidence to support it, and then not citing the nonexistent scientific evidence, affirms the point made. It is ''your'' job to support your views by adding citations that there ''is'' some ''scientific'' evidence to support it. Though there isn't. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You can't bloody prove either viewpoint. That's what NPOV is for. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Conservative''', I believe that you were too quick and too judgemental here. ''Before'' you accuse someone of breaking a rule, you should establish and demonstrate that they ''have'' broken a rule. That he had broken a rule was not self-evident, and it could have been inadvertent or through a misunderstanding. You should engage in discussion before throwing accusations.

'''Hojimachongtalk''', your claim that there is very little evidence is ''not'' a fact, but the view of anti-creationists. Creationists point out that both evolutionists and creationists have the ''same'' evidence, but the difference is in how one interprets the evidence. To use an unrelated example, the Grand Canyon is evidence of erosion on a large scale. Uniformitarians interpret this as the result of a little bit of water (the Colorado River) acting over a long period of time. Creationists interpret it as the result of a lot of water (e.g. flood runoff) acting over a short period of time. Same evidence, different interpretations.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:For the last time, ''I never said it wasn't a fact''. I said that ''most mainstream scientists'' (you know, the evil, heathen, hellbound atheist ones) feel that the view is ''not supported by enough evidence''. They certainly regard it in that manner. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tyrannosaurus_rex&diff=65031&oldid=64969 Your edit] had the article saying, "this [creationist] view is supported by very little scientific evidence". There's no qualifier there that that's what most mainstream scientists believe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incivility is not appropriate, Hojimachong ==

Hojimachong is being quite uncivil. Here is what he wrote to me: "It is a fact that there is very little ''scientific'' evidence. '''Quote the Bible all you want''', but it does not encompass the generally accepted scientific view, which is that T-rex lived several million years ago. It specifically said, ''backed up by very little scientific evidence'', which is true. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Explain how in any stretch of the imagination this is incivil. I am voicing a completely valid concern (your deletion of factual material). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative - why are you whining? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Let's not argue about who's civil, uncivil, whining, etc. Free pizza and root beer to all who agree. :-)
:::Sounds good to me. Now wheres the <s>root</s> beer and pizza? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Extinction==

:This view is regarded with much skepticism by people outside the young earth creationist community, who feel it is not supported by enough evidence.

I'd like to see any 'scientific' references related to estimates of how long ago t-rex went extinct. I gather Young Earth creationism is at odds with mainstream biology on this. A good encyclopedia would describe this dispute clearly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::The general consensus among scientists is that T-Rex, along with nearly all other land dinosaurs, became extinct during the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, about 65.5 million years ago. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== YEC theories ==

One of the mentioned "theories" of Young Earth Creationists is that T-Rex "did not live" -- I am not sure how that theory works. Who created the skeletons of T-Rex, then? Have a look at the [http://creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurus_rex Creation Wiki] page on T-Rex; perhaps it might be of some value as a model. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Some think that the Earth was created "with age", seeing as how all the animals were fully matured, mountains/canyons were carved, etc. Therefore, some think that the Earth was created with the fossils already in the ground, and that the dinosaurs never actually existed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks Hoji -- well, an all-powerful Creator can create whatever sort of Earth He wishes, but the purpose of creating fossil skeletons of creatures which never lived must certainly be a rather obscure part of the Divine plan. In any case, I just wondered whether "theory" was the best word for a claim which doesn't seem to explain anything. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Can anyone name me ''one'' creationist working for one of the major creationist organisations (CMI, AiG, ICR, CRS) who believes that God created the fossils already in the ground? Unless you can (and I know you can't), that bit should come out of the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's not a view found in the organisations. Rather it's a theological opinion which is occassional formed by individuals. It's crops up on occassion, so I think we should mention it, but it shouldn't be called mainstream or common. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::As long as the qualifications that you put there are quite clear in the article, I guess I could go along with that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

The linked references to the Creation Science section include on that mentions Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster in passing, so the mention of these in the article -- if this reference is retained -- don't seem to be entirely groundless. Also, I would note that most of the articles cited are not themselves sources, but articles citing other articles (e.g. ''Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10'', which does not seem to be available itself anywhere online, is the source for one of the referenced article's claim of human and dinosaur footprints being found together. It should also be noted that the items referenced so far are general essays on pro-Creation and Christian websites.[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 16:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Before/after the fall ==

If T-Rex lived in the garden of Eden, he must have been a vegetarian rather than a scavenger since there was no death in the garden, right? If so, it looks like God created T-Rex knowing that man would fall and the world would need some predators. I wonder what Adam thought when he saw those huge teeth and massive claws. I wonder if he had some thought in the back of his head that something was off?

Also, is there a consensus on whether T-Rex made it to the Ark? I've read that they became extinct because they didn't make it to the Ark, but other sources say that ALL animals made it to the ark and T-Rex would then have become extinct sometime after the flood - perhaps because of overhunting (That is Kent Hovind's view).

Any thoughts on the above? [[User:Bob2|Bob2]] 11:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Genesis indicates that the animals were created as vegetarians, so correct on that point. And of course an omniscient God would know what would happen. But it doesn't necessarily mean that T. Rex was designed to eat meat. There are creatures today that would be (and in at least one case are) classified as carnivores on the basis of their teeth, but which are vegetarians. Big sharp teeth can be used by vegetarians, but in a fallen world, some creatures—such as ones with big sharp teeth—may be better suited to becoming carnivores than others.
:If T. Rex fossils are found in sediments laid down by the flood (which they are), then they must have survived until the time of the flood, and (at least) two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing creature alive at the time of the flood made it onto the ark. Therefore, so did T. Rex, and it must have become extinct since, possibly because of changed habitat, possibly because of being hunted to extinction by man (or of course a combination of reasons).
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
Asked CPAdmin1 why revert was made and didn't get a response. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:CPAdmin1#Recent_change_on_T-Rex_page Query] Put references back in. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 22:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Added links to the science article and a PDF of the methods used for the research.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:I haven't looked at the page yet. When I was an active Mediator at Wikipedia I often commented before taking a look. May as well get all my cards on the table before playing the game. Okay, here goes (dons spacesuit, enters time machine). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Point of view==

What's that logical fallacy called again, [[begging the question]]? Anyway, I only got this far in the article history:

:Recent findings have shown that the Tyrannosaurus rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tyrannosaurus_rex&diff=next&oldid=72413]

That sort of wording is unsuitable because:
#Saying that something "has been shown to be true" is the same as endorsing the view, i.e., calling it "[[knowledge]]" (justified true belief).
#Scientists like to take a few months or years to kick around a new idea before deciding whether to accept it or not.

Shall I stop here, or continue my analysis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please continue. This research has been anticipated since the discovery of the soft tissue. The claims from it have already undergone scientific review, one reason so many of us have known about it before the publication. We can reword it to say something like "has been found to be linked to..." --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about this:

::"A recent study by (whoever did the study) indicates that the Tyrannosaurus may be the genetic forebear of the modern chicken. (reference)"

::This way, there is still considerable room for doubt but it will direct people to the reference where they can decide for themselves if the science is valid. I disapprove of the term cousin in this setting also. Lacks ''gravitas''. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex

2007-04-13T16:36:17Z

Myk: /* Point of view */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2007-04-11T21:53:44Z

Myk: /* Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek */

{{protect}}

== Who here would mind Obama as president?==
I'll admit it, i am a moderate on the conservative slanted site. Be as my politcal views span both sides, i am hoping for Obama to win the election. I'm sure that some people here have criticisms of him, some of which may even be valid. So have at it people: Why not Obama, the man sent to lead America to greatness?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 20:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I must remind you, this is a conservative encyclopedia. most conservatives can't handle the idea of a black man as superior to them! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

No right-thinking people could possible support having a black as President, let alone in their neighborhood. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:27, 21 March 2007 (PST).

I think it would be great if he won, I can't stand Hilary...--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 21:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm one of the most liberal people I know... and I cannot stand the woman. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, get to those primaries and vote (especially if you live in Iowa or NH). I believe that there are worthy candidates on the Republicans as well, but i want to ensure the best man for the job gets the democratic nomination.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To be honest... He would be better than that anti-video gaming [[fascist]]. No offense to anybody. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I feel Obama may be too inexperienced for the job. However, I still would like to see him elected. In reality, the president doesn't need to be very smart or experienced to BE president. He has a Cabinet of advisors and a whole staff to make decisions for him. Ergo, Obama doesn't really NEED the experience. He's plenty smart enough, and he come off as highly educated and eloquent. Really though, what makes him a good candidate is that he is well liked. What we need right now is a president who is willing to go around to all the European countries we have angered and make kissy-face with them, thus patching up our foreign policy. Hillary isn't going to do that, and I doubt a Republican president would. If we don't get our foreign policy out of the toilet, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble soon.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:That reminds me of Bush Jr... --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree completely!

== puhlease ==
From this article: ''He is black, and no black person has ever held such responsibility. Also, his first name sounds like Osama, and his middle name is Hussein, calling to mind the two most evil terrorists of modern times'' someone's white hood is showing . . . [[User:Godman|Godman]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aiming to denouce a candidate on the basis of his name, and not his stances on issues or character seems like a pretty poor way to choose the next president. Do people really think the informed voter (aka people who actually end up voting) are going to say "well, i like the guy and what he stands for, but his name just isn't doing it for me. I'll go with Nader instead." I think not.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 15:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
*This article needs to be cleaned up, and fast. We must practice more professionalism and objectiveness. [[User:Wikipedialol|Wikipedialol]] 20:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

From the Wikipedia entry, one could sculpt it into becoming more of a Conservative point-of-view. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm actually of the opinion that the pragmatic audience of this site will think something like: there is no way I'm voting for a negro. As is evidenced in this article. the founder of conservapedia's Jesus was clearly lily white and 'merican. I truly beleive they should not call themselves Christian or conservative and they certainly shouldn't call this an encyclopedia. What in the '''hell''' is he teaching those kids?00:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Can't we get a better source for his voting record than an opinion piece? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse dude......he doesn't have much of one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not saying how to judge his voting record, I'm saying that an opinion piece doesn't merit a good source. A good rule of thumb is that if there's a little picture next to an article, it's a column or an opinion piece, not an article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that flew right over my head...I even heard the air noise! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

# I asked for people who were going to discuss his voting record to use an actual source, not an opinion piece as it is now
# You made a joke about his lack of a voting record
# I said that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about sources. Columns, op-eds, editorials are not sources. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, so my cracking a joke meant I didn't understand what you meant, and might have distracted the readers, so they wouldn't know either? Got it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::From the ass' butt to it's mouth, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm for last session. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Breaking News!!!!==

Barack has just raised 25 million dollars for his campaign making his in competiton with Hiliary Clinton!! [http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/25 million!!!!]

== Controversial ? ==

Why is Barack Obama's biographical entry a "controversial" topic for Conservapedia, and locked out from editing?
:Because people who don't feel like contributing useful information see fit to compare his name to those of terrorists. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::It was vandalized twice in 48 hours. I asked for it to be unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. It look presentable. I left in the material about how liberal he is, though I doubt its value. At least it looks nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*The political leanings of any politician are the most important of all. Their stated goals mean nothing, their idealogy everything. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't disagree, but I doubt the veracity of saying X is Y more liberal than Z. Liberalness is not a quanitfiable value. There are better ways to describe his political agenda than by saying "look who he is more liberal than." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, Myk, it's your MSM who does it, the Liberal news organizations, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know if I'd call the National Journal, a publication with an almost $2000 per year subscription rate, mainstream. I tend to avoid it when I hear it, just as I tend to avoid editorial commentary. A far better judge of whether or not a candidate fits your bill is to look issue by issue. And it may be the "Main Stream Media" that started it, but it was the Rocky Mountain News which reported it (in a column) and Conservapedia who repeated it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is this locked? I can still edit this. Maybe that's because i have proven myself in being able to see Obama for the wonderous person he really is. Or not (since i may get banned for a comment like that, him being a non-conservative)--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 01:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Things change on a wiki, dude. It got unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Goofy Article ==

I understand that B.O. hits a lot of people's hot buttons, but this article is a mess. "half-African, half-Caucasian"? What's up with that? Why not use the generally-accepted and perfectly accurate term "African-American"? Or ditch it altogether, unless we're going to start classifying all politicos by race/ethnicity ("Irish-Caucasoid Ted Kennedy", or "Texan-American George Bush"). Better still, ignore the race issue until it is relevant to the article ("Obama is the the first African-American to...").

Too, do we really need three sentences establishing Obama's exact degree of liberlosity? Can't we just say "liberal Democrat", or just describe his positions ("show, don't tell").--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*I took all that away once, have been overruled by another Sysop, evidently. I changed it back once, to African-American, but some felt it important to note he was Mulatto. An archaic term, if ever there was one. Mixed-race would be acceptable today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==

Why are we discussing Michael Richards (not Kramer by the way) and Jimmy the Greek (real name Jimmy Snyder) on Barack Obama's page? The Boston Globe criticized him, black leaders criticized him... that's relevant. Imus' career and the issues surround Richards and Snyder are not. I would change this myself but it was protected again. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:And while it's still off topic here, it might be pertinent for the [[Don Imus]] article to note that CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, not a few affiliates. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK, please tell me where Obama's intellect vs. the intellect of civil rights leaders is mentioned in the source. And please tell me why refering to the old civil rights era is not redundant as the civil rights era is generally considered to be the era of MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks. That's already old, TK. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps to you, perhaps to me, but not necessarily to readers. Our "job" is to make things clear for them, not us. I think my change to old-guard makes it much clearer. Your additions were borderline denigration, to Hill's advantage, I would say. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So this is a wiki. We create a link for Civil Rights Era and then we make the article. His disconnection from Civil Rights figures is well publicized, just google Sharpton AND Obama. Or Obama AND black AND enough. Never is his intellect brought up. That's your opinion and is not sourced. I have no reason to want to support Hillary Clinton. Never been a fan. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Someone reading his curriculum vitae cannot escape his intellect, no? Since we currently have in place a "Civil Rights" leadership, it isn't necessairly old, is it? Jackson and Sharpton (both bigots, IMO) are from the old-guard civil rights era, and that is germain, is it not, since Obama's age was brought into the argument? Are you really incensed at that one word addition, which is sourced by the rest of the page, or that it was me adding to it? I will be happy to add a cite for what you consider an assumption, later today. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I just think it's redundant. His disconnect is with the era. He was too young to participate in it and as he is not a descendant of slaves, he is considered to not be a part of the CRE culture. As for the intellect thing, that has no part of his disconnection. You are either saying Obama is smarter or stupider than Civil Rights Leaders, something of which you have no proof. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Myk, the "proof" that Obama is "smarter" is in the public record, IMO. Disconnect is a pejorative word, used by reporter and political scum to smear people without appearing to overtly do so. Did you not know that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**I read the article to say Obama wants to be known as a "national leader", not a "Black leader", to paraphrase moreless. Hence a sort of parting of the ways with traditional well known "Black civil rights leaders", so to speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. He views things, seemingly, unlike the older leaders, as not just black and white issues. Obviously due to his age, upbringing in a multi-cultural society, and his education....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Still, by referring to leadership in quotes, and comparing their intellect unfavorably to Obama's you are painting a whole bunch of folks with a wide pejorative brush. Jackson and Sharpton are not representative of the whole of the CRE activists. And, of course, the Obama entry is not the appropriate place for a broadside against JJ, AS, and so forth.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed, WJT, however they are allowed/painted/claimed to be "the leaders" both in the press and educational circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**This is indeed an important point, Obama's greatest fear is being marginalized as just another "Black leader"; he's counting on what Republicans call the 'color blind society" to elevate him as an equal, respected national figure and leader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well he certainly has my attention and support in doing that, and ridding us at long last of the hobgoblins of the past, and wresting the power away from the merchants of fear and hate. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Another take==
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:

Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on America's entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.

This is how the game of politics is played. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think he's running for VP. I think even being elected for VP would marginalize the accomplishment. And he's certainly not fundraising like a VP. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2007-04-11T21:09:48Z

Myk: /* Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2007-04-11T20:57:50Z

Myk: /* Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2007-04-11T20:47:57Z

Myk: /* Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek */

Barack Hussein Obama

2007-04-11T20:40:22Z

Myk: /* Published Criticism */ civil rights era is an era in the past, old is redundant

'''Barack Hussein Obama''' (b. 4 August 1961) is the junior Senator from [[Illinois]], elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat in 2004. He is currently a high profile candidate for the Democratic Nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]]. He is, at present, the only African American serving in the [[United States Senate]].
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
==Early Life and Education==
Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]] with his mother and new stepfather. He attended an Indonesian Public School followed by a [[Catholic]] school until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, a private preparatory school until 1979, the year of his graduation. 
Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]] before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1992.

==Legal Career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate Career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama rose to national prominence following his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He defeated his opponent, Alan Keyes, and was elected to the 109th Congress.

His voting record places him as the tenth-most Liberal member of the U. S. Senate. His composite liberal rating was 86 percent, just seven points behind [[Ted Kennedy]]. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].[http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5436474,00.html] Senator Obama is a Democratic front-runner for the 2008 United States presidential election.

In late 2006, Obama's second book authored, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' has spent 23 weeks on the New York Times Nonfiction Best Sellers List. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/books/bestseller/0408besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

==Presidential Campaign==
Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States on Saturday, February 10, 2007 in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided Speech." <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

In early April 2007, Obama's campaign announced his first quarter fund raising figures. The campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 users. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref>

==Political Views==
==Published Criticism==
In April 2007 staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several prominent Black academics and social leaders regarding Obama's failure to speak out regarding acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]] who made racially insensitive on air remarks. Obama did not comment on the Imus situation until well after prominent civil right's leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama's comment on the situation on April 10 was, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 
The incident serves to further illustrate Obama's disconnection from the civil rights era "leadership" due to both his age and nontraditional background. Failing to address the Imus issue was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as a "missed opportunity" to prove himself as a force for civil rights.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref>

==Sources==
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:US Senators|Obama, Barack]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2007-04-11T20:39:38Z

Myk: let's keep to the source, please

'''Barack Hussein Obama''' (b. 4 August 1961) is the junior Senator from [[Illinois]], elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat in 2004. He is currently a high profile candidate for the Democratic Nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]]. He is, at present, the only African American serving in the [[United States Senate]].
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
==Early Life and Education==
Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]] with his mother and new stepfather. He attended an Indonesian Public School followed by a [[Catholic]] school until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, a private preparatory school until 1979, the year of his graduation. 
Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]] before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1992.

==Legal Career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate Career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama rose to national prominence following his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He defeated his opponent, Alan Keyes, and was elected to the 109th Congress.

His voting record places him as the tenth-most Liberal member of the U. S. Senate. His composite liberal rating was 86 percent, just seven points behind [[Ted Kennedy]]. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].[http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5436474,00.html] Senator Obama is a Democratic front-runner for the 2008 United States presidential election.

In late 2006, Obama's second book authored, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' has spent 23 weeks on the New York Times Nonfiction Best Sellers List. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/books/bestseller/0408besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

==Presidential Campaign==
Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States on Saturday, February 10, 2007 in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided Speech." <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

In early April 2007, Obama's campaign announced his first quarter fund raising figures. The campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 users. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref>

==Political Views==
==Published Criticism==
In April 2007 staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several prominent Black academics and social leaders regarding Obama's failure to speak out regarding acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]] who made racially insensitive on air remarks. Obama did not comment on the Imus situation until well after prominent civil right's leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama's comment on the situation on April 10 was, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 
The incident serves to further illustrate Obama's disconnection from the old civil rights era "leadership" due to both his age and nontraditional background. Failing to address the Imus issue was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as a "missed opportunity" to prove himself as a force for civil rights.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref>

==Sources==
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:US Senators|Obama, Barack]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2007-04-11T20:30:44Z

Myk:

'''Barack Hussein Obama''' (b. 4 August 1961) is the junior Senator from [[Illinois]], elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat in 2004. He is currently a high profile candidate for the Democratic Nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]]. He is, at present, the only African American serving in the [[United States Senate]].
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
==Early Life and Education==
Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]] with his mother and new stepfather. He attended an Indonesian Public School followed by a [[Catholic]] school until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, a private preparatory school until 1979, the year of his graduation. 
Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]] before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1992.

==Legal Career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate Career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama rose to national prominence following his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He defeated his opponent, Alan Keyes, and was elected to the 109th Congress.

His voting record places him as the tenth-most Liberal member of the U. S. Senate. His composite liberal rating was 86 percent, just seven points behind [[Ted Kennedy]]. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].[http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5436474,00.html] Senator Obama is a Democratic front-runner for the 2008 United States presidential election.

In late 2006, Obama's second book authored, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' has spent 23 weeks on the New York Times Nonfiction Best Sellers List. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/books/bestseller/0408besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

==Presidential Campaign==
Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States on Saturday, February 10, 2007 in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided Speech." <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

In early April 2007, Obama's campaign announced his first quarter fund raising figures. The campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 users. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref>

==Political Views==
==Published Criticism==
In April 2007 staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several prominent Black academics and social leaders regarding Obama's failure to speak out regarding acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]] who made racially insensitive on air remarks. Obama did not comment on the Imus situation until well after prominent civil right's leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama's comment on the situation on April 10 was, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 
The incident serves to further illustrate Obama's disconnection from the civil rights era due to both his age and nontraditional background. Failing to address the Imus issue was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as a "missed opportunity" to prove himself as a force for civil rights.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref>

==Sources==
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:US Senators|Obama, Barack]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2007-04-11T17:07:57Z

Myk: /* Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2007-04-11T17:03:18Z

Myk: /* Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2007-04-11T17:02:51Z

Myk: Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek

Talk:Bible

2007-04-11T16:52:44Z

Myk: /* What the serpent said */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Either un-protect or fix the Name section ==
This is a disgrace. Whoever has protected this article, fix the Name section immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 01:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:name section fixed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That's odd. I don't remember seeing that when I protected the article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article is too brief!==
This is '''The Bible!''' Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:

*Intro
*Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
*History of the Bible...as in '''who wrote it'''.
*Why the world accepts/rejects it.
*Current status
*Include pics and charts and links.

What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Why describe it when we can transcribe it? ==

Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.

:Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.

:I also uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

The links I mentioned can be two-fold: a link to online Bible sites where complete versions have been transcribed and posted; and links to Bible software which can be downloaded and run off computers. I happen to have E-Sword, which is very good [www.e-sword.net]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:46, 11 March 2007 (EST)

==What happened so far==
I took the layout to the next step, which is subsections on both Testaments. The Old Testament has been written with emphasis on its Hebrew origins (Torah, Tanakh, etc), which I feel is a good description anyway, and does not detract from the Christian Bible with the exception of the actual arrangement of the books. I would like to see the Hebrew titles of these books in its own written language, but that may take a bit of editing the actual structure of Conservapedia to accept it.

The Apocrypha, if necessary, can have it's own subheading, but ''after'' the others as listed.

The History subsection can be written as either a history of the whole Bible, or divided into separate periods, as in history of the Torah; the Septuagint; the early Gospels, etc.

Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?==

Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --[[User:Timothyo|Timothyo]] 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rewrite, definately...what is there should suffice as a structure guide temporarily. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Two things that bug me about this. First and foremost, Wikipedia has a rule on it which states articles there fall under the GPFL thing, and they state specifically that all articles are free from copyright, to use, edit, misuse, whatever. So, if any content here is from Wikipedia, one can say "oh well" and leave it at that.

:Not quite... see my remarks below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

But that led to some thinking here, and I wanted to see if the original writer(s) of this article had violated copyrights when they posted the material for the first time. I have here at home a book titled "Unger's Bible Dictionary" copyright 1966 by the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and the article within titled "Bible" has a number of elements that simply dovetail with the Wikipedia article. Which means there will be a re-write here so that there is no question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, list the omitted conservative points you mentioned. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:The GDFL allows reuse only if the original authors are credited, and the article in which the material is reused is itself released under the GDFL, IIRC. So reuse of Wikipedia content is definitely not allowed here. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::When I posted that very question, it was never answered until now. Tolerate the material in question here for no more than a week, and only then for it's use as a template for something better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1) Aschafly has been pretty clear that he, at least, wants Conservapedia articles to be original, and not copies of anything, redacted or not.

:::2) Wikipedia is perfectly happy with the idea of building a "Wikipedia fork," that is a modified copy of Wikipedia. But. There are serious complications with this, due to the GFDL license (which is not easy for anyone to understand, apparently including Wikipedia).

:::3) The big GFDL issue, and the one that I sense Conservapedia will not agree to, is that if you copy and modify a Wikipedia article, you have to make the copy available under GFDL, too. This means a significant loss of control. For example, following the GFDL rules, if Conservapedia took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and rewrote them, and if a liberal cherrypicked the rewritten articles for the funniest examples of ludicrous over-the-top spin... including, of course, vandal edits... and published it in book form as "The Conservapedia Jokebook," I don't think Conservapedia could stop it. (Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer. Disclaimer 2: I don't think ordinary lawyers understand intellectual property law. Disclaimer 3: I'm not so sure intellectual property lawyers understand intellectual property law.).

:::4) Another issue with the GFDL is that anything published under the GFDL must "preserve the history," whatever that means. If someone starts a new article at Wikipedia in 2003, and there are a thousand edits to it, and in 2007 you copy it, rework it, and republish it on Conservapedia, there is supposed to be some way for readers of the Conservapedia article to retrace all those steps if they want to. Nobody seems to be completely sure how to do this, or what does and doesn't really comply with the GFDL, which wasn't really designed to cover anything like Wikipedia. (Somewhere Wikipedia makes a qualified suggestion that ''possibly'' a simple link to the version of the WIkipedia article that served as the jumping-off point ''might'' do). So, Wikipedia encourages re-use, and there are in fact numerous commercial "mirrors" that duplicate Wikipedia content, but Wikipedia does not give any nice clear recipe on exactly how to go about producing a censored or redacted or reworked derivative of Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be as original as possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Instead of waiting...==
Did a re-write of the article and removed the content in question. What remains is 1) that which is common to every work about the Bible, whether it's here, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or many other works; and 2) the references section...Wikipedia most certainly cannot copyright a list of external sources.

But double-check what is there, and let me know what can be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Remaining subheadings to add==
Just added "Name" and "References" subheadings. Need to add an over-all history of the Bible, and add a subheading for the various versions in print...possibly with brief histories of each? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Separate articles==
Clicked on [[Genesis]], and got redirected back to the Bible page. Not right. Every book in the Bible should have its own detailed article page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==History of the Bible subheading==
For this, I have a rough layout:
*From the time it was first written down, under Moses, to the last OT book.
*the style of the writing, i.e. by hand and on what.
*Between the Testaments, as in the Septuagint.
*The New Testament
*the early versions of the Bible until the printing press
*Gutenburg and versions up to the KJV
*very brief listing of versions since, including internet impact.
Any other suggestions would be helpful. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pictures==
I need two more pics to illustrate this. The first is a pic of a Torah scroll, and what I want to see are people near it with reverence. The second are good copies of New Testament fragments or pages which were hand-written. And of course, they need to be in the public domain, conforming to the rules, etc... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==As it stands now==
Although the "History" part of it is not done at this time, the article itself should be written as a straight-up article about the Bible, with none of the allegations, questions, etc. that scholars and historians have made over the years against it. My reasons for it are two:
*Such allegations have been proven wrong time and time again, so why even bother to repeat them here?
*If such allegations need to be written down, then they need a separate article for each where they can be detailed as to points made, reasons why, who postulated them, and all evidence refutting them.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
This article is done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Very '''very''' nice work there [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]!! Kudos! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hate kudos...but peanut M&M's is a nice stand-in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Careful! Under 'Name', Greek ''biblos'' did ''not'' mean 'book' . It meant 'papyrus'. You are correct, though, in saying that the ''direct'' source was Greek ''biblia'', 'books' - i.e. the various canonical books of which it was composed. Also, under 'History of the Bible', you would do well to consult the most recent research of on-the-spot archeologists such as Finkelstein and Silberman before being ''too'' sure about the authorship and dating of the earliest books of the Bible! Some caution is also advisable about suggesting that the author of Matthew (whether or not that was his real name -- he doesn't claim that it was) was a direct disciple of Jesus. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== ...sources? ==

Considering how long the article is (I'm certainly impressed!), I find it odd that the entire thing just has five external links inside the article. I'm ''totally'' not going to plaster "fact" tags through the entire thing, but I think that an article with so much information could use a few more sources. Doesn't have to be right now, but more as a general remark. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the order is for originality, which is what is here for the most part...but whether incorporated into the text or not, the article could benefit from additional sources. There are extensive links at the bottom of the article for internet info, but what I want are books from at least 50 years or more ago to include in the reference section. The article itself, which is laid out to be just ''about'' the Bible and a brief on its history, should remain the same without any of the controversial stuff others think has to be included...that is a subject for separate articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Mh, yes, agreed. Tangential topics should get their own articles, possibly with "See also" links at the bottom if they're closely connected to this article. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh yes...if there's an article about, say Biblical criticism, then there will be a link here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The trouble is that, all the while this and other articles are locked, nobody else can insert the relevant links. It's self-defeating! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==E-Sword pic==
For the record, the image of the E-Sword screenshot is copyrighted, and used here with permission as per the summary. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authorship of Hebrews?==

Hebrews' author has been disputed for thousands of years - it seems questionable to me to list it as a Pauline epistle without any sort of note that Paul is not its verified author. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

note from stanley d'cunha sdcunha@crescent.ae
i agree with daniel b douglas. the author should have at least parenthetically mentioned that the authorship of letter to the hebrews is not 100 percent by paul --stan, march 18, 2007

:I agree with you; authorship of Hebrews is disputed, but it does lean toward Paul. The point here for this article is a straight history of the Bible as I outlined above, with no sidetracking. The thing you indicated should be put in, but as a subject topic for either the article on Hebrews, or a separate article altogether. If you're willing to take up the task, write what Hebrews is all about, it's history, etc, then write the authorship; what current and past scholars said about it.

:The thing is, because the subject is the Bible, ''every thing written here about the Bible and each book is going to respect Christians and Jews''. As it was said in the Commandments page, this is a family site, and a lot of families hold the Bible as precious. We are going to respect that. Right now I am re-doing the article on [[Genesis]] because the original editor decided not to do it in a respectful way. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Translations==
At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The ''Blue Letter Bible'' deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I closed it to protect the site from vandalism, and the vandalism was constant. I also wanted just a basic overview of the Bible and its history, but since there are so many versions, adding each one and the related controversy would be ''overkill'' for the article itself, which is what I want to avoid. This includes the subheadings on selected individual versions...just the basics was all that was needed here. So, two things:
*If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
*If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Why don't I, as a professional translator, just write it here? You can then assess and edit it before including it yourself if you wish, without risk of vandals butting in (though it would be nice to consult me before altering it)!...

:::(Title) '''Bible translations'''
:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be old-fashioned, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [http://www.biblegateway.com/], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly. Bear in mind, though, that most recent translations are copyright.

:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'', which may be found here [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you may quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''

::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that calls for a separate article. I do agree with you that over the years men have distorted the Bible's original meaning and words; for example, in the New Testament Jesus is refered to by the title of "cornerstone", which is the first, most important block of the foundation of a building. The NIV changes that to "capstone", which is ''the last'' block added to a building...and it's not right to do everything first and maybe add Jesus last, when it should be the other way around.

'''Differences Between Bible Versions''' might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes. A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the Hebrew means ''either'' 'cornerstone' ''or'' 'capstone' - though it's difficult to see how you can have a ''chief'' cornerstone. I suspect the imagery is meant to be more like that on the back of the dollar bill - whence, perhaps, the imagery on the back of the dollar bill!

::Yes, '''Differences Between Bible Versions''' looks good to me (as long as ''you'' do it and mention the main points above, especially the last one!), and the NIV would provide some much-needed comparisons (or rather, contrasts)! You can take your examples directly from the admitted rant at [http://www.av1611.org/niv.html]. You'd need to be careful about coypright, though. I imagine the NIV is still in copyright, in which case you'd need permission for any extensive quoting. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Note: I TIMOTHY 3:16 in the original Greek does not say God. There is a use of Kai (and) that ''might'' carry the God reference from I TIMOTHY 3:15, but that's debateable. The key word is "estin" -- he is, he becomes. (BTW, the Vulgate follows the same format as the Greek). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: in PHILIPPIANS 2:6 "consider" is in the Vulgate (arbitratus): the Greek has egesato, from agazomai, from agamai which can mean either admire or envy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: In the original Greek, the text of LUKE 2:33 is pater autou (his father), Joe ain't mentioned. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet another note: COLOSSIANS 1:14 does not mention blood in the original Greek. The NIV is actually more accurate. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, re Mark 1:2,3 -- the KJV edited the text to fix the error. The original Greek is en to esaia to prophete (in (the) Isaiah the prophet). Not "in the Prophets". Ditto for the Vulgate, in Esaia propheta. The KJV is inaccurate in it's translation, apparently in an attempt to fix an error by the author of Mark. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would suggest also looking into ''The Five Books of Moses'', by Robert Alter, [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393019551&itm=1], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LXX and Vulgate as well.
:Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of ''en arche'' (why no Greek font?) and ''in principio'' than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.
:Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text. For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste". There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances. The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way. Why? Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The KJV as it is right now is based on the last English language update it had (1727).

::When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two. But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament. For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, the Masoretic texts being compiled 1000 to 1700 years after the original text, and Hebrew being a language like all other living languages, that is to say a changing one, the Hebrew of the original is substantially different (think Modern English vs the Old English of Beowulf). Nonetheless, given that he same exact mistakes are found in the KJV, the LXX and the Vulgate, it is clear that the LXX and Vulgate were used as more than mere guides.
:Given that the NT was written in Greek (Koine to be exact), I'm not sure what your point is re "best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

With respect, I do not believe in the statements doubting authorship of the Bible by anyone other than the Biblical writers of tradition. But, and I do want to make this clear to everyone, what NousEpirrhytos has written is still part of the Bible's history, albeit a critical view (and he did do a lot of groundwork by the way), and as such I think a separte article concerning textual criticism of the Bible is warranted. According to rules set down by Conservapedia, there must be a point and counterpoint, i.e. a clear concise and authoritative rebuttal to a clear and concise critical view. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think that might be served, in part, precisely by the two-column arrangement you were suggesting earlier - KJV against NIV, whose manifest corruptions you can easily collect from the web-rant mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it might be more positively productive to add a third column on the right representing a reasonable modern compromise - NAS, perhaps, culled from Bible Gateway. If there's only room for two, though, I think, on reflection, that I would vote for KJV alongisde NAS. Take care with the title, BTW. The word 'Bible' needs to come first, or people aren't going to find the article. How about 'Bible versions compared'? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::We might not be able to use the NAS, as it is copyrighted by the Lockman Foundation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sure there's a way to handle this...however, the issue of the translations' relative accuracy might lead to original research (as in my "Notes" above). Most critical discussions of translations are new enough to be copyrighted, so probably not useable, and not everyone can read Greek or Latin, so including these older texts might be problematic. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Why not ask Lockman? You're entitled to quote up to 200 words or so with due acknowledgement without permission anyway as 'fair use'. They might be happy to let you use more for nothing if you point out that it's by way of criticism and review, and recommending them as a modern source. Otherwise choose another reasonable, modern one? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Portal ==

Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Book of Worship]]</nowiki> as a Bible category.--[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can do! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Truth redirect==
Why is [[Truth]] redirected here?

==Name==
Once again, take care! Greek ''biblos'' doesn't mean 'book' (it's 'papyrus'), and ''la Biblia'' isn't Latin (though ''biblia'' is)! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Found the source...''biblos'' does mean ''book''...but before that it came from ''byblos'', meaning papyrus. ''biblos'' in turn led to the Latin word ''biblia'', and the word ''bible'' came to us from that via the French. The line shall be updated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::The original meaning of biblos is indeed papyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"
::BTW, the word was ''never'' Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I just noticed this: ''...Greek Christians had called the Scriptures la Biblia...'' -- la is '''not''' a definite article in Greek, it only accurs in Romance languages as a shortening of the demonstative article ''illa''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. Hence my original remark. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know -- but it went over like a flock of seagulls...the shame!
:::BTW Karajou, change la to ta and keep in mind that biblia is plural. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The source of information I used came from Dr. Merril F. Unger, a leading theologian/Biblical historian in the first half of the 20th century. If your material is more accurate, please use it here and update the line in question...and if you can use the actual Greek letters like you did here, that would be better! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Are you sure you didn't just mistype the info from Unger? (It's also possible that the typesetter messed up -- I've yet to see a book that didn't have at least one typesetting error). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:For reference of τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια see [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bible dictionary.com]. For future reference of the Greek definite article see [http://www.monachos.net/greek/8_definite_articles.shtml here] [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::As far as Unger having a typo, I'm going to concede your point slightly in that Unger could have been told ''ta Biblia'', but he may have heard it as ''la Biblia''...people do that sometimes, and I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else.

::Just so you know, when it comes to people critical of the Bible, and I'm telling you this from books on the subject, they are always questioning or criticizing the writing; it's either too young or too many mistakes or they could have wrote in the wrong word or they had a typesetting error. And it's always about the Bible. It's never about the Civil War; it's never about Babe Ruth; it's never about what anyone else wrote on any subject under the sun...it's always the Bible that has those mistakes. Every single time. And right now, I strongly feel that you are doing the same thing. But it doesn't say you're a bad person.

::So, what I would like for you to do is to go to a Christian book outlet and purchase anything by author Josh McDowell, especially ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict''. I appreciate the fact that you have extensive knowledge concerning languages, and you are willing to educate yourself more in that field. But you also need to educate yourself in the history of the Bible, and not from a critical point of view, hence McDowell. Like you, I want the correct information on this page, but as someone who was trained and qualified in law enforcement, I know the difference between emphirical evidence and hearsay; and I cannot and will not accept hearsay in any article I write. If it won't stand up in a court room, it won't stand up here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If it's from a Christian bookshop, it goes without saying that ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict'' is biased towards standard (or perhaps not-so-standard) Christian readings of the scriptures - which Jews (whose scriptures the Old Testament is) are of course constantly amazed at - rather than being a purely dispassionate, scholastic approach. So if we're talking about educating ourselves in the history of the Bible, then it's the history of the Bible that needs to be studied, and not merely what we ''would like'' the history of the Bible to have been. Thus (for example) Schonfield's ''The Passover Plot'' and Finkelstein & Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' ought also to be studied, as should any number of reputable works on the Dead Sea Scrolls (mainly for the contextual light that they throw on the subject). All of them throw light - however unwelcome - on the subject. More to the point, the Bible itself should be read - and not just the bits of it that happen to fit our particular thesis. Fact should not be regarded as 'criticism': if it's truly fact, it's purely dispassionate.

:::As for 'emphirical evidence' on what other books 'could have wrote', perhaps you should take a look at Shakespeare, or Nostradamus, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or anything of the kind. Such questions always arise where people attach inordinate importance to the exact words of ancient texts (perhaps you should read more of them?), and not merely in the case of the Bible - though, obviously, the more this is rammed down people's throats, the more likely they are to want to look at it critically. Can you blame them? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I made no attempt to "ram" the Bible down your throat, and I doubt anyone else has. But I am not going to sit here and let the Bible be disrespected because you have a personal dislike for it. Do not push that disrespect here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, why do you assume I'm ignorant of Christian apologetics? I was raised in an evangelical church -- when I began to question many things that only received dogmatic answers I began to realise just how vapid that which they were trying to ram down my throat was. Since that time I have read score of books on ''all'' religions, and the more religions I've studied, the more I've seen the truth behind them -- the emperor is naked.
:What is this hearsay of which you speak? Please, do elaborate rather than throwing cute terms around.
:Now, when are you going to fix ''la'' to ''ta''? Hey, if you want Con-pedia to be the laughing-stock of religion, feel free to leave it, but be aware that ''la'' is not a definite article either in Greek or Latin (a language bereft of a definite aticle). BTW, I would doubt Unger misheard the word -- ''if'' he knew Greek, he would have known the definite article off of the top of his head, and if he knew it not he was no ''true'' scholar of the NT. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:One other point: books on the Civil War, Babe Ruth, etc., have never been claimed to be infallible, so your analogy does not pass muster. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Several things. First, you are saying that ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict'' is "biased" towards the Bible, Christian apologetics, etc. I've heard that excuse before, from an evolutionist who, when confronted with a book detailing evidence for a young creation, summarily dismissed it as "creationist", and refused to even look at it. That shows bias right there. What sort of bias did you bring to "Con-pedia" (as you call it)? Was it the sort of bias that is against the Bible? Do you intend to put anything at all possible here which disparages the Bible? And if you're truly educated than I need not remind you of the definition of "hearsay", as you know it yourself. I remind you, this article is about the Bible, and I don't have to explain things to people who come here with the intent of disparaging it. Do not do it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Tell you what, I have a better question for both of you, Petrus and Nous: '''are you pushing your own religious beliefs on myself, this article, and this website?''' A simple yes or no will suffice. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:When you explain precisely to what you refer when you say hearsay, I shall answer your question. To what specific instances do you refer? How is a charge of hearsay relevant here. What would be direct evidence? Is it not true that exegesis plays a large role in presenting "evidence" from the bible, and as exegesis relies on apologetic analysis and reconstruction is it not a form of hearsay. There are, of course, rhetorical question, but please do answer them if you wish this discussion to be of any value.
:As to young earth creationism, I'm very well aware of the arguments put forth by proponents. However, in reading them critically, which is my ''modus legendi'' for all books, they simply fail scientifically and logically. The various explanations of "tired light" and "flood geology" (etc.) are too ludicrous to take seriously, violating, as they do, the laws of physics, geology and plate tectonics. Yes, I know of the argument that "god can do anything he wants", but said argument is really just a tautology.
:BTW -- All ancient religions have their own creation story, what makes the bible's verson fact and the others mere myth? (rhetorical). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==What the serpent said==
In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.

The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to this article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. This is Conservapedia. It's not "Liberalpedia". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:So you're saying that they indeed got banned for questioning the Bible? Just a yes or no please, I want this black on [background color]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

This question, Sid, is what you will answer first: are you pushing your own religious beliefs on myself, this article, and this website? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, Sid just asked a question. I want to know the answer as well and I'm not trying to push my religion on anybody. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-04-11T16:43:29Z

Myk: /* Blocking of NousEpirrhytos */

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[Articles for Deletion]] 
[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

'''Sub-pages'''

[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative|User:Conservative]]''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-04-11T15:32:55Z

Myk: /* Blocking of NousEpirrhytos */

Jackie Robinson

2007-04-11T06:40:21Z

Myk:

Jackie Robinson was the first black [[Major League Baseball]] player.

Template:User patriot

2007-04-11T06:25:05Z

Myk:

{{Userbox |border-c=#990000 |border-s=2 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000011 |info-c=#000066|info-s=10 |info-fc=#fff|id=[[Image:patriotic.jpeg|65px]] |info=This user supports President Bush and our troops!}}

Template:User patriot

2007-04-11T06:24:29Z

Myk:

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000011 |info-c=#000066|info-s=10 |info-fc=#fff|id=[[Image:patriotic.jpeg|65px]] |info=This user supports President Bush and our troops!}}

Template:User American

2007-04-11T06:09:48Z

Myk:

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:flagmyk.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user is proud to be an American citizen.</center>}}