Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Nintendo

2008-07-10T00:41:37Z

WilliamH:

[[Image:765px-Nintendo svg.png|right|thumb|Nintendo logo.]]
'''Nintendo''' is commonly known as one of the major [[video game]] [[hardware]] and [[software]] manufacturers in the world.

==Origins==
Nintendo got its start in [[Japan]] in 1889, as a company manufacturing cards for [[Hanafuda]], a Japanese [[card game]]. In the 1960s, it diversified into a number of ultimately unsuccessful product lines, including a [[toy]] company. In the 1970s, it moved into electronic gaming, where it was ultimately successful.

In 1981, it created the popular arcade game "[[Donkey Kong]]", which brought it international attention, and introduced Nintendo to the [[United States|American]] market. Nintendo's products in the United States are released through Nintendo of America, their American subsidiary.

The word 'Nintendo' (任天堂株式会社) is said by the companies own sources to literally translate to 'leave luck to [[heaven]]'<ref>Touch Generations: [http://www.touchgenerations.com/enGB/discover_nintendo/what_nintendo_means.php What Nintendo Means]</ref>. The term has its origins in [[gambling]] done with Hanafuda cards.

==Nintendo Video game systems==
[[Image:Bible_adventures.jpg|right|190px|thumb|An original NES game cartridge.]]
*[[NES]] - Nintendo Entertainment System
*[[GAMEBOY]] - A classic handheld games console
*[[Super Nintendo Entertainment System|SNES]] - Super Nintendo, a 16-bit console
*[[Virtual Boy]] - A mobile system which utilised 2 screens to provide a 3D view.
*[[N64]] - [[Nintendo 64]], Nintendo's first 64bit console
*[[GBC]] - GAMEBOY Color, evolution of the original with a color screen
*[[GBA]] - Gameboy Advance, a 32bit handheld.
*[[Gamecube]] - Nintendo's entry to the 128bit console war with Sony's PS2 ([[Playstation2]]) & Microsoft [[Xbox]]
*[[DS]] - An innovative 64bit handheld.
*[[DS Lite]] - Nintendo DS Lite, an improved version of the original
*[[Wii]] - Nintendo Wii, an innovative game console, and Nintendo's latest offering, with sales exceeding expectations against stiff competition between the [[Xbox 360]] & [[Playstation 3]]<ref>http://nexgenwars.com/</ref>

==Notable series of Videogames by Nintendo==

*[[Super Mario]]
*[[The Legend of Zelda]]
*[[Metroid]]
*[[Pokémon]]

==References==

<references />

[[Category:Japanese Companies]]
[[Category:Nintendo]]

Zebra

2008-07-10T00:35:17Z

WilliamH:

A '''zebra''' is a horse-like creature with black and white stripes making it surprisingly camouflaged at a distance. There are three main species in [[Africa]]:

* [[plains zebras]]
* [[mountain zebras]]
* [[grevy's zebras]]

The plains and mountain zebras are not territorial, but the grevy zebras are.

== Sources ==

The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989

[[Category: Mammals]]

Radioactivity

2008-07-08T20:03:26Z

WilliamH:

'''Radioactivity''' is the emission of high [[energy]] [[particles]] through the natural phenomenon of the decay of unstable [[isotopes]] of [[chemical elements]] into their more stable forms.

==In literature==
In [[H. G. Wells]]' 1909 novel [[Tono-Bungay]], the narrator muses:
:To my mind radio-activity is a real disease of matter. Moreover, it is a contagious disease. It spreads. You bring those debased and crumbling atoms near others and those too presently catch the trick of swinging themselves out of coherent existence. It is in matter exactly what the decay of our old culture is in society, a loss of traditions and distinctions and assured reactions. ...I am haunted by a grotesque fancy of the ultimate eating away and dry-rotting and dispersal of all our world. So that while man still struggles and dreams his very substance will change and crumble from beneath him. I mention this here as a queer persistent fancy. Suppose, indeed, that is to be the end of our planet; no splendid climax and finale, no towering accumulation of achievements, but just—atomic decay!<ref>Wells, H. G. (1909) [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/718/718-h/718-h.htm Tono-Bungay], online Project Gutenberg text; search for text string "real disease"</ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Radioactivity]]

Talk:Richard Lenski

2008-07-08T19:38:18Z

WilliamH: /* Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an atheist */

==Formatting==
I borrowed a template from another wiki which might make the data section a bit easier to comprehend. I will include it here pending approval of senior sysops. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Looks great. Please install in the entry as desired.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Okay, I've moved it. I've also cut it from this page for economy's sake. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 13:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::Actually it makes the article look amaturish. For starters you have written in capitals and you have not explained why the missing data is significant which is the point of the side-by-side template to do a full rebuttle. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. A discussion specifying what one expects from the 'missing' data and what usefulness such information would likely shed is necessary.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that it is necessary to establish exactly what is being asked for in the terse comments on the right hand side, sadly such a discussion could get the majority of the contributors banned for the 90/10 rule. I myself have not contributed much to this question recently as a result of this rule. Could the powers that be explicitly suspend this rule on this issue so that the question may be freely discussed? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Listing fields ==

I'm not a parodist, though I did make a mistake on what a CV is.

== Suggestion: Disagreements with E Coli paper should go to a new section? ==

Shouldn't this be a brief bio of Lenski, and a link to the controversy over the paper, including the discussions and the emails, be part of that page instead of here? It looks pretty bad putting it on the main page. 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
On the other hand, after doing some research, I don't think it's standard for faculty to put degree fields in a list of their degrees.

I googled "MSU biology", then went over the "Faculty List A-G". Here is what I found:

No list of degrees: 2
List with fields: 3
List without fields: 12

Finally, Oberlin is a liberal college, and they do focus mostly on liberal arts. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Template / formatting==
Out of interest, I help to administer a private wiki where I work, and think this template is quite nice. Might I ask where you found it, and what (if any) associated copyright restrictions there are on it? [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 15:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

: Really, "Henry8th"??? That's an amazing coincidence you describe: you just happen to administer a "private wiki" at "work". Before wasting people's time with your silliness, how about convincing us a bit more of the earnestness of comment, as in providing the wiki version number, the type of your employer and the location of your "work". I'm sure the wiki developers who freely donate their efforts for use by all would be thrilled to learn of your profitable use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: We run Mediawiki 1.6.7 (yes, I know we're incredibly out of date, but we can't upgrade to a newer one as that would require PHP5, whereas we need that server running PHP4 to support other older software). I make it a habit not to disclose too much personal information on the internet, I'm afraid, but I'm a PhD student at a UK university and I help to administer a wiki run by my research group. By "private" I mean "accessible only to people within my research group"; we find that a wiki is an efficient way for us to edit documents collaboratively. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 16:47, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: The copyright policy here says "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution".[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 11:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::However, since it was admitted above that the template is not CP's creation, it should first be established whether or not the template was used in a correct way (and if any attributions are needed) before others borrow it from here. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I would ask the same question as ZTak above. Firstly, from a legal point of view I would want to be absolutely sure that any code I might upload to a server at my university was properly licensed (we have regular software audits, of course). Secondly, from an ethical point of view I would like to make sure that I can properly credit the original author of the template. As someone whose work involves writing computer programs, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone took software I'd written and didn't attribute authorship correctly. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 14:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Fact checking could use some work on the omissions section ==

I strongly encourage editors to confirm that the topics on this entry's 'omissions' section page really refer to "data not provided" and do not reflect the lack of understanding of the research. At a bare minimum it is necessary to completely read the actual article. 'Skimming' it quickly is not fair to the goals of this wiki or Lenksi's lab. To at least be diligent, I recommend that the authors of the "omissions" section go to Lenksi's lab web page here (https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/), and peruse (read, not skim) the many papers related to the Long-Term Evolution project that are referenced in the current paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== I do not understand why my last edit was reversed ==

It seems to be common practice (and therefore not "odd") to not list what fields faculty majored in, and Oberlin is very liberal. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not certain what 'liberal' has to do with anything and "odd" has pejorative overtones. Rather than worry about 'oddness' why not investigate the degrees? In his graduate program Lenski studied insects and evolution and around 1983, worked with Bruce Levin, moving into the study of microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== This man is nothing but a farce ==

Why must we, the children of God, even acknowledge this liberal atheist (as if there is any other form of an atheist) on our glorious site? We are only feeding his overinflated ego by doing so. --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 12:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== A problem with: "Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study," ==

This recent study is but one of many papers by Lenksi ''et al'' regarding the evolution of bacterial populations in continuous culture. He is best known professionally for his ''in vitro'' experiments studying the population dynamics of genetic adaptations in bacteria and other studies in microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== don't clutter this entry with meaningless edits???? ==

The topic of the page is 'Richard Lenski'. I added additional bibliographic information about Lenski's professional awards and they are reversed as "meaningless edits"? And the 'odd' comment remains despite the fact that it's common to leave the subjects of the degrees out of web pages?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, various links to things such as [[data]] as well. I thought data was central to the question at hand? Why not link to it (such as it is)? And a mention of his work with virtual organisms seems relevant - especially as it's mentioned again at the end.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

And now I'm a "Lenski supporter"? Anyone who actually read the paper and referenced the pertinent section of the article that clearly specified the glucose concentration used is a supporter? I think that addition of 'Lenksi supporter' is needlessly inflammatory. Furthermore, with regard to the question: WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE? DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?", I also wrote: "A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment." and that got removed. Resubmitted.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== shouldn't we move the E Coli paper discussion to a separate page? ==

It looks really cheezy to have this right on Lenski's biography, very unprofessional.
Just have a link and move all that discussion to something like Lenski_E_Coli_controversy,
don't erase a thing. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wrong format for a debate ==

Ignoring all the other issues with this "article", the side-by-side table is really not made for a discussion. Maybe move that part to a debate page? It's quite silly to see an encyclopedia article doing a question-and-answer session with anonymous participants. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. It's silly to post the page without doing the basic research. Better to corral the innuendos into debate pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:20, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::Also, we have yet to discovere the proper attribution for the side-by-side table, and as such it should be taken down or it might constitute a violation of copyright. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:25, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Given that [[User:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] said she took the template from elsewhere, it would presumably be straightforward for her to tell us where she found it. Given that information I'd happily aid the project by checking out this other wiki's copyright policy before reporting back here. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 18:45, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:My issue is mostly about using a left/right table when the left side is basically just the intro section while the right side is suddenly filled with a weird pseudo-debate that goes back and forth. It would be better to do it like this:
==Visual Inspection==
===Lenski's Paper===
(quote)
===Discussion===
(back and forth; not as debate, but in more encyclopedic "A claims B, to which C points out D." style)

==Study Omissions==
(quote)
:And so on. It would make the article more readable. And it would have the added benefit of NOT USING SO MANY ALL-CAPS SENTENCES, BECAUSE DESPITE WHAT SOME SITES SAY, CAPSLOCK IS NOT THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 19:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

:Furthermore, it would help review the status of claims rather than deleting them outright: Here's a most recent example: ''(removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones)" Aschlafly. Revision as of 19:34, 30 June 2008''
:I think it is an important point in two senses: 1) If the level of glucose was not growth limiting then Cit+ mutants might not have been discovered. It is an important feature of the experiment in this instance. 2) It's clear that the glucose concentration was indeed disclosed. How about creating a section titled "Data someone repeatedly claimed was undisclosed but was actually found by looking" and move the deleted test there?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Atheist Lobbying Organization ==

Should this remain in the article, given that it was inserted by an identified (and subsequently banned) parodist? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

: Anything wrong with the cites for it? By the way, not every block is proper. If in error, and I don't know if this one was, the block is reversed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::There's nothing wrong with the cites, per se; they just don't quite cover the assertion. The cited sources do a good job of establishing that the PNAS is largely atheistic (something which is pretty well-known anyway.) They don't really cover any "lobbying" activities, though. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, based on what you said, how about taking out the "lobbying" reference only? As to the rest, it's informative: most people don't know how atheistic the PNAS is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Will do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Maybe need to add another section ==

It would probably be better to split the biographic information from the discussion of the letters exchanged with A. Schlafly. Perhaps a section titled: "Interactions with Andrew Schlafly" (or "site owner") would better hold that aspect.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== e-mail ==

For public interest, could we at CP view the e-mail regarding the template here? If the claim in the e-mail has merit and further measures are pursued, it does not seem fair that the whole site should be punished for one man's refusal to remove the template. Perhaps we could see the e-mail and discuss whether or not the claim is valid. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

==Professor?==
''Is'' Lenski an actual professor? I know there are plenty of people who exaggerate their status ad pretend they're something they're not. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he's one of them, given what we know of him so far. Have we seen his credentials? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:TonyT I was about to give you a serious response, but then I realized that you have to be joking so thanks for making me laugh. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 15:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::He has been blocked as a parodist already, so don't bother responding. I'm thinking of removing this nonesense. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::So has 'Rellik'. Isn't it sad to see two trolls having a conversation? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

==Digital Organisms==
Lenski is famous for two things. His work with his work E. coli and his work with digital organisms. The work with digital organisms is the work referred to in a somewhat unclear way at the bottom of the page. I have twice tried to mention this other important aspect of his work and twice been reverted. This time the edit was called "Liberal Claptrap"!! One would have thought that, in an article about Richard Lenski, mention of what he ''actually does'' would be important and not "Liberal Claptrap".--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:If I get no response, presumably I can assume it was reverted in error and I can put it back in?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::What did he do with [[E. coli]], and what is a "[[digital organism]]"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, I think British is talking about the twenty or so years Lenski has been experimenting with and growing up 12 E. coli cell lines. This last bit with the citrate mutation is one entry among twenty years. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::Richard Lenski is a well known scientist. He is well-known for his 20-year project on [[E. coli]]. (I must say that I don't know how to respond to Mr Poor's question, "What did he do with E. coli" as the entire Lenski debate has been about his work with E. coli.) He is '''also''' well known for his work with [[Digital organisms]]. The final part of the existing article sort of talks about this in a rather confusing manner. Given that he is well-known for '''both''' these two things and that the article is about him, I had thought it would be a good idea to mention them both.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 08:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Release data to other [[evolutionists]]? ==

The paper says that only two people analyzed the data: Lenski and a grad student whom I presume acts under his direction and control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

He says in his email that he will release the E. coli samples to a competent scientist who asks for them. How is that no agreeing to release the data to other evolutionists? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

:Lenski does say that in his email. He didn't say that he wouldn't release the data to a competent scientist that held creationist views. Really at this point a competent scientist with creationist credentials needs to step forward. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::Can we be more clear about "data" and "samples"? The point is whether anyone but his cronies has tried to [[replication of results|replicate]] his results, or even to check whether his data and methods are sound. [[Peer review]] is not enough; that just means his article is worth publication; it doesn't mean he has discovered something which now automatically goes into the standard biology textbooks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Peer review = check to see if his methods are sound. You may also note that the experiment took a while, and was published last month. It would be implausible for anyone to have tried to replicate the findings at this point. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I took a quick look and could not find any promise by Lenski that he would release his '''''data''''' (which the paper says he analyzed) to anyone. Can you quote where you think Lenski promises to release his "data"? As to releasing samples to a "competent" scientist, Lenski places so many conditions on that it is doubtful to me that he would view any potential critic as "competent". Regardless, it's clear to me that Lenski will not submit to public scrutiny of the data that the paper says he analyzed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Well lets take what you've said as a given Ed. The data and samples are still available to a competent scientist. I am going to contact this Bohlin guy from Probe Ministries to see if he is interested or can find someone who is. I'll report back. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: You're embarking on a fool's errand, MAnderson. It's clear to me that Lenski won't release his data to anyone independent. I'm not even sure Lenski has any meaningful data to support his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good to see that someone is actually trying, after a week or so of no action. Andy, with how many biologists have you discussed this paper's methodology?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Looks like someone likes this fool's errand of trying to persuade Lenski to turn over his federally funded data. But don't hold your breath, Argon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Think positive! Have you had any luck finding a microbiologist or similarly qualified researcher with whom you can discuss this paper as it is or the rest of Lenski's work? How about Doug Axe, with the DI's Biology Institute?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:47, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Note that the strains are the ultimate standard for reproducing the work. It would take less than a week for competent microbiologist to confirm that the strains have the markers specified. Sequencing of the specified regions could also be performed in about a week. In other words, all this could be accomplished in about half of the time this 'debate' has gone on. Running the strains through the replay experiments is also easy and would confirm the results. One can express an opinion about whether Lenski would share the strains as he says (a condition to which he is bound under the journal's rules), but that is pure speculation until someone actually makes the attempt.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Argon, I did ask Lenski to turn over the data, and so can you. He refused, and I'm confident he'll continue to say "no" to any independent scrutiny of his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::That misses the point. If you don't trust his report in the paper why would you trust the data he sends you? The *strains* are the key to the paper. They either are or aren't as he says they are. You can't fudge a strain that is supposed to have been grown in continuous culture with an established lineage. Reproducibility of the methods with the materials is what verifies this work. (Actually, so does the whole genome sequencing which is planned in the next stage of the research). The strains *are* available and the requirements Lenski set for sending them are standard for the field. There are thousands of labs that could meet the criteria.
:::::::As I mentioned earlier: Verification of the strain markers could be accomplished in a week. Add another week for sequencing. I'd suggest either finding a sympathetic researcher to give you some help or wait until the whole genome sequencing gets reported later.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::Maybe so, in any case I sent this email to Dr. Bohlin, a qualified biologist and creationist.

::Dear Mr. Bohlin,

::Some people at conservapedia.com are concerned that a paper published by Richard Lenski describing a beneficial mutation occurring in E.coli may deserve closer scrutiny. Mr. Lenski has said that he is willing to release his data and samples of the E. coli to a competent scientist for further research and review. You seem to have the proper credentials to make this request. Are you interested or are you aware of other scientist that are at your level and share your personal beliefs that might be interested? I think that everyone at conservapedia would appreciate your input.

::Sincerely,

::Mike Anderson
::Conservapedia contributor

::[[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't hurt to try, and your efforts deserve praise, MAnderson. I hope for a sensible result from your inquiry, but unfortunately do not expect it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Mike, aside from the question of whether you persuade Dr. Bohlin to request and analyze the raw data or strains, perhaps you might ask if he finds any irregularities with methods described.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Here is the response that I got from Dr. Ray Bohlin of Probe Ministries:

::::Dear Mike,

::::I appreciate your notice of my qualifications but as President of Probe Ministries, I no longer work in a laboratory or have access to one and therefore I am unable to follow up on your gracious request. I have a feeler out to some other scientists but at the moment they are already quite busy with other projects. However, you may not be aware of Mike Behe's excellent response on his author page at Amazon.com. The text is below. Perhaps you could contact Mike about using his response.

::::Respectfully,

::::Ray Bohlin, PhD
::::President
::::Probe Ministries
::::www.probe.org
::::rbohlin@probe.org

::::He provided the response by Prof. Behe but I am not including it because it is lengthy and people can view it on Amazon. My only editorial comment is to note that Prof. Behe in his rebuttal does not in any way conclude that Prof. Lenski’s research is flawed or that his data is incomplete or hidden. He just feels that the experiments results do not support the theory of evolution. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

== Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]] ==

Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:Why? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

: Have you read his writing on a discussion about [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_and_religion.pdf science and religon] and [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_church_and_state.pdf on science, church and state]. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::I meant why is it relevant to his scientific work? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Lenski says that with better words than I can in the second pdf I linked above. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::::Clearly, he's not a 'Dawkins-ite'.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::One of the links Rutm cited has Lenski stating he told someone it was none of their business what worldview he holds. It would not surprise me if he was one of the many closet atheists who cannot defend their [[atheism]]. Christianity on the other hand has Jesus stating: "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 10:32-33 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I knew the reason why. I just wanted you to say it. Basically because Lenski is or might be an atheist, he is immediately discredited. I don't see things that way at all which is why I am perfectly happy to have a dedicated Christian scientist review the data. I assume that honor exist among scientist of all stripes and that the goal of scientist is to fairly judge scientific research. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:53, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
MAnderson, you are extraordinarily naive if you imagine that scientists espousing [[Atheistic]] or [[Liberal]] views somehow turn those views 'off' when conducting research. If one's entire world outlook is distorted in such a way, it affects everything one does - consciously or otherwise. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:38, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

:Bugler - do you believe avowedly Christian scientists can turn their beliefs off when conducting research? [[User:StanleyAccrington|StanleyAccrington]] 13:46, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

:: In reply to both Bugler and Stan, I guess I prefer to believe that people are basically good and will at least try to take the high road when given the chance. If that is being naive then so be it. Have a great day! [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

:::As a scientist myself, it's patently obvious that anybody who is unable to turn off personal feelings/beliefs and not have them affect their interpretation of data is, by definition, a bad scientist. Data doesn't lie. They are observed facts. If you allow bias to creep into the mix, you're carrying out poor science. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:54, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

::::You're being too naive if you think every scientist in the world is completely honest and wouldn't (mis?)interpret the data in a way that wouldn't contradict his worldview. Just look at the Global Warming crowd. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 18:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can debate about human nature here if you want, however, that would get us no where. No one said anything about all scientists. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule. We're human. It's ludicrous for me to have to preface my statements with such trivia. So, implying that the ''majority'' of scientists are swayed by their personal beliefs is horribly cynical. A spiritual/religious scientist and an atheist scientist are on equal footing when it comes to data analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::Good to see we agree that atheist scientists can become blinded by their own prejudices and produce misleading conclusions (although we disagree on many other things.) So why is it that one shouldn't be suspicious when the scientist in question is being evasive about the requests for data? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 15:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

== An Interesting Lenski Quote ==

From the first of the two papers Rutm linked:

<blockquote>
I think the same facts of evolution--with the perpetual struggle for existence and genetic rewards for selfishness--could just as easily be used to support a religion that both Dr. Hefner and I would find repugnant.
</blockquote>

Is it me, or is Dr. Lenski admitting that evolution can be used to support some extremely nasty philosophies? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:I believe he's saying one could '''*attempt*''' to use it justify practically anything. But more likely, one would probably be committing something akin to a naturalistic fallacy in so doing.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== Statistical Significance ==
The 2 instances in the little table that imply that statistical significance or lack thereof should be reported look a bit silly. The first phrase refers to the statement by Blount et al. that "A number of Cit+ clones were isolated..." on p7900. Asking how many is all well and good. But it appears the researchers decided how many to isolate, and it is nonsensical to ask about significance. The second phrase refers to the end of the sentence: "all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected." It is potentially a bit more relevant here, but still doesn't make a lot of sense to simply ask generally about statistical significance - compared to what? Calculating significance is a way of testing the probability of sampling error, if that helps. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Visual Inspection ==
The methodology here is what's important, and they clearly write that the "LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time." The observations for which you are requesting data seem to be the kind of observations that aren't recorded, because they do not need to be. I'll give you an example from my experiences in the lab: when I perform an electrophoresis gel run, I have to make an agarose gel. Every time I do so I follow the recipe taped to our microwave: 40mL TAE buffer, 400mg Agarose. It's a given in our lab that all our gels are 1%, unless otherwise stated. Likewise, it seems likely that somebody working in Lenski's lab will, when checking for turbidity, do so by holding up a tube of culture, observe, "Yep, that's turbid," and continue on with the procedure as outlined in their protocol. If Lenski's lab is more diligent than the one in which I work, then we are still dealing with the kind of data that never leave a graduate student's notebook. Again, what data do you want, a table containing the exact same information every day ''(June 6, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 7, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 8, 1999 - Che...)''? Or would only scans of graduate students' notebook pages suffice? --[[User:Codyc|Codyc]] 20:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

2008-07-07T22:31:53Z

WilliamH:

The '''Super Nintendo Entertainment System''' (SNES for short), known as the '''Super Famicom''' in [[Japan]], is a 16-bit [[video game]] console first released in 1991 by [[Nintendo]]. It was the successor to the company's [[NES|Nintendo Entertainment System]] and predecessor to the [[Nintendo 64]].

==Notable Games==
*''[[Super Mario World]]''
*''[[Street Fighter II]]''
*''[[StarFox]]''
*''[[EarthBound]]''
*''[[Super Metroid]]''

[[Category: Nintendo]]
[[Category: Nintendo Systems]]

Talk:Richard Lenski

2008-07-07T22:21:09Z

WilliamH: /* Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an atheist */

==Formatting==
I borrowed a template from another wiki which might make the data section a bit easier to comprehend. I will include it here pending approval of senior sysops. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Looks great. Please install in the entry as desired.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Okay, I've moved it. I've also cut it from this page for economy's sake. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 13:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::Actually it makes the article look amaturish. For starters you have written in capitals and you have not explained why the missing data is significant which is the point of the side-by-side template to do a full rebuttle. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. A discussion specifying what one expects from the 'missing' data and what usefulness such information would likely shed is necessary.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that it is necessary to establish exactly what is being asked for in the terse comments on the right hand side, sadly such a discussion could get the majority of the contributors banned for the 90/10 rule. I myself have not contributed much to this question recently as a result of this rule. Could the powers that be explicitly suspend this rule on this issue so that the question may be freely discussed? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Listing fields ==

I'm not a parodist, though I did make a mistake on what a CV is.

== Suggestion: Disagreements with E Coli paper should go to a new section? ==

Shouldn't this be a brief bio of Lenski, and a link to the controversy over the paper, including the discussions and the emails, be part of that page instead of here? It looks pretty bad putting it on the main page. 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
On the other hand, after doing some research, I don't think it's standard for faculty to put degree fields in a list of their degrees.

I googled "MSU biology", then went over the "Faculty List A-G". Here is what I found:

No list of degrees: 2
List with fields: 3
List without fields: 12

Finally, Oberlin is a liberal college, and they do focus mostly on liberal arts. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Template / formatting==
Out of interest, I help to administer a private wiki where I work, and think this template is quite nice. Might I ask where you found it, and what (if any) associated copyright restrictions there are on it? [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 15:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

: Really, "Henry8th"??? That's an amazing coincidence you describe: you just happen to administer a "private wiki" at "work". Before wasting people's time with your silliness, how about convincing us a bit more of the earnestness of comment, as in providing the wiki version number, the type of your employer and the location of your "work". I'm sure the wiki developers who freely donate their efforts for use by all would be thrilled to learn of your profitable use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: We run Mediawiki 1.6.7 (yes, I know we're incredibly out of date, but we can't upgrade to a newer one as that would require PHP5, whereas we need that server running PHP4 to support other older software). I make it a habit not to disclose too much personal information on the internet, I'm afraid, but I'm a PhD student at a UK university and I help to administer a wiki run by my research group. By "private" I mean "accessible only to people within my research group"; we find that a wiki is an efficient way for us to edit documents collaboratively. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 16:47, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: The copyright policy here says "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution".[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 11:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::However, since it was admitted above that the template is not CP's creation, it should first be established whether or not the template was used in a correct way (and if any attributions are needed) before others borrow it from here. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I would ask the same question as ZTak above. Firstly, from a legal point of view I would want to be absolutely sure that any code I might upload to a server at my university was properly licensed (we have regular software audits, of course). Secondly, from an ethical point of view I would like to make sure that I can properly credit the original author of the template. As someone whose work involves writing computer programs, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone took software I'd written and didn't attribute authorship correctly. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 14:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Fact checking could use some work on the omissions section ==

I strongly encourage editors to confirm that the topics on this entry's 'omissions' section page really refer to "data not provided" and do not reflect the lack of understanding of the research. At a bare minimum it is necessary to completely read the actual article. 'Skimming' it quickly is not fair to the goals of this wiki or Lenksi's lab. To at least be diligent, I recommend that the authors of the "omissions" section go to Lenksi's lab web page here (https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/), and peruse (read, not skim) the many papers related to the Long-Term Evolution project that are referenced in the current paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== I do not understand why my last edit was reversed ==

It seems to be common practice (and therefore not "odd") to not list what fields faculty majored in, and Oberlin is very liberal. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not certain what 'liberal' has to do with anything and "odd" has pejorative overtones. Rather than worry about 'oddness' why not investigate the degrees? In his graduate program Lenski studied insects and evolution and around 1983, worked with Bruce Levin, moving into the study of microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== This man is nothing but a farce ==

Why must we, the children of God, even acknowledge this liberal atheist (as if there is any other form of an atheist) on our glorious site? We are only feeding his overinflated ego by doing so. --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 12:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== A problem with: "Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study," ==

This recent study is but one of many papers by Lenksi ''et al'' regarding the evolution of bacterial populations in continuous culture. He is best known professionally for his ''in vitro'' experiments studying the population dynamics of genetic adaptations in bacteria and other studies in microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== don't clutter this entry with meaningless edits???? ==

The topic of the page is 'Richard Lenski'. I added additional bibliographic information about Lenski's professional awards and they are reversed as "meaningless edits"? And the 'odd' comment remains despite the fact that it's common to leave the subjects of the degrees out of web pages?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, various links to things such as [[data]] as well. I thought data was central to the question at hand? Why not link to it (such as it is)? And a mention of his work with virtual organisms seems relevant - especially as it's mentioned again at the end.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

And now I'm a "Lenski supporter"? Anyone who actually read the paper and referenced the pertinent section of the article that clearly specified the glucose concentration used is a supporter? I think that addition of 'Lenksi supporter' is needlessly inflammatory. Furthermore, with regard to the question: WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE? DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?", I also wrote: "A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment." and that got removed. Resubmitted.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== shouldn't we move the E Coli paper discussion to a separate page? ==

It looks really cheezy to have this right on Lenski's biography, very unprofessional.
Just have a link and move all that discussion to something like Lenski_E_Coli_controversy,
don't erase a thing. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wrong format for a debate ==

Ignoring all the other issues with this "article", the side-by-side table is really not made for a discussion. Maybe move that part to a debate page? It's quite silly to see an encyclopedia article doing a question-and-answer session with anonymous participants. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. It's silly to post the page without doing the basic research. Better to corral the innuendos into debate pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:20, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::Also, we have yet to discovere the proper attribution for the side-by-side table, and as such it should be taken down or it might constitute a violation of copyright. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:25, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Given that [[User:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] said she took the template from elsewhere, it would presumably be straightforward for her to tell us where she found it. Given that information I'd happily aid the project by checking out this other wiki's copyright policy before reporting back here. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 18:45, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:My issue is mostly about using a left/right table when the left side is basically just the intro section while the right side is suddenly filled with a weird pseudo-debate that goes back and forth. It would be better to do it like this:
==Visual Inspection==
===Lenski's Paper===
(quote)
===Discussion===
(back and forth; not as debate, but in more encyclopedic "A claims B, to which C points out D." style)

==Study Omissions==
(quote)
:And so on. It would make the article more readable. And it would have the added benefit of NOT USING SO MANY ALL-CAPS SENTENCES, BECAUSE DESPITE WHAT SOME SITES SAY, CAPSLOCK IS NOT THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 19:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

:Furthermore, it would help review the status of claims rather than deleting them outright: Here's a most recent example: ''(removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones)" Aschlafly. Revision as of 19:34, 30 June 2008''
:I think it is an important point in two senses: 1) If the level of glucose was not growth limiting then Cit+ mutants might not have been discovered. It is an important feature of the experiment in this instance. 2) It's clear that the glucose concentration was indeed disclosed. How about creating a section titled "Data someone repeatedly claimed was undisclosed but was actually found by looking" and move the deleted test there?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Atheist Lobbying Organization ==

Should this remain in the article, given that it was inserted by an identified (and subsequently banned) parodist? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

: Anything wrong with the cites for it? By the way, not every block is proper. If in error, and I don't know if this one was, the block is reversed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::There's nothing wrong with the cites, per se; they just don't quite cover the assertion. The cited sources do a good job of establishing that the PNAS is largely atheistic (something which is pretty well-known anyway.) They don't really cover any "lobbying" activities, though. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, based on what you said, how about taking out the "lobbying" reference only? As to the rest, it's informative: most people don't know how atheistic the PNAS is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Will do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Maybe need to add another section ==

It would probably be better to split the biographic information from the discussion of the letters exchanged with A. Schlafly. Perhaps a section titled: "Interactions with Andrew Schlafly" (or "site owner") would better hold that aspect.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== e-mail ==

For public interest, could we at CP view the e-mail regarding the template here? If the claim in the e-mail has merit and further measures are pursued, it does not seem fair that the whole site should be punished for one man's refusal to remove the template. Perhaps we could see the e-mail and discuss whether or not the claim is valid. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

==Professor?==
''Is'' Lenski an actual professor? I know there are plenty of people who exaggerate their status ad pretend they're something they're not. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he's one of them, given what we know of him so far. Have we seen his credentials? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:TonyT I was about to give you a serious response, but then I realized that you have to be joking so thanks for making me laugh. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 15:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::He has been blocked as a parodist already, so don't bother responding. I'm thinking of removing this nonesense. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::So has 'Rellik'. Isn't it sad to see two trolls having a conversation? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

==Digital Organisms==
Lenski is famous for two things. His work with his work E. coli and his work with digital organisms. The work with digital organisms is the work referred to in a somewhat unclear way at the bottom of the page. I have twice tried to mention this other important aspect of his work and twice been reverted. This time the edit was called "Liberal Claptrap"!! One would have thought that, in an article about Richard Lenski, mention of what he ''actually does'' would be important and not "Liberal Claptrap".--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:If I get no response, presumably I can assume it was reverted in error and I can put it back in?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::What did he do with [[E. coli]], and what is a "[[digital organism]]"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, I think British is talking about the twenty or so years Lenski has been experimenting with and growing up 12 E. coli cell lines. This last bit with the citrate mutation is one entry among twenty years. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::Richard Lenski is a well known scientist. He is well-known for his 20-year project on [[E. coli]]. (I must say that I don't know how to respond to Mr Poor's question, "What did he do with E. coli" as the entire Lenski debate has been about his work with E. coli.) He is '''also''' well known for his work with [[Digital organisms]]. The final part of the existing article sort of talks about this in a rather confusing manner. Given that he is well-known for '''both''' these two things and that the article is about him, I had thought it would be a good idea to mention them both.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 08:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Release data to other [[evolutionists]]? ==

The paper says that only two people analyzed the data: Lenski and a grad student whom I presume acts under his direction and control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

He says in his email that he will release the E. coli samples to a competent scientist who asks for them. How is that no agreeing to release the data to other evolutionists? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

:Lenski does say that in his email. He didn't say that he wouldn't release the data to a competent scientist that held creationist views. Really at this point a competent scientist with creationist credentials needs to step forward. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::Can we be more clear about "data" and "samples"? The point is whether anyone but his cronies has tried to [[replication of results|replicate]] his results, or even to check whether his data and methods are sound. [[Peer review]] is not enough; that just means his article is worth publication; it doesn't mean he has discovered something which now automatically goes into the standard biology textbooks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Peer review = check to see if his methods are sound. You may also note that the experiment took a while, and was published last month. It would be implausible for anyone to have tried to replicate the findings at this point. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I took a quick look and could not find any promise by Lenski that he would release his '''''data''''' (which the paper says he analyzed) to anyone. Can you quote where you think Lenski promises to release his "data"? As to releasing samples to a "competent" scientist, Lenski places so many conditions on that it is doubtful to me that he would view any potential critic as "competent". Regardless, it's clear to me that Lenski will not submit to public scrutiny of the data that the paper says he analyzed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Well lets take what you've said as a given Ed. The data and samples are still available to a competent scientist. I am going to contact this Bohlin guy from Probe Ministries to see if he is interested or can find someone who is. I'll report back. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: You're embarking on a fool's errand, MAnderson. It's clear to me that Lenski won't release his data to anyone independent. I'm not even sure Lenski has any meaningful data to support his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good to see that someone is actually trying, after a week or so of no action. Andy, with how many biologists have you discussed this paper's methodology?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Looks like someone likes this fool's errand of trying to persuade Lenski to turn over his federally funded data. But don't hold your breath, Argon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Think positive! Have you had any luck finding a microbiologist or similarly qualified researcher with whom you can discuss this paper as it is or the rest of Lenski's work? How about Doug Axe, with the DI's Biology Institute?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:47, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Note that the strains are the ultimate standard for reproducing the work. It would take less than a week for competent microbiologist to confirm that the strains have the markers specified. Sequencing of the specified regions could also be performed in about a week. In other words, all this could be accomplished in about half of the time this 'debate' has gone on. Running the strains through the replay experiments is also easy and would confirm the results. One can express an opinion about whether Lenski would share the strains as he says (a condition to which he is bound under the journal's rules), but that is pure speculation until someone actually makes the attempt.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Argon, I did ask Lenski to turn over the data, and so can you. He refused, and I'm confident he'll continue to say "no" to any independent scrutiny of his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::That misses the point. If you don't trust his report in the paper why would you trust the data he sends you? The *strains* are the key to the paper. They either are or aren't as he says they are. You can't fudge a strain that is supposed to have been grown in continuous culture with an established lineage. Reproducibility of the methods with the materials is what verifies this work. (Actually, so does the whole genome sequencing which is planned in the next stage of the research). The strains *are* available and the requirements Lenski set for sending them are standard for the field. There are thousands of labs that could meet the criteria.
:::::::As I mentioned earlier: Verification of the strain markers could be accomplished in a week. Add another week for sequencing. I'd suggest either finding a sympathetic researcher to give you some help or wait until the whole genome sequencing gets reported later.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::Maybe so, in any case I sent this email to Dr. Bohlin, a qualified biologist and creationist.

::Dear Mr. Bohlin,

::Some people at conservapedia.com are concerned that a paper published by Richard Lenski describing a beneficial mutation occurring in E.coli may deserve closer scrutiny. Mr. Lenski has said that he is willing to release his data and samples of the E. coli to a competent scientist for further research and review. You seem to have the proper credentials to make this request. Are you interested or are you aware of other scientist that are at your level and share your personal beliefs that might be interested? I think that everyone at conservapedia would appreciate your input.

::Sincerely,

::Mike Anderson
::Conservapedia contributor

::[[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't hurt to try, and your efforts deserve praise, MAnderson. I hope for a sensible result from your inquiry, but unfortunately do not expect it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Mike, aside from the question of whether you persuade Dr. Bohlin to request and analyze the raw data or strains, perhaps you might ask if he finds any irregularities with methods described.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Here is the response that I got from Dr. Ray Bohlin of Probe Ministries:

::::Dear Mike,

::::I appreciate your notice of my qualifications but as President of Probe Ministries, I no longer work in a laboratory or have access to one and therefore I am unable to follow up on your gracious request. I have a feeler out to some other scientists but at the moment they are already quite busy with other projects. However, you may not be aware of Mike Behe's excellent response on his author page at Amazon.com. The text is below. Perhaps you could contact Mike about using his response.

::::Respectfully,

::::Ray Bohlin, PhD
::::President
::::Probe Ministries
::::www.probe.org
::::rbohlin@probe.org

::::He provided the response by Prof. Behe but I am not including it because it is lengthy and people can view it on Amazon. My only editorial comment is to note that Prof. Behe in his rebuttal does not in any way conclude that Prof. Lenski’s research is flawed or that his data is incomplete or hidden. He just feels that the experiments results do not support the theory of evolution. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

== Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]] ==

Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:Why? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

: Have you read his writing on a discussion about [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_and_religion.pdf science and religon] and [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_church_and_state.pdf on science, church and state]. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::I meant why is it relevant to his scientific work? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Lenski says that with better words than I can in the second pdf I linked above. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::::Clearly, he's not a 'Dawkins-ite'.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::One of the links Rutm cited has Lenski stating he told someone it was none of their business what worldview he holds. It would not surprise me if he was one of the many closet atheists who cannot defend their [[atheism]]. Christianity on the other hand has Jesus stating: "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 10:32-33 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I knew the reason why. I just wanted you to say it. Basically because Lenski is or might be an atheist, he is immediately discredited. I don't see things that way at all which is why I am perfectly happy to have a dedicated Christian scientist review the data. I assume that honor exist among scientist of all stripes and that the goal of scientist is to fairly judge scientific research. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:53, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
MAnderson, you are extraordinarily naive if you imagine that scientists espousing [[Atheistic]] or [[Liberal]] views somehow turn those views 'off' when conducting research. If one's entire world outlook is distorted in such a way, it affects everything one does - consciously or otherwise. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:38, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

:Bugler - do you believe avowedly Christian scientists can turn their beliefs off when conducting research? [[User:StanleyAccrington|StanleyAccrington]] 13:46, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

:: In reply to both Bugler and Stan, I guess I prefer to believe that people are basically good and will at least try to take the high road when given the chance. If that is being naive then so be it. Have a great day! [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

:::As a scientist myself, it's patently obvious that anybody who is unable to turn off personal feelings/beliefs and not have them affect their interpretation of data is, by definition, a bad scientist. Data doesn't lie. They are observed facts. If you allow bias to creep into the mix, you're carrying out poor science. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:54, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

::::You're being too naive if you think every scientist in the world is completely honest and wouldn't (mis?)interpret the data in a way that wouldn't contradict his worldview. Just look at the Global Warming crowd. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 18:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

== An Interesting Lenski Quote ==

From the first of the two papers Rutm linked:

<blockquote>
I think the same facts of evolution--with the perpetual struggle for existence and genetic rewards for selfishness--could just as easily be used to support a religion that both Dr. Hefner and I would find repugnant.
</blockquote>

Is it me, or is Dr. Lenski admitting that evolution can be used to support some extremely nasty philosophies? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:I believe he's saying one could '''*attempt*''' to use it justify practically anything. But more likely, one would probably be committing something akin to a naturalistic fallacy in so doing.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== Statistical Significance ==
The 2 instances in the little table that imply that statistical significance or lack thereof should be reported look a bit silly. The first phrase refers to the statement by Blount et al. that "A number of Cit+ clones were isolated..." on p7900. Asking how many is all well and good. But it appears the researchers decided how many to isolate, and it is nonsensical to ask about significance. The second phrase refers to the end of the sentence: "all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected." It is potentially a bit more relevant here, but still doesn't make a lot of sense to simply ask generally about statistical significance - compared to what? Calculating significance is a way of testing the probability of sampling error, if that helps. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Visual Inspection ==
The methodology here is what's important, and they clearly write that the "LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time." The observations for which you are requesting data seem to be the kind of observations that aren't recorded, because they do not need to be. I'll give you an example from my experiences in the lab: when I perform an electrophoresis gel run, I have to make an agarose gel. Every time I do so I follow the recipe taped to our microwave: 40mL TAE buffer, 400mg Agarose. It's a given in our lab that all our gels are 1%, unless otherwise stated. Likewise, it seems likely that somebody working in Lenski's lab will, when checking for turbidity, do so by holding up a tube of culture, observe, "Yep, that's turbid," and continue on with the procedure as outlined in their protocol. If Lenski's lab is more diligent than the one in which I work, then we are still dealing with the kind of data that never leave a graduate student's notebook. Again, what data do you want, a table containing the exact same information every day ''(June 6, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 7, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 8, 1999 - Che...)''? Or would only scans of graduate students' notebook pages suffice? --[[User:Codyc|Codyc]] 20:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

E.V.O.: Search for Eden

2008-07-03T20:09:57Z

WilliamH:

'''E.V.O.: Search for Eden''' is a [[side-scrolling]] [[platform]] [[video game]] developed by [[Almanic]] and published by [[Enix]] in 1992 for the [[Super Nintendo]]. The game contains [[occult]] references and promotes [[Darwinism]] to young children.

==Gameplay==

The main character is an animal who starts as a [[fish]] and eventually evolves into an [[amphibian]], then to a [[dinosaur]] and then the player may choose to evolve to a [[bird]] or to a [[mammal]] (and possibly a [[human]]). The player may also choose to evolve parts of his body such as his neck or jaw, body size, etc., and his options vary according to the form he is currently in. The player does this primarily by killing other animals (in the game's context, this includes humans and other [[hominids]]) and then eating their flesh which earns him "Evolution points" that are then used to evolve.

==Story==

The story recounts the history of [[evolution]] of life on the planet [[Earth]] in which the living beings are in a competition to survive and evolve, as only the greatest species will be allowed entrance to the "Garden of Eden" as Gaia's partner, the planet's [[Goddess]], and dominate the earth. Throughout the game the player finds creatures that haven't evolved with the same rhythm as the other species and thus are interrupting the natural course of evolution, the player must then kill them to restore the evolutionary process to normality. It is later found out that the creatures' development was enhanced by [[aliens]] from the planet [[Mars]].

[[Category:Video Games]]

E.V.O.: Search for Eden

2008-07-03T19:53:56Z

WilliamH:

'''E.V.O.: Search for Eden''' is a [[side-scrolling]] [[platform]] [[video game]] developed by [[Almanic]] and published by [[Enix]] in 1992 for the [[Super Nintendo]]. The promotes [[Darwinism]] to young children.

==Gameplay==

The main character is an animal who starts as a [[fish]] and eventually evolves into an [[amphibian]], then to a [[dinosaur]] and then the player may choose to evolve to a [[bird]] or to a [[mammal]] (and possibly a [[human]]). The player may also choose to evolve parts of his body such as his neck or jaw, body size, etc. primarily by killing other animals (in the game's context, this includes humans and other [[hominids]]) and then eating their flesh which earns him "Evolution points" that are used to evolve.

==Story==

The story recounts the history of [[evolution]] of life on the planet [[Earth]] in which the living beings are in a competition to survive and evolve, as only the greatest species will be allowed entrance to the "Garden of Eden" as Gaia's partner, the planet's [[Goddess]], and dominate the earth. Throughout the game the player finds creatures that haven't evolved with the same rhythm as the other species and thus are interrupting the natural course of evolution, the player must then kill them to restore the evolutionary process to normality. It is later found out that the creatures' development was enhanced by aliens from the planet [[Mars]].

[[Category:Video Games]]

Litre

2008-07-03T19:29:59Z

WilliamH: Redirecting to Liter

#redirect [[Liter]]

ESRB

2008-07-03T18:39:04Z

WilliamH: /* Content Descriptors */

The '''Entertainment Software Rating Board''' (abbreviated as "ESRB") is a non-[[profit]] self-regulatory major [[rating]] organization in the [[United States]], it enforces ratings, [[advertising]] guidelines and helps ensure online [[privacy]] practices for the [[software]] industry, most notably [[video games]].

It uses a series of symbols for its ratings (EC, E, E10+, T, M, AO, RP) as well as a brief description of the content involved (e.g. "Strong Language"), see above for an explanation of these. It must be noted, however, that the ESRB doesn't strictly enforce older ages for titles with content that goes against [[Christian]] values, and should be used as a starting point in your consideration of a game.

==History==

The ESRB was established in September 1994 after [[Video game controversy|controversies surrounding video games]] due to the improved quality of 16-bit systems that allowed video game companies to create [[Violent video games|violent products]] where inappropriate material (for example, blood spilling) could be seen clearly. After congressional hearings held in 1992 and 1993, the software industry was given one year to establish a rating system or the [[federal government]] would create its own, resulting in the formation of various systems such as the 3DO Rating System and those of the Videogame Rating Council (VRC) and the Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSAC). The ESRB was formed after being presented and approved in Congress, eventually leading all companies to follow their ratings.

==Rating System<ref>http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp</ref>==

===Rating symbols===
They are a black-and-white rectangular logo with the rating's name and a prominent codification of the rating in few alphanumeric characters. The ESRB describes them as follows:

[[Image:Ratingsymbol ec.gif|30px]]'''Early Childhood (EC)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol e.gif|30px]]'''Everyone (E)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal [[cartoon]], [[fantasy]] or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol e10.gif|30px]]'''Everyone 10+ (E10+)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol t.gif|30px]]'''Teen (T)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated [[gambling]], and/or infrequent use of strong language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol m.gif|30px]]'''Mature (M)''': Have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and [[gore]], sexual content and/or strong language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol ao.gif|30px]]'''Adults Only (AO)''': Have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol rp.gif|30px]]'''Rating Pending (RP)''': Have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)

Additionally, there's the no longer used '''Kids to Adults (K-A)''' rating that was replaced by the '''Everyone (E)''' mentioned above.

===Content Descriptors===

These are brief explanations for the content within the game. They consist of a title and an explanation of the respective content as follows:

* '''Alcohol Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[alcoholic]] beverages.
* '''Animated Blood''' - Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of [[blood]]
* '''Blood''' - Depictions of blood
* '''Blood and Gore''' - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts
* '''Cartoon Violence''' - [[Violent]] actions involving [[cartoon]]-like situations and characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted
* '''Comic Mischief''' - Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor
* '''Crude Humor''' - Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including “bathroom” humor
* '''Drug Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[illegal drugs]]
* '''Fantasy Violence''' - Violent actions of a [[fantasy]] nature, involving [[human]] or non-human characters in situations easily distinguishable from real life
* '''Intense Violence''' - Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, [[gore]], [[weapons]] and depictions of human injury and [[death]]
* '''Language''' - Mild to moderate use of [[profanity]]
* '''Lyrics''' - Mild references to profanity, sexuality, violence, alcohol or drug use in [[music]]
* '''Mature Humor''' - Depictions or dialogue involving "adult" humor, including sexual references
* '''Nudity''' - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity
* '''Partial Nudity''' - Brief and/or mild depictions of nudity
* '''Real Gambling''' - Player can [[gamble]], including betting or wagering real cash or currency
* '''Sexual Content''' - Non-explicit depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including partial nudity
* '''Sexual Themes''' - References to sex or sexuality
* '''Sexual Violence''' - Depictions of rape or other violent sexual acts
* '''Simulated Gambling''' - Player can gamble without betting or wagering real cash or currency
* '''Strong Language''' - Explicit and/or frequent use of profanity
* '''Strong Lyrics''' - Explicit and/or frequent references to profanity, sex, violence, alcohol or drug use in music
* '''Strong Sexual Content''' - Explicit and/or frequent depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity
* '''Suggestive Themes''' - Mild provocative references or materials
* '''Tobacco Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[tobacco]] products
* '''Use of Drugs''' - The consumption or use of illegal drugs
* '''Use of Alcohol''' - The consumption of alcoholic beverages
* '''Use of Tobacco''' - The consumption of tobacco products
* '''Violence''' - Scenes involving aggressive conflict. May contain bloodless dismemberment
* '''Violent References''' - References to violent acts

The word "mild" may be used to imply a lesser severity of the inappropriateness of the content described (for example "Mild Lyrics").

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
[http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp Official site]

[[Category:Video Games]]

Video games

2008-07-02T18:03:59Z

WilliamH:

'''Video games''' are electronic games commonly played by a wide portion of the population.<ref>[http://www.pan-o-matic.com/blog/?p=45 Only a third of videogamers are under 18]</ref> A large number of young adults, having grown up in the era of video games, also play. Some video games such as [[sports]] games and educational games are harmless [[fun]] and can actually be beneficial to a child's development, especially if they allow more than one player. Some games though are violent and sexually explicit and have attracted the attention of family groups and [[conservative]] [[Christian]]s. Games such as [[Grand Theft Auto]] are very violent, sexually explicit, feature [[criminal]] behavior and some even encourage it. [[Law]]s have been passed to limit young people's access to these violent games but these laws are either rarely enforced or overturned by judges due to the [[First Amendment]].<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> Some people argue that violent video games cause violent behaviour in some children, especially those under 16 whose mind is still not fully developed, but such a link has yet to be conclusively proven.
Serious crimes, including murder, have been associated with video games. For example, a 14-year-old brutally murdered a video arcade employee one morning and his cousin stands trial for murdering the store manager when he entered the store shortly thereafter.<ref>http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1212467732102240.xml&coll=1</ref>
In the [[United States|USA]], the majority of games carry ratings from the [[ESRB]], a video game ratings organization.

== Various genres ==

Video games in the course of their existence have grown from the simple arcade style games, and have become more detailed and separated from one another. Genres can now include [[first person shooters]], [[racing]], [[Simulation game|simulation]], [[role-playing]], [[sports]], [[action]] and many others. Even then, games can combine genres, such as "Mass Effect" (Role Playing and Third Person Shooting), or not fit nicely into any genre, like "Katamari Damacy".

== Popularity & Controversy ==

Games have risen in popularity over the years, as is shown in the rise of video games sales from the 1980s until today. This has brought with it a various amount of controversy as the video game industry continues to grow with its original player base.

===Violence===

Most of the controversy comes from the rising trend toward violence in video games, as pioneered by [[Doom (video game series)|Doom]], [[Quake]], and the [[Grand Theft Auto]] series. One man in particular, [[Jack Thompson]], has imposed a one-man crusade against video games, which has made him a target of both the online gamer community and of the mainstream media.

At least one study has shown that, contrary to the position mentioned above, kids who don't play video games at all seem to show more violent tendencies. Of course, as expected, those who played violent video games for large amounts of time also showed violent tendencies, however the study claims that this is a "risk marker", not an actual cause. <ref>http://wii.qj.net/New-research-reveals-kids-who-don-t-play-videogames-at-all-are-more-at-risk-of-violent-tendencies/pg/49/aid/118505 New research reveals kids who don't play video games at all are more at risk of violent tendencies</ref>

Multiple studies have shown a correlation between violent video games and levels of real life violence, caused by exposure to the aforementioned video games.<ref>http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html</ref>

===Sexuality===

Although nudity is not prominent in [[western]] video games, there are various products containing this kind of material. Additionally, a large quantity games contain overly-sexualized characters (for example, female characters wearing revealing clothes) or references. One notable target of controversy is the [[Grand Theft Auto]] series after a patch was released that allowed the player to engage in a minigame containing explicit sexual material. Other sources of this criticism relate to the game [[Tomb Raider]] as it was one of the first games where a female character (the protagonist) is depicted with large breasts and advertised as a sex symbol.<ref>Ashley, Robert. "The Secret History of Videogame Sex." Official Playstation Magazine Feb. 2006: 96-99.</ref>

== Video Games & Society ==

As video games become more popular, their impact on society becomes ever more present. A prime example of this is the massive ad campaigns for the [[Halo (game)|Halo]] series, as well as [[Grand Theft Auto]]. Advertising, merchandising, and even social pressures have changed in the ever-growing influence of video gaming.

Due to their popularity, various corporations have begun placing advertisements for their products within the context of the game. [[Second Life]], an Internet-based virtual world, has blurred the lines between real-world and virtual world, and companies such as Adidas, Reebok, and Dell have set up virtual stores selling real-world products within the game. [[Reuters]] also operates a news bureau reporting news in the game.

== Faith in Video Games ==

Faith in Video Gaming has, as a rule, either led to the creation of new and dynamic antagonists, or video games that are mediocre, such as ''Spiritual Warfare'' and ''Bible Adventure'' for the Nintendo, or ''The Bible Game'' for various systems.

The Bible, or other such religious texts, are rather used to tell a story spanning many different viewpoints. Turning these ideas into a video game, however, most often leads to games that tend to bore most video game audiences.

Religion has, however, taken a prominent place amongst the various heroes and villains in video games. The [[Breath of Fire Series]] and the [[Shin Megami Tensei]] games, in particular, use God as a main antagonist in many of its incarnations. Other games to use religion, in some way, include Final Fantasy, [[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]], [[Black and White]], [[Xenogears]], and [[Okami]].

Video game reviewers have sometimes unjustly attacked and reviewed games where religion plays a notable role. One of the most prominent examples of this is the game [[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]].<ref>http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind</ref>

==Popular Video games==
*[[Halo]] - A trilogy of games following a super soldier during a future war. Contains [[violence]]
*[[Gears of War]] - Mankind has been utterly annihilated by unknown race of beings. Not suitable for children.
*[[Age of Empires]] - A [[RTS]] in which the player leads an ancient civilization. Slightly violent.
*[[Civilization]] - A family-friendly strategy game in which the player leads a civilization from it's birth, and into the future.
*[[Call of Duty]] - A [[FPS]] in which a player is either a soldier in World War II or a soldier involved in the War on Terror.
*[[Medal of Honor]] - Player is thrust into the front lines of World War II.
*[[Guitar Hero]] - A game where players play the role of the [[guitar]]ist in a band. Uses a special controller in the shape of and played similarly to a guitar. Contains music and other themes not appropriate for children.
*[[Assassins Creed]] - Taking place during the [[Crusades]]. Play as Altair, and kill leaders from both sides to stop a deadly plot.
*Final Fantasy - A very popular [[RPG]] series in both the [[United States]] and [[Japan]]. Some games may not be suitable for children.
*[[Grand Theft Auto]] - A game series about several different characters who perform missions to rise to the top by using violence and other methods.
*[[Half-life|Half-Life]] - First Person Shooter series about Gordon Freeman, a luckless scientist turned hero-from-desperation. Contains violence
*[[Harvest Moon]] - Farm Life simulator, with many sequels spreading from various platforms. Character runs a farm, raises animals, and can eventually marry. Until recent incarnations, games had no violence. Rated E [6+] to T [13+].
*[[The Legend of Zelda]] - A popular series of fantasy action-adventure games.
*[[Mass Effect]] - A science fiction RPG rated "M" for blood, language, partial nudity, sexual themes, and violence.
*[[NHL]] Series - This series from EA Sports as well as other NHL series are very popular, especially in Canada.{{fact}} Most are family friendly with less violence as seen on NHL hockey on television (which actually can get quite violent). There is, obviously, no sexuality.
*[[Pac-Man]]. An old maze game. It was very popular with kids and adults back in the eighties, and like most old video games it's a clean, family friendly, fun game for everyone.
*[[Portal]] - A popular first person shooter/puzzle game using the same game engine as Half-Life 2 involving teleportation.
*[[Resident Evil]] - Survival/horror video game series, revolving around viral zombies and the survivors of the zombie attacks. Copious blood, gore, and violence present. As of date, all games in series have been rated M [17+].
*[[The Sims]] - A light-hearted life simulator with mild violence and some sexuality. Recommended for 13 and up.
*[[Super Smash Brothers]] - Series of Nintendo Animated fighting games. Follows no specific story, mixing characters from different franchises in wide environments. Contains animated, no-blood violence.
*[[Soul Calibur]] - A weapon-based fighting game. Revolves around the tale of two weapons, Soul Edge [Cursed] and Soul Calibur [Blessed], and those who fight for control of the weapons.
*[[Street Fighter]] - One-on-one [[martial arts]] fighting game series, where a player selects one of various martial artists and battles other players or against computer-controlled characters. Since this game has mildly revealing dresses for the female fighters and sometimes a little blood during fights, though nowhere as over-the-top as [[Mortal Kombat]], this game is recommended for teens.
*[[Super Mario Bros.]] - Side-scrolling platform game series by [[Nintendo]]. Players play as Mario and Luigi, two Italian-American plumber brothers from [[Brooklyn]], who explore the Mushroom Kingdom in order to rescue Princess Peach from the evil Bowser Koopa. This game has no violence (except in fantasy form) and no sexual content, so it is suitable for all ages.
*[[Tomb Raider]] - Series of games following the adventures of Lara Croft. All have been rated "T" (Teen) due to mild violence.

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]
*[[Jack Thompson]]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Video games

2008-07-02T18:00:10Z

WilliamH: /* Popularity & Controversy */ Per talk page.

'''Video games''' are electronic games commonly played by a wide portion of the population.<ref>[http://www.pan-o-matic.com/blog/?p=45 Only a third of videogamers are under 18]</ref> A large number of young adults, having grown up in the era of video games, also play. Some video games such as [[sports]] games and educational games are harmless [[fun]] and can actually be beneficial to a child's development, especially if they allow more than one player. Some games though are violent and sexually explicit and have attracted the attention of family groups and [[conservative]] [[Christian]]s. Games such as [[Grand Theft Auto]] are very violent, sexually explicit, feature [[criminal]] behavior and some even encourage it. [[Law]]s have been passed to limit young people's access to these violent games but these laws are either rarely enforced or overturned by judges due to the [[First Amendment]].<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> Some people argue that violent video games cause violent behaviour in some children, especially those under 16 whose mind is still not fully developed, but such a link has yet to be conclusively proven.
Serious crimes, including murder, have been associated with video games. For example, a 14-year-old brutally murdered a video arcade employee one morning and his cousin stands trial for murdering the store manager when he entered the store shortly thereafter.<ref>http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1212467732102240.xml&coll=1</ref>
In the [[United States|USA]], the majority of games carry ratings from the [[ESRB]], a video game ratings organization.

== Various genres ==

Video games in the course of their existence have grown from the simple arcade style games, and have become more detailed and separated from one another. Genres can now include [[first person shooters]], [[racing]], [[Simulation game|simulation]], [[role-playing]], [[sports]], [[action]] and many others. Even then, games can combine genres, such as "Mass Effect" (Role Playing and Third Person Shooting), or not fit nicely into any genre, like "Katamari Damacy".

== Popularity & Controversy ==

Games have risen in popularity over the years, as is shown in the rise of video games sales from the 1980s until today. This has brought with it a various amount of controversy as the video game industry continues to grow with its original player base.

===Violence===

Most of the controversy comes from the rising trend toward violence in video games, as pioneered by [[Doom (video game series)|Doom]], [[Quake]], and the [[Grand Theft Auto]] series. One man in particular, [[Jack Thompson]], has imposed a one-man crusade against video games, which has made him a target of both the online gamer community and of the mainstream media.

At least one study has shown that, contrary to the position mentioned above, kids who don't play video games at all seem to show more violent tendencies. Of course, as expected, those who played violent video games for large amounts of time also showed violent tendencies, however the study claims that this is a "risk marker", not an actual cause. <ref>http://wii.qj.net/New-research-reveals-kids-who-don-t-play-videogames-at-all-are-more-at-risk-of-violent-tendencies/pg/49/aid/118505 New research reveals kids who don't play video games at all are more at risk of violent tendencies</ref>

Multiple studies have shown a correlation between violent video games and levels of real life violence, caused by exposure to the aforementioned video games.<ref>http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html</ref>

===Sexuality===

Although nudity is not prominent in [[western]] video games, there are various products containing this kind of material. Additionally, a large quantity games contain overly-sexualized characters (for example, female characters wearing revealing clothes) or references. One notable target of controversy is the [[Grand Theft Auto]] series after a patch was released that allowed the player to engage in a minigame containing explicit sexual material. Other sources of this criticism relate to the game [[Tomb Raider]] as it was one of the first games where a female character (the protagonist) is depicted with large breasts and advertised as a sex symbol.

== Video Games & Society ==

As video games become more popular, their impact on society becomes ever more present. A prime example of this is the massive ad campaigns for the [[Halo (game)|Halo]] series, as well as [[Grand Theft Auto]]. Advertising, merchandising, and even social pressures have changed in the ever-growing influence of video gaming.

Due to their popularity, various corporations have begun placing advertisements for their products within the context of the game. [[Second Life]], an Internet-based virtual world, has blurred the lines between real-world and virtual world, and companies such as Adidas, Reebok, and Dell have set up virtual stores selling real-world products within the game. [[Reuters]] also operates a news bureau reporting news in the game.

== Faith in Video Games ==

Faith in Video Gaming has, as a rule, either led to the creation of new and dynamic antagonists, or video games that are mediocre, such as ''Spiritual Warfare'' and ''Bible Adventure'' for the Nintendo, or ''The Bible Game'' for various systems.

The Bible, or other such religious texts, are rather used to tell a story spanning many different viewpoints. Turning these ideas into a video game, however, most often leads to games that tend to bore most video game audiences.

Religion has, however, taken a prominent place amongst the various heroes and villains in video games. The [[Breath of Fire Series]] and the [[Shin Megami Tensei]] games, in particular, use God as a main antagonist in many of its incarnations. Other games to use religion, in some way, include Final Fantasy, [[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]], [[Black and White]], [[Xenogears]], and [[Okami]].

Video game reviewers have sometimes unjustly attacked and reviewed games where religion plays a notable role. One of the most prominent examples of this is the game [[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]].<ref>http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind</ref>

==Popular Video games==
*[[Halo]] - A trilogy of games following a super soldier during a future war. Contains [[violence]]
*[[Gears of War]] - Mankind has been utterly annihilated by unknown race of beings. Not suitable for children.
*[[Age of Empires]] - A [[RTS]] in which the player leads an ancient civilization. Slightly violent.
*[[Civilization]] - A family-friendly strategy game in which the player leads a civilization from it's birth, and into the future.
*[[Call of Duty]] - A [[FPS]] in which a player is either a soldier in World War II or a soldier involved in the War on Terror.
*[[Medal of Honor]] - Player is thrust into the front lines of World War II.
*[[Guitar Hero]] - A game where players play the role of the [[guitar]]ist in a band. Uses a special controller in the shape of and played similarly to a guitar. Contains music and other themes not appropriate for children.
*[[Assassins Creed]] - Taking place during the [[Crusades]]. Play as Altair, and kill leaders from both sides to stop a deadly plot.
*Final Fantasy - A very popular [[RPG]] series in both the [[United States]] and [[Japan]]. Some games may not be suitable for children.
*[[Grand Theft Auto]] - A game series about several different characters who perform missions to rise to the top by using violence and other methods.
*[[Half-life|Half-Life]] - First Person Shooter series about Gordon Freeman, a luckless scientist turned hero-from-desperation. Contains violence
*[[Harvest Moon]] - Farm Life simulator, with many sequels spreading from various platforms. Character runs a farm, raises animals, and can eventually marry. Until recent incarnations, games had no violence. Rated E [6+] to T [13+].
*[[The Legend of Zelda]] - A popular series of fantasy action-adventure games.
*[[Mass Effect]] - A science fiction RPG rated "M" for blood, language, partial nudity, sexual themes, and violence.
*[[NHL]] Series - This series from EA Sports as well as other NHL series are very popular, especially in Canada.{{fact}} Most are family friendly with less violence as seen on NHL hockey on television (which actually can get quite violent). There is, obviously, no sexuality.
*[[Pac-Man]]. An old maze game. It was very popular with kids and adults back in the eighties, and like most old video games it's a clean, family friendly, fun game for everyone.
*[[Portal]] - A popular first person shooter/puzzle game using the same game engine as Half-Life 2 involving teleportation.
*[[Resident Evil]] - Survival/horror video game series, revolving around viral zombies and the survivors of the zombie attacks. Copious blood, gore, and violence present. As of date, all games in series have been rated M [17+].
*[[The Sims]] - A light-hearted life simulator with mild violence and some sexuality. Recommended for 13 and up.
*[[Super Smash Brothers]] - Series of Nintendo Animated fighting games. Follows no specific story, mixing characters from different franchises in wide environments. Contains animated, no-blood violence.
*[[Soul Calibur]] - A weapon-based fighting game. Revolves around the tale of two weapons, Soul Edge [Cursed] and Soul Calibur [Blessed], and those who fight for control of the weapons.
*[[Street Fighter]] - One-on-one [[martial arts]] fighting game series, where a player selects one of various martial artists and battles other players or against computer-controlled characters. Since this game has mildly revealing dresses for the female fighters and sometimes a little blood during fights, though nowhere as over-the-top as [[Mortal Kombat]], this game is recommended for teens.
*[[Super Mario Bros.]] - Side-scrolling platform game series by [[Nintendo]]. Players play as Mario and Luigi, two Italian-American plumber brothers from [[Brooklyn]], who explore the Mushroom Kingdom in order to rescue Princess Peach from the evil Bowser Koopa. This game has no violence (except in fantasy form) and no sexual content, so it is suitable for all ages.
*[[Tomb Raider]] - Series of games following the adventures of Lara Croft. All have been rated "T" (Teen) due to mild violence.

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]
*[[Jack Thompson]]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Computers]]

E

2008-07-02T17:29:10Z

WilliamH:

{{lowercase}}
'''''e''''' is a useful [[mathematical]] constant which is a [[transcendental]] number approximately equal to 2.718281828459045 . ''e'' can be used in [[logarithm]]s as the base, called a [[natural logarithm]]. ''e'' is named for [[Swiss]] [[mathematician]] [[Leonhard Euler]], though he did not discover the constant.

It has some remarkable properties that its [[exponential]] to any [[real number]] <math>x</math> is:

:<math>\frac{d}{dx}e^x = e^x.</math>

The exponetial function is the [[eigenfunction]] of the [[derivative]] operator.

==Formulae for ''e''==
*With limits - <math>e=\lim_{x\to\infty}\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right)^x</math> 
*With infinite series - <math>e=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}</math>

[[category:mathematics]]

ESRB

2008-07-02T17:27:06Z

WilliamH: /* Content Descriptors */

The '''Entertainment Software Rating Board''' (abbreviated as "ESRB") is a non-[[profit]] self-regulatory major [[rating]] organization in the [[United States]], it enforces ratings, [[advertising]] guidelines and helps ensure online [[privacy]] practices for the [[software]] industry, most notably [[video games]].

It uses a series of symbols for its ratings (EC, E, E10+, T, M, AO, RP) as well as a brief description of the content involved (e.g. "Strong Language"), see above for an explanation of these. It must be noted, however, that the ESRB doesn't strictly enforce older ages for titles with content that goes against [[Christian]] values, and should be used as a starting point in your consideration of a game.

==History==

The ESRB was established in September 1994 after [[Video game controversy|controversies surrounding video games]] due to the improved quality of 16-bit systems that allowed video game companies to create [[Violent video games|violent products]] where inappropriate material (for example, blood spilling) could be seen clearly. After congressional hearings held in 1992 and 1993, the software industry was given one year to establish a rating system or the [[federal government]] would create its own, resulting in the formation of various systems such as the 3DO Rating System and those of the Videogame Rating Council (VRC) and the Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSAC). The ESRB was formed after being presented and approved in Congress, eventually leading all companies to follow their ratings.

==Rating System<ref>http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp</ref>==

===Rating symbols===
They are a black-and-white rectangular logo with the rating's name and a prominent codification of the rating in few alphanumeric characters. The ESRB describes them as follows:

[[Image:Ratingsymbol ec.gif|30px]]'''Early Childhood (EC)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol e.gif|30px]]'''Everyone (E)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal [[cartoon]], [[fantasy]] or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol e10.gif|30px]]'''Everyone 10+ (E10+)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol t.gif|30px]]'''Teen (T)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated [[gambling]], and/or infrequent use of strong language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol m.gif|30px]]'''Mature (M)''': Have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and [[gore]], sexual content and/or strong language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol ao.gif|30px]]'''Adults Only (AO)''': Have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol rp.gif|30px]]'''Rating Pending (RP)''': Have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)

Additionally, there's the no longer used '''Kids to Adults (K-A)''' rating that was replaced by the '''Everyone (E)''' mentioned above.

===Content Descriptors===
These are brief explanations for the content within the game. The word "mild" may be used to imply a lesser severity of the inappropriateness of the content described (for example "Mild Lyrics"). They consist of a title and an explanation of the respective content:

* '''Alcohol Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[alcoholic]] beverages.
* '''Animated Blood''' - Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of [[blood]]
* '''Blood''' - Depictions of blood
* '''Blood and Gore''' - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts
* '''Cartoon Violence''' - [[Violent]] actions involving [[cartoon]]-like situations and characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted
* '''Comic Mischief''' - Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor
* '''Crude Humor''' - Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including “bathroom” humor
* '''Drug Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[illegal drugs]]
* '''Fantasy Violence''' - Violent actions of a [[fantasy]] nature, involving [[human]] or non-human characters in situations easily distinguishable from real life
* '''Intense Violence''' - Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, [[gore]], [[weapons]] and depictions of human injury and [[death]]
* '''Language''' - Mild to moderate use of [[profanity]]
* '''Lyrics''' - Mild references to profanity, sexuality, violence, alcohol or drug use in [[music]]
* '''Mature Humor''' - Depictions or dialogue involving "adult" humor, including sexual references
* '''Nudity''' - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity
* '''Partial Nudity''' - Brief and/or mild depictions of nudity
* '''Real Gambling''' - Player can [[gamble]], including betting or wagering real cash or currency
* '''Sexual Content''' - Non-explicit depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including partial nudity
* '''Sexual Themes''' - References to sex or sexuality
* '''Sexual Violence''' - Depictions of rape or other violent sexual acts
* '''Simulated Gambling''' - Player can gamble without betting or wagering real cash or currency
* '''Strong Language''' - Explicit and/or frequent use of profanity
* '''Strong Lyrics''' - Explicit and/or frequent references to profanity, sex, violence, alcohol or drug use in music
* '''Strong Sexual Content''' - Explicit and/or frequent depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity
* '''Suggestive Themes''' - Mild provocative references or materials
* '''Tobacco Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[tobacco]] products
* '''Use of Drugs''' - The consumption or use of illegal drugs
* '''Use of Alcohol''' - The consumption of alcoholic beverages
* '''Use of Tobacco''' - The consumption of tobacco products
* '''Violence''' - Scenes involving aggressive conflict. May contain bloodless dismemberment
* '''Violent References''' - References to violent acts

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
[http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp Official site]

[[Category:Video Games]]

2008-07-02T17:19:07Z

WilliamH: /* Criticism section */

I'm confused about why my edit was reverted. [[User:TrueClarity|TrueClarity]] 17:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I've made a section below. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:58, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

==Criticism section==
{{cquote|Pokémon has drawn some criticism from family groups, who claim that its portrayals of [[psychic]] powers and [[homosexuality]] are a negative influence on children. In addition, the franchise depicts children as young as eight traveling around the country with little to no adult supervision, perhaps leading to an increased number of [[runaways]].}}

I'm not sure if the editor is serious or not (the Bill Clinton edit makes me doubt it a bit), but I'm giving it the benefit of doubt.

I removed the above section. My point-by-point thoughts:
#I can sorta-kinda see the "psychic powers" argument since some people were also up in arms about magic in Harry Potter.
#It's been a while since I watched Pokemon, but I have no memories of homosexuality being in it. Source, if you're serious.
#I also sorta-kinda see the "runaways" argument, but it's even weaker than the psychic-power one. Pokemon has been on for how many centuries now? If there was an increase in Pokemon-inspired runaway cases, there must be reliable sources mentioning them.

So, if the editor was serious, please give some sources instead of just handwaving that there ''might'' be something. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:58, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:I don't remember the sources, but I have definitely seen arguments that the psychic powers and magic in Pokemon are negative influences. As for the homosexuality, what about the character James? He crossdresses regularly. In addition the new season apparently contains a character named Harley, who dresses in a skintight feminine outfit, uses feminine speech patterns in the original Japanese dialog, and makes passes at other male characters. [[User:TrueClarity|TrueClarity]] 18:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::"I don't remember the sources" is a pretty bad way to start in an encyclopedia project. Considering that you apparently see crossdressing as an indicator of homosexuality, I'm ''really'' going to ask for reliable/notable sources. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:14, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I've never heard about the runaway thing, but the psychic powers and the cross-dressing criticisms are real. There's actually more criticisms like some pokemon being satanic in nature (and not just because they have psychic powers), the use of "magical" stones to make pokemons evolve, and evolution itself (these last two are unfounded if you ask me, but the criticism itself exists.) [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 13:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Acinetobacter

2008-06-30T18:08:11Z

WilliamH:

'''Acinetobacter''' is an [[aerobic]], gram-negative [[bacteria]] typically found in [[water]] sources in [[soil]]. Although it has a very low [[virulence]], acinetobacter can cause [[flourish]] in organ systems which contain a high level of [[fluid]], such as [[respiratory secretions]], [[urine]], and in rare cases [[synovial fluid]] post-operatively. Most isolates represent colonization rather than infection.<ref>"Burke A Cunha, MD (2007) [http://www.emedicine.com/MED/topic3456.htm "Acinetobacter"]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Microbiology]]

Acinetobacter

2008-06-30T18:07:01Z

WilliamH:

Proving

2008-06-30T18:00:49Z

WilliamH: Redirecting to Proof

#redirect [[Proof]]

Proofs

2008-06-30T18:00:25Z

WilliamH: Redirecting to Proof

#redirect [[Proof]]

Infinitude

2008-06-30T17:59:56Z

WilliamH: Redirecting to Infinity

#redirect [[Infinity]]

Prove

2008-06-30T17:59:38Z

WilliamH: Redirecting to Proof

#redirect [[Proof]]

Reductio Ad Absurdum

2008-06-30T17:59:19Z

WilliamH:

'''Reductio ad absurdum''', also called '''proof by contradiction''', is a method of [[mathematical proof]]. It involves assuming the opposite of what one is trying to [[prove]], and showing that this would lead to a [[contradiction]]. It works by the [[law of the excluded middle]]. The proof typically follows this structure:

#Create an initial assumption
#Follow a series of axiomatically valid steps
#Reach a contradiction
#Therefore the initial assumption is incorrect

An example of this is [[Euclid]]'s proof of the [[infinitude]] of the [[Prime number|primes]]:

#Assume there are finitely many primes
#Take the product of all primes and call it ''N''. Since ''N+1'' is not in our finite set of primes, it must be composite
#By the [[fundamental theorem of arithmetic]], ''N+1'' has a prime factorization. But ''N+1'' is not divisible by any of the previous primes
#Since ''N+1'' is composite, there must be a prime missing from our set of primes. But this set contains all primes
#Therefore, our initial assumption ("there are finitely many primes") is invalid

[[Category:Mathematics]]

ESRB

2008-06-30T16:50:42Z

WilliamH:

The '''Entertainment Software Rating Board''' (abbreviated as "ESRB") is a non-[[profit]] self-regulatory major [[rating]] organization in the [[United States]], it enforces ratings, [[advertising]] guidelines and helps ensure online [[privacy]] practices for the [[software]] industry, most notably [[video games]].

It uses a series of symbols for its ratings (EC, E, E10+, T, M, AO, RP) as well as a brief description of the content involved (e.g. "Strong Language"), see above for an explanation of these. It must be noted, however, that the ESRB doesn't strictly enforce older ages for titles with content that goes against [[Christian]] values, and should be used as a starting point in your consideration of a game.

==History==

The ESRB was established in September 1994 after [[Video game controversy|controversies surrounding video games]] due to the improved quality of 16-bit systems that allowed video game companies to create [[Violent video games|violent products]] where inappropriate material (for example, blood spilling) could be seen clearly. After congressional hearings held in 1992 and 1993, the software industry was given one year to establish a rating system or the [[federal government]] would create its own, resulting in the formation of various systems such as the 3DO Rating System and those of the Videogame Rating Council (VRC) and the Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSAC). The ESRB was formed after being presented and approved in Congress, eventually leading all companies to follow their ratings.

==Rating System<ref>http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp</ref>==

===Rating symbols===
They are a black-and-white rectangular logo with the rating's name and a prominent codification of the rating in few alphanumeric characters. The ESRB describes them as follows:

[[Image:Ratingsymbol ec.gif|30px]]'''Early Childhood (EC)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol e.gif|30px]]'''Everyone (E)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal [[cartoon]], [[fantasy]] or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol e10.gif|30px]]'''Everyone 10+ (E10+)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol t.gif|30px]]'''Teen (T)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated [[gambling]], and/or infrequent use of strong language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol m.gif|30px]]'''Mature (M)''': Have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and [[gore]], sexual content and/or strong language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol ao.gif|30px]]'''Adults Only (AO)''': Have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol rp.gif|30px]]'''Rating Pending (RP)''': Have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)

Additionally, there's the no longer used '''Kids to Adults (K-A)''' rating that was replaced by the '''Everyone (E)''' mentioned above.

===Content Descriptors===
These are brief explanations for the content within the game. The word "mild" may be used to imply a lesser severity of the inappropriateness of the content described (for example "Mild Lyrics").

* '''Alcohol Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[alcoholic]] beverages.
* '''Animated Blood''' - Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of [[blood]]
* '''Blood''' - Depictions of blood
* '''Blood and Gore''' - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts
* '''Cartoon Violence''' - [[Violent]] actions involving [[cartoon]]-like situations and characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted
* '''Comic Mischief''' - Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor
* '''Crude Humor''' - Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including “bathroom” humor
* '''Drug Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[illegal drugs]]
* '''Fantasy Violence''' - Violent actions of a [[fantasy]] nature, involving [[human]] or non-human characters in situations easily distinguishable from real life
* '''Intense Violence''' - Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, [[gore]], [[weapons]] and depictions of human injury and [[death]]
* '''Language''' - Mild to moderate use of [[profanity]]
* '''Lyrics''' - Mild references to profanity, sexuality, violence, alcohol or drug use in [[music]]
* '''Mature Humor''' - Depictions or dialogue involving "adult" humor, including sexual references
* '''Nudity''' - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity
* '''Partial Nudity''' - Brief and/or mild depictions of nudity
* '''Real Gambling''' - Player can [[gamble]], including betting or wagering real cash or currency
* '''Sexual Content''' - Non-explicit depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including partial nudity
* '''Sexual Themes''' - References to sex or sexuality
* '''Sexual Violence''' - Depictions of rape or other violent sexual acts
* '''Simulated Gambling''' - Player can gamble without betting or wagering real cash or currency
* '''Strong Language''' - Explicit and/or frequent use of profanity
* '''Strong Lyrics''' - Explicit and/or frequent references to profanity, sex, violence, alcohol or drug use in music
* '''Strong Sexual Content''' - Explicit and/or frequent depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity
* '''Suggestive Themes''' - Mild provocative references or materials
* '''Tobacco Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[tobacco]] products
* '''Use of Drugs''' - The consumption or use of illegal drugs
* '''Use of Alcohol''' - The consumption of alcoholic beverages
* '''Use of Tobacco''' - The consumption of tobacco products
* '''Violence''' - Scenes involving aggressive conflict. May contain bloodless dismemberment
* '''Violent References''' - References to violent acts

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
[http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp Official site]

[[Category:Video Games]]

Grand Theft Auto

2008-06-30T16:19:13Z

WilliamH: Readding information removed by vandal.

'''Grand Theft Auto''' is a popular [[video game]] series that glamorizes car theft and other forms of [[illegal]] and [[immoral]] activity. Its title derives from police and legal classification of stealing car as a type of [[grand theft]]. It has been subject to criticism and controversy as it encourages the player to perform various [[crime]]s ranging from [[speeding]] to serial [[murder]]<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352835,00.html 'Grand Theft Auto' Promo Campaign Kept Quiet], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel]]'', April 28, 2008. "As Bellic, players can hijack cars, earn cash for criminal activities, flee from police, drive drunk, kill innocent bystanders and patronize strip clubs."</ref> which may contribute to an increase in aggressive behavior in the player.<ref>http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html</ref> One of the games, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, originally contained a minigame featuring adult content involving the main character and any of his girlfriends, it is activated through the use of a modification file called Hot Coffee mod. Rockstar North denied of ever creating the minigame.

==Games==
*Grand Theft Auto ([[PSX]], [[PC]], [[GBC]]. [[ESRB]] rating: M)
*Grand Theft Auto 2 ([[PSX]], [[PC]], [[Dreamcast]], [[GBC]]. [[ESRB]] rating: M)
*Grand Theft Auto III ([[PS2]], [[Xbox]], [[PC]]. [[ESRB]] rating: M)
*Grand Theft Auto: Vice City ([[PS2]], [[Xbox]], [[PC]]. [[ESRB]] rating: M)
*Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas ([[PS2]], [[Xbox]], [[PC]]. [[ESRB]] rating: AO (changed to M in the second edition (one with no minigame)))
*Grand Theft Auto Advance ([[GBA]]. [[ESRB]] rating: M)
*Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories ([[PSP]], [[PS2]]. [[ESRB]] rating: M)
*Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories ([[PSP]], [[PS2]]. [[ESRB]] rating: M)
*Grand Theft Auto IV ([[PS3]], [[XBox 360]]. [[ESRB]] rating: M)

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Video Games]]

ESRB

2008-06-27T01:00:11Z

WilliamH: /* Content Descriptors */

The '''Entertainment Software Rating Board''' (abbreviated as "ESRB") is a non-[[profit]] self-regulatory major [[rating]] organization in the [[United States]], it enforces ratings, [[advertising]] guidelines and helps ensure online [[privacy]] practices for the [[software]] industry, most notably [[video games]].

It uses a series of symbols for its ratings (EC, E, E10+, T, M, AO, RP) as well as a brief description of the content involved (e.g. "Strong Language"), see above for an explanation of these. It must be noted, however, that the ESRB doesn't strictly enforce older ages for titles with content that goes against [[Christian]] values, and should be used as a starting point in your consideration of a game.

==Rating System<ref>http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp</ref>==

===Rating symbols===
They are a black-and-white rectangular logo with the rating's name and a prominent codification of the rating in few alphanumeric characters. The ESRB describes them as follows:

[[Image:Ratingsymbol ec.gif|30px]]'''Early Childhood (EC)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol e.gif|30px]]'''Everyone (E)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal [[cartoon]], [[fantasy]] or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol e10.gif|30px]]'''Everyone 10+ (E10+)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol t.gif|30px]]'''Teen (T)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated [[gambling]], and/or infrequent use of strong language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol m.gif|30px]]'''Mature (M)''': Have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and [[gore]], sexual content and/or strong language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol ao.gif|30px]]'''Adults Only (AO)''': Have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol rp.gif|30px]]'''Rating Pending (RP)''': Have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)

Additionally, there's the no longer used '''Kids to Adults (K-A)''' rating that was replaced by the '''Everyone (E)''' mentioned above.

===Content Descriptors===
These are brief explanations for the content within the game. The word "mild" may be used to imply a lesser severity of the inappropriateness of the content described (for example "Mild Lyrics").

* '''Alcohol Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[alcoholic]] beverages.
* '''Animated Blood''' - Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of [[blood]]
* '''Blood''' - Depictions of blood
* '''Blood and Gore''' - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts
* '''Cartoon Violence''' - [[Violent]] actions involving [[cartoon]]-like situations and characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted
* '''Comic Mischief''' - Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor
* '''Crude Humor''' - Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including “bathroom” humor
* '''Drug Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[illegal drugs]]
* '''Fantasy Violence''' - Violent actions of a [[fantasy]] nature, involving [[human]] or non-human characters in situations easily distinguishable from real life
* '''Intense Violence''' - Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, [[gore]], [[weapons]] and depictions of human injury and [[death]]
* '''Language''' - Mild to moderate use of [[profanity]]
* '''Lyrics''' - Mild references to profanity, sexuality, violence, alcohol or drug use in [[music]]
* '''Mature Humor''' - Depictions or dialogue involving "adult" humor, including sexual references
* '''Nudity''' - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity
* '''Partial Nudity''' - Brief and/or mild depictions of nudity
* '''Real Gambling''' - Player can [[gamble]], including betting or wagering real cash or currency
* '''Sexual Content''' - Non-explicit depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including partial nudity
* '''Sexual Themes''' - References to sex or sexuality
* '''Sexual Violence''' - Depictions of rape or other violent sexual acts
* '''Simulated Gambling''' - Player can gamble without betting or wagering real cash or currency
* '''Strong Language''' - Explicit and/or frequent use of profanity
* '''Strong Lyrics''' - Explicit and/or frequent references to profanity, sex, violence, alcohol or drug use in music
* '''Strong Sexual Content''' - Explicit and/or frequent depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity
* '''Suggestive Themes''' - Mild provocative references or materials
* '''Tobacco Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[tobacco]] products
* '''Use of Drugs''' - The consumption or use of illegal drugs
* '''Use of Alcohol''' - The consumption of alcoholic beverages
* '''Use of Tobacco''' - The consumption of tobacco products
* '''Violence''' - Scenes involving aggressive conflict. May contain bloodless dismemberment
* '''Violent References''' - References to violent acts

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
[http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp Official site]

[[Category:Video Games]]

Alcoholic

2008-06-27T00:55:44Z

WilliamH: Redirecting to Alcohol

#redirect [[Alcohol]]

ESRB

2008-06-27T00:54:51Z

WilliamH:

The '''Entertainment Software Rating Board''' (abbreviated as "ESRB") is a non-[[profit]] self-regulatory major [[rating]] organization in the [[United States]], it enforces ratings, [[advertising]] guidelines and helps ensure online [[privacy]] practices for the [[software]] industry, most notably [[video games]].

It uses a series of symbols for its ratings (EC, E, E10+, T, M, AO, RP) as well as a brief description of the content involved (e.g. "Strong Language"), see above for an explanation of these. It must be noted, however, that the ESRB doesn't strictly enforce older ages for titles with content that goes against [[Christian]] values, and should be used as a starting point in your consideration of a game.

==Rating System<ref>http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp</ref>==

===Rating symbols===
They are a black-and-white rectangular logo with the rating's name and a prominent codification of the rating in few alphanumeric characters. The ESRB describes them as follows:

[[Image:Ratingsymbol ec.gif|30px]]'''Early Childhood (EC)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol e.gif|30px]]'''Everyone (E)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal [[cartoon]], [[fantasy]] or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol e10.gif|30px]]'''Everyone 10+ (E10+)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol t.gif|30px]]'''Teen (T)''': Have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated [[gambling]], and/or infrequent use of strong language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol m.gif|30px]]'''Mature (M)''': Have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and [[gore]], sexual content and/or strong language.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol ao.gif|30px]]'''Adults Only (AO)''': Have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

[[Image:Ratingsymbol rp.gif|30px]]'''Rating Pending (RP)''': Have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)

Additionally, there's the no longer used '''Kids to Adults (K-A)''' rating that was replaced by the '''Everyone (E)''' mentioned above.

===Content Descriptors===
* '''Alcohol Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[alcoholic]] beverages.
* '''Animated Blood''' - Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of [[blood]]
* '''Blood''' - Depictions of blood
* '''Blood and Gore''' - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts
* '''Cartoon Violence''' - [[Violent]] actions involving [[cartoon]]-like situations and characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted
* '''Comic Mischief''' - Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor
* '''Crude Humor''' - Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including “bathroom” humor
* '''Drug Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[illegal drugs]]
* '''Fantasy Violence''' - Violent actions of a [[fantasy]] nature, involving [[human]] or non-human characters in situations easily distinguishable from real life
* '''Intense Violence''' - Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, [[gore]], [[weapons]] and depictions of human injury and [[death]]
* '''Language''' - Mild to moderate use of [[profanity]]
* '''Lyrics''' - Mild references to profanity, sexuality, violence, alcohol or drug use in [[music]]
* '''Mature Humor''' - Depictions or dialogue involving "adult" humor, including sexual references
* '''Nudity''' - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity
* '''Partial Nudity''' - Brief and/or mild depictions of nudity
* '''Real Gambling''' - Player can [[gamble]], including betting or wagering real cash or currency
* '''Sexual Content''' - Non-explicit depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including partial nudity
* '''Sexual Themes''' - References to sex or sexuality
* '''Sexual Violence''' - Depictions of rape or other violent sexual acts
* '''Simulated Gambling''' - Player can gamble without betting or wagering real cash or currency
* '''Strong Language''' - Explicit and/or frequent use of profanity
* '''Strong Lyrics''' - Explicit and/or frequent references to profanity, sex, violence, alcohol or drug use in music
* '''Strong Sexual Content''' - Explicit and/or frequent depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity
* '''Suggestive Themes''' - Mild provocative references or materials
* '''Tobacco Reference''' - Reference to and/or images of [[tobacco]] products
* '''Use of Drugs''' - The consumption or use of illegal drugs
* '''Use of Alcohol''' - The consumption of alcoholic beverages
* '''Use of Tobacco''' - The consumption of tobacco products
* '''Violence''' - Scenes involving aggressive conflict. May contain bloodless dismemberment
* '''Violent References''' - References to violent acts

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
[http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp Official site]

[[Category:Video Games]]

Bolt

2008-06-24T18:08:28Z

WilliamH:

A '''bolt''' is a threaded fastener, similar to a [[screw]].

[[Category:Simple Machines]]

Talk:Dungeons and Dragons

2008-06-24T17:31:21Z

WilliamH: /* Addition to warnings about the game? */

==Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views==
I have noticed that there is considerable push back from the community when it comes to labeling occultism as occultism. This site is supposed to express conservative points of view, yet any suggestion that dungeons and dragons, [[Harry Potter]], [[Lord of the Rings]], [[H. P. Lovecraft]] and even the [[Satanism]] are adopting a shockingly neutral point of view (which I thought was a Wikipedia trait). I'm half tempted to get my pastor involved in this site, since I know he'd be more willing to challenge the...and forgive me, but...the rampant fanboyism that pervades these articles despite the negative feelings I can sense it engenders. The casual use of occult themes in games and literature should be no less offensive to the Christian community than the casual use of homosexual themes in similar contexts.

Dungeons and dragons and Lord of the Rings are to Bible what Brokeback Mountain is to the Bible, the fictional depiction of abominable practices. Make no mistake that both homosexuality and occultism are "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]" in the eyes of the Lord. While these games, books and films are certainly are protected speech in this country and I would not censor them (neither dungeons and dragons nor Brokeback Mountain), that they are protected doesn't mean we should save them from all criticism or that they do not lead the faithful astray, small step by small step. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:24 (EDT)

:They are the fictional depiction of the occult. The key word there being "fictional". I find it shocking that some people actually take things like Harry Potter, D&D, Lord Of The Rings and others as serious threats to religion. It is nothing but fiction, that's all it is, it's not trying to trick people into worshipping Satan or performing witchcraft. They exist purely for the sake of entertainment. I'd be against any sort of move by the people of this site to start censoring and condemning these things. Also, having read those articles, I haven't found much fanboyism at all, just facts.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:40, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::It was fictional homosexual cowboys in Brokeback Mountain and I suspect the film didn't suggest that anyone in the audience turn gay. I'd therefore have to guess that, in your opinion, conservatives who criticized that movie's homosexual themes were all way off base, because it was harmless entertainment? Hey, the Last Temptation of Christ was a fictional representation of Jesus, so was the blasphemy in that movie also beyond reproach? [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:50 (EDT)

::: Brokeback Mountain is a whole different debate, I'm not even going to touch that one for now. I just focussed on the occult part of your post. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:52, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::::See the link above. The Bible calls them both "abomination," homosexuality and occultism alike. As a Christian I do not get to pick and choose which biblical condemnations to heed and which "don't count." In fact, occultism in American art is, to me, more troubling than homosexuality, because the occult content is widely accepted by many (even by people who are otherwise good Christians but who do not recognize that magic and the occult are every bit as condemned in the Bible as homosexuality) in a way that homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is losing in the culture war. Christians don't even realize there's a problem with occultism in the culture. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:57 (EDT)

::::: The Bible _also_ calls eating shellfish "an abomination". I guess God Hates Shrimp? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What about[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era]? It is a derivative of dungeons and Dragons. Would that be an ok game to play?

Cut from end of article:

:Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of Dungeons and Dragons, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Hickman">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as ""Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]].<ref name="Hickman"/>

Has it been established that Hickman has conservative politics? And what [[theology]] or Christian perspective does he believe in?

This passage asserts that all the fuss is unjustified, using the ''appeal to authority'' fallacy. (Some Wikipedians use a similar argument to justify the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]: a "consensus" of scientists says it is true, according to the U.N. which is so "impartial" it would never use [[junk science]] to score political points). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:According to his personal website he's a Mormon that has done some missionary work in Asia. I haven't found anything on his website about politics but it is pretty big. [http://www.trhickman.com/navigator.html] --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The source given for the section states that Hickman's views are conservative both politically and theologically (and among D&D people this is well known anyways). There isn't any appeal to authority fallacy occuring here, simply noting that there are Consevative Christians who don't agree with the criticisms. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: All Mormons are required to do missionary work. And going by the DragonLance books, where too much of an emphasis on good or evil is wrong and there must always be a balance, I don't see the conservative Christian elements necessarily coming through in the writing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Not to nit-pick, but the "appeal to authority" fallacy focuses on "Do this or you'll be punished" not "These people know far more than you about the topic, therefore you should listen to them." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Seems like the criticism centers on sex and sorcery. As a parent myself, I don't want my children involved in anything which promotes premarital sex, adultery, fornication or other evils. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorcery, fair enough, although that's just a fictional element - but the sexual element is way overstated. I've played these games for a decade and a half, and I've never seen anything that has to do with sex directly. Sure, there is a tradition of "immodestly dressed women", but nothing worse than Raphael or Botticelli, for instance. Besides, the art in the latest edition of D&D is horrible, so... ;-) --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 07:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::You left out ''[[National Geographic]]''. I stopped reading it because of its soft-porn semi-nude "savage" pictures. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That too, I guess. Anyway, the age of the scantly-clad females in roleplaying game products is more or less a thing of the past these days. The games are appealing to a broader audience these days, not least women, so the publishers know that they need to be careful with such things. So you can easily let your kids play the games - it'll be good for them in the long run, trust me. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no it is not. Sex sells, especially to the largely male and nerdy audience that plays D&D. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Indeed, since the primary audience of D&D is teenage boys, and teenage boys have pretty much always been hormones with legs, it stands to reason there will be some appeal to libido. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nobody buys hundreds of dollars of rulebooks to see a flash of crudely-drawn breasts. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:43, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It's certainly an incentive. The primary rule of marketing is to find something to catch the eye of your potential consumers. Overall, it appears to have worked rather well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I've flipped through the Player's Handbook a few times... Didn't see any breasts that were worth remembering. Though... IF you're implying that you know there's nudity in it because it sells well, and that's because of the nudity in it... I'm confused. If not, I misread that post.[[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

And now even more disappointment, as the forces in favor of the positive (if fictional) depiction of wizards and witches and the occult types write a profoundly long article on their position. The fiction is twofold. First, we have the fact that the characters and scenarios are fiction. Second there's the fiction that sorcery is or could ever be anything but "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]." I suppose I will have to let my pastor fight this one out, as I haven't the stomach for this brand of "conservatism" nor the ability (though I wish God would grant me that!) to lead people back to the light and away from their dark fantasies. Just, please, BE WARNED, that God has a plan for all of us, and it does not involve us believing that things that the Bible condemns categorically are really just "misunderstood" and "can be applied for good as well as for evil." Magic is evil. The fictional depiction of "good magic" is just a trap to lure in the unwary to thinking in a wrong headed way. Such authors might as well write about a "sinful Jesus" or "kindly Satan." Magic, even fictionally depicted, should be shown as evil even if Harry Potter uses it to save his friends. What's missing is the author's understanding of that basic fact. Jesus Saves 19:34, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::I would agree that God has a plan for us all. I would also add that you should judge not lest ye be judged. Of course, those without sin should feel free to pillory sinners like myself.

::I believe that there is no such thing as an accident. Therefore, I don't think it is an accident that God saw fit to put me in your path. Perhaps I am here to remind you that God, by definition, is beyond comprehension, so there may be a great many things godly which are beyond your comprehension? Reminded of this fact, I must inform you that I worship and believe in the same God which you worship. As such, trust that that I am doing my best to follow what I understand to be His will. I can not allow you or any man to tell me what to think, just as I would hope that you would not blindly follow any other man's interpretation of God's will. You must do what you think is right.

::That said, I must add that "magic" is a large word used to describe a great many things. In the case of most fantasy works, "magic" refers to technology that is not fully understood by the user. For example, to a cave man, a television is "magic". What you are talking about is probably "witchcraft" or "necromancy" other "dark art". These types of powers are "supernatural" or "divine". Supernatural powers which are derived from something other than God are what I understand the Bible to prohibit. There is no prohibition against prayers, miracles or technology. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: We are also told to judge with a righteous judgement; there's no total ban on judging.
::: Not everything that happens is according to God's will (in a sense). He doesn't want any of us to perish, suffer, etc. But He allows these things because we've rejected him. As such, things that could be described as accidents do occur. I can comprehend God, and clearly you believe that you can too, else you would not be making comments such as God having a plan for us all. That doesn't mean that we can or do understand ''everything'' about Him; there would be an awful lot that we don't and can't understand, but we ''can'' understand some things.
::: I quite agree, however, with your last paragraph.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well then, we are in very nearly total agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

==Recent Edit==

Can you show me please where you get this?

<blockquote>The main purpose for this is political correctness. Fair play standards state that a player who's ''charecter'' worships a different deity than a real world deity should be denied abilities. This would indicate that polytheistic belifes are justified. Thus it is fairest for a DM to disalow real world religions to avoid offending others.</blockquote>

I am not aware of this rule, although it could of course still exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:20, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The fair play I mentioned is not an official rule. It is a general principle that is common to all games. In Dungeons and Dragons clerics of any deity gain powers. If a real world deity was placed in the game a cleric of that deity could get powers from that faith. However in that same campaign if another charecter wants to play a cleric and get powers from another faith there is no fair reason to deny them those powers. However if you give both players those powers then the monotheistic principles of many religions are "wrong". Thus to avoid offending any faith it is easiest to create fake deities and disallow real world religions to prevent arguments and other problems from arrising.

[[User:NBianchi|NBianchi]]

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Weesna, could you please explain your recent edits? Removal of information from an article that multiple editors have constructed should only be undertaken with discussion of what occurred. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know about the first edit (it's hard to know if many players actually change the game around), but as a player I'll vouch for the validity of the second two edits. While it is true to say that nudity is not graphic nor a part of the game, you can find on the Wizards website both a black and white and a color version of a harpy, both have exposed breasts. As for "discouraging evil players" it's a lot harder to prove with one reference, but this also is generally not true. There are some ways to summon a demon which cost experience, but at the same time you can summon good creatures in exchange for experience as well. I will browse through my books to see if I can find a definitive quotation to prove it, but for now I hope my testimony will suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Your testimony is fine as far as I am concerned. If there were any difficulties with it, some other player would be sure to mention it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nice picture ==

D&D session with a guy wearing a shirt with a pentagram on it. And to think anyone wonders why people connect witchcraft/Satanism to D&D. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:32, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:That would be the same pentagram that, amongst other things, at one point, was used by Christians to represent the five wounds of Jesus? That pentagram? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 19:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::The page did come from Wikimedia Commons... I'm not sure if that falls within CP guidelines or not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::The image is correctly licensed for use here: "free to copy, distribute and transmit the work" so long as the author is attributed. Its much better than trying to claim fair use on a copyrighted image. As for the content of the image, what's the issue? It's people playing the game, read into it what you will. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::::The issue is that the picture serves only to reinforce the presumed connection between D&D and the Darn Evil Satanists. Given your statement, I'm not sure you were at all aware of this, so this is just a heads up. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::::The [[pentagram]] has nothing to do with satanism. Blanket statements are best made only when one is in full possession of all facts. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==Software failures==
Possibly a superscript notice informing the reader that the correct title of the page is, in fact, Dungeons & Dragons? At the top? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:42, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I just did some checking. It looks like you can create an article called [[Dungeons & Dragons]], but you can't search using the amperand, or it only uses the first word. I don't know how moving would work in that respect. I'll ask PJR if he knows, since he seems to be on right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:48, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::Yeah I have no idea. You can link correctly to [[Dungeons & dragons]], but not [[Dungeons & Dragons]]. So maybe it's best if we just keep the link here, and add a warning at the top. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:::Huh. That's very, very weird. The admin settings should have some solution... I could ask around elsewhere if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

== D&D computer games ==

Would this article be a good place to list them or should I do a related article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Related. --[[User:SSD|SSD]] 15:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gygax gone ==

The author of D&D's first 5 or more reference works, E. Gary Gygax, passed away yesterday. He was a gentle soul, creative genius and inventive mind. He wrote the Foreword to my book and he will be missed. At any rate, I tried to address a few of the silliest pieces of criticism in this article, while fully respecting the beliefs of those that there is some connection between D&D and the occult. As both a subject expert and a conservative, I find this connection wholly without merit, but I do think that questions should be answered when asked. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:It's a sad day for geeks everywhere. We'll miss you, Gary. If heaven exists, you're certainly there; maybe you can get a game going with God. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 08:29, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Ignorance in action ==
In its current state article is an embarrassment to conservatives and Christians. I tried to make a few additions while leaving the much of the article intact but was blasted with a revert. I have made my point by playing by the same rules as my opposing editor. I'm long past the point of joining in an edit war on any wiki, but let the record show that I flagged this article for review. To let this statement stand unchallenged is to open this resource up for mockery:

::''summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author Jack Chick[6], which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.''

This utterly preposterous hypothesis perhaps deserved vetting in 1978, but by 2008, the results are in and they are quite clear. D&D ''alone'' has generated a billion dollars in sales. Combine these sales with the near total saturation of the American market by the copycats and computer games, and then contrast this saturation with the fact that there as been no corollary explosion of witches covens and it becomes obvious that this statement is baseless. Oh wait ... that's original research.

There are no real spells in D&D, just as there is no real money in Monopoly. To assert otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that these secret spells are to be found somewhere in rulebooks. If so, can someone please footnote or reference an original work rather than an exploitative derivative work? They cannot reference this because the aren't there.

And the reference to "immodestly dressed" women is similarly silly. The art in all editions of D&D is incredibly tame compared to anything found in popular American culture. Is [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Harpy.PNG/200px-Harpy.PNG this picture] obscene? I would say no.

I'm not prepared to enter into an edit war, but I can help contribute to fair minded edits.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: Conservapedia doesn't have a rule against original research. But it still has to be true and verifiable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Let's take a look at your edits (which I reverted), shall we?
::''"Of course, anyone who has ever played D&D understands that no gods of any kinds are worshiped during the course of the game, nor is any witchcraft or sorcery of any kind practiced during any session of D&D ever."''
:That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.
::''"However, a similar argument could be made against chess (where the object is to kill your opponent and enslave his king) and Monopoly (where the point of the game is to accumulate wealth AND bankrupt your fellow players)."''
:At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role").
::''"Where RPG's differ greatly from these games is the ability to set alternative goals and chose very creative means to achieve those objectives. For example, most adult games of D&D revolve around stories analogous to [[Lord of the Rings]] or [[Chronicles of Narnia]] where the game has little to do with wealth or monsters, but rather the story is about the preservation of good in a struggle against evil."''
:In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary. Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil. Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil. "The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:02, 5 March 2008 (EST)

::Unfortunately for you it's not my job to educate you in debate form. Quite frankly, you're dealing from a biased position of ignorance. If an editor or admin requests my assistance I'll gladly help with this page, but I'm not going to spend my life energy obliterating the foolish strawmen you have posing as logical arguments. I remain a conservative and a Christian who is embarrassed by the level of ignorance exhibited in this article. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I request your assistance. Conservatives deserve to be informed about this game. If it really encourages "keeping the balance between good and evil", then we need to know this. If that claim is untrue, then we need relief from the stress that false claims like this can cause.

:Same goes for [[Harry Potter]]. Let's hear all the claims and critiques, and then do our best to sort them out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in reply to Jinxmchue, it is incredibly obvious that you have never actually played D&D. Let's take this one at a time:
:::''That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.''
:::Well, if it's 'not verifiable', then it follows that it's 'not verifiable' that this DOES happen. How you came to the conclusion that this is 'most likely wrong' requires much explanation, as, even if a player happened to be, say, Wiccan, and had their character also be Wiccan, you have missed the fact that this is a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL world. In other words, '''it does not exist'''.

:::''At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role")''
:::Erm, what? Have you actually studied the history of Chess? It has it's roots in simulating battles. Every time you 'take' an opponents piece, that stands for the elimination of an enemy unit - in other words, killing most of them and driving the rest from the field. As for the fact you 'play as yourself', this actually makes Everwill's point STRONGER, if anything - you, yourself, are supposed to accumulate wealth and bankrupt the other players (in Monopoly), or kill the opposing soldiers (in Chess), not a fictional character.

:::''In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.''
:::You've got that utterly wrong. It is, in fact, the complete opposite - the accumulation of wealth and experience is so that you can make your character better (by better equipment and increased attributes and abilities) so that they are more effective in your end goal, so it is this accumulation of wealth and experience that is secondary.
:::''Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil.''
:::Erm, what? There is a staggeringly large number of Dragonlance novels (about 200, I think), and I haven't read them all, but the ones I read were generally about good versus evil, with the good guys generally winning. The only thing that may be confusing you is that it is not always readily apparant whether someone is good or evil until you read the whole book, or sometimes the whole sequence of books in that particular series, and there are characters who are Neutral - in other words, they believe the correct order of the universe is a balance between good and evil. Whilst it is true, more generally, that D&D does not discourage playing evil characters, it does not encourage it either. In other words, it is '''your choice''' which you play, and there is a third choice - Neutral.
:::''Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil.''
:::Sorry, no. What D&D does is question certain concepts of good and evil. For example, some would say that always obeying the law is good. However, what if doing so means someone you know is innocent has to be punished? Or even executed? Would breaking him out of jail then be good or evil? Alternatively, if you didn't know he was innocent but broke him out simply because someone paid you to do it, is that good or evil?
:::''"The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay.''
:::No, sorry, that is a completely accurate depiction of the gameplay. The only slightly unusual thing is that it is entirely your choice on which side you fight, or whether you fight to, in effect, maintain the status quo. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::Jinxmchue, if you've ever played the game, you would realize that most people ''actually'' play the game to have fun with their friends. Fighting fictional good or evil and accumulating fictional wealth are only secondary and tertiary effects. If this were not so, then you could simply find any 5 people who play D&D and instantaneously enjoy the game -- because you are fighting evil and accumulating wealth. Having just spent a weekend at a convention playing D&D, I can tell you that if you aren't having fun with people around you, the in-game benefits don't matter at all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Goal of the game ==

It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." ''WHY'' do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games. Good gosh, people - one of the major and most popular classes in the game is the ''thief''; someone whose primary purpose in life is to gain gold! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Really? Considering there's not actually a class called "Thief," I'm rather skeptical of your claims. Have you ever actually played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::They probably changed things in the new version, but the classic, best known, most played version(s) had fighters, mages, thieves and clerics as the four major class groups. Seems I'm not the one who's ignorant (as usual). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:51, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm referring to the current version, which has the following classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Ranger, plus, of course, the prestige classes. The remark still stands.
:::How did you come to the rather absurd conclusion that the most played class is the rogue? And for that matter, how did you come to the conclusion that people play D&D to gain gold in an imaginary setting where there's no real use for it, and it'll probably be reset at the start of the next campaign? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::The wild and baseless leaps in what poses as logic posited by Jinxmchue are so far divorced from reality as to not merit discussion. To engage in this discussion is a mistake. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::The lies and obfuscations made in defense of this game merit confrontation and debunking. "It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::How can I put this politely? Let's just say the only 'lies and obfuscations' that I am seeing made in reference to this game are definitely ''not'' being made by Everwill. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::That's nice. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::In addition, Jinxmchue misses that it is entirely possible to play as a 'Good Rogue' by, for example, only stealing from rich, corrupt barons and the like. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:42, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh, okay. So "stealing from rich, corrupt barons" somehow nullifies the fact that the goal is still about accumulating wealth. Moral relativism is fun! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't capitalism all about the accumulation of wealth? Is capitalism evil, jinx? Sounds like we've got a communist on our hands.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I never said anything about my personal beliefs about accumulating wealth. The issue is about the paragraph in which some Christians believe that accumulating wealth is wrong. I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::So it's OK for this rich, corrupt baron to accumulate wealth by squeezing it from his subjects, but not OK for someone to take his ill-gotten gains away from him? I'm guessing you think Robin Hood was evil as well? Hmm, I guess moral relativism is, indeed, fun. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:40, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::ROFLMAO! Oh, it's "rogue," not "thief." Gosh, I stand corrected. In other news, I'll take six of one and a half-dozen of the other. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::Heaven forbid that a player should assume the role of that famed burglar Bilbo Baggins.

:::::Quite frankly, Jinxmchue the level of aggression found in your edits combined with the wholly preposterous nature of your argument leaves me wondering if your goal is to undermine the credibility of Conservapedia by staking out this ridiculous argument. It would be wholly more appropriate and productive to argue the merits of the 9/11 "Truth" theories and the Flat Earth Society than to discuss the vapid technical points you are trying to make herein. It is rare that I take such a firm stance, but it is clear that your position is so completely and utterly without merit that any "debate" with you is a waste of time.

:::::That said, I think there is a value in addressing each of these points, because people who don't know the game, or the hobby, need to know why these are baseless accusations. While I am in favor of explaining these misperceptions, I will not participate in a debate with a pompous individual who is attempting to prove something from either a position of total ignorance or prove something as an effort to diminish Conservapedia.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::That's great, Jinx. It's insulting to see you babble on like you know what you're talking about when you can't even muster up enough decency to get the class names right. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::You need to pay more attention to Bilbo's story. He came to regret his burgling because of all the trouble, pain and sorrow that it eventually caused. In any case, that's neither here nor there. It still stands as a fact that a main goal of the game is accumulation of wealth. No amount of whitewashing or gussying up of the game can change that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

For the record, the "goal" of any scenario is decided by the GM. It varies greatly between games. For example, in the last campaign I played, we had to retrieve a staff from a thief so the world wouldn't, you know, disintegrate into nothingness. What little gold we got during the journey was spent on getting things that would prevent us from dying. To argue that the goal of any game is to collect gold is utterly illogical. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:Mmm-hmm. One example out of thousands and thousands and thousands around the world. Great argument, B. Tell me again, who is being illogical? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Carrying on==
Gary Gygax was a friend and a good man. He would no doubt be amused by this silly discourse. In his defense and honor, I will, as time permits, walk through this article with a fine tooth comb. Opening is drafted and sets the stage for what is to come. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== A little civility please? ==

Please, people, let's try to be a little more civil in our discussions here. I hate the idea of temporarily blocking people so they can cool down, but if I have to I will. How about instead of attacking each other, we make some sourced arguements? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks, HelpJazz. Over the coming days and weeks I'll finish this out. In the meantime, I would hope that an admin or editor can keep an eye on baseless reverts and edits. I've just completed the origins of the game and would expect there will be some typographical errors.

I intend next to describe what elements in the game caused a backlash and what steps the game designers took to acknowledge justifiable criticism and ignore baseless criticism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:It's likely that a goal of some contributors here is to undermine Conservapedia. Such users should be confined to the [[Debate Topics]] or blocked.

:If anyone is interested in presenting a variety of published views on D&D (or on [[role-playing games]] in general, I will support that. But subversion of the trust we are trying to build here is not acceptable here, any more than it should be in [[journalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::Ed, I have no intention of injecting my views into this article. Viewpoints should be relatively irrelevant here. I intend to explain and document the facts and let the goodly reader draw his or her own conclusions. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Not talking about '''you''', Will. I meant that other guy. And there's nothing wrong with adding in some viewpoints. Readers would like to know who supports and opposes D&D. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Even Wikipedia recognizes the truth ==

"Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and '''gather treasure''' and knowledge."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons] (Emphasis mine.) Guess someone better go over to Wikipedia and make sure that part is deleted because it's obviously false, right guys? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Erm, what? No-one ever said that gathering treasure doesn't happen. What has been said is that your assertation that this is the only purpose of D&D and the end goal of every game or campaign is utter hogwash. In fact, gathering treasure is the means, not the end. You gather treasure to buy better stuff, which improves your character, which makes that character more effective in moving towards the end goal of the game or campaign. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:It should also be noted that even the part you chose to quote from Wikipedia actually refutes your assertation - it actually lists four things that happen in the game, with 'gathering treasure' only being one, so the sole aim of D&D is obviously not gathering treasure, even if it was listing those things as goals of the game (which it's not). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:09, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure? Please don't build straw man arguments for me. Thanks. The issue at hand is the following paragraph:
:::''Since the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24).[Citation Needed] Their feelings regarding the accumulation of wealth puts them in direct conflict with the economic system of capitalism.''
::The first part of the first sentence is undeniably true and Wikipedia agrees with it. Slaying monsters = engaging in battles. Accumulating wealth = gathering treasure. The focus of the paragraph is what some people believe are Christ's teachings regarding these two issues. (All Christians can agree that Christ never condemned solving problems and gaining knowledge.) Some people here apparently don't think D&D is about - at least in part - gathering wealth. This is demonstrably false and for those people to continue to try to lie and/or obfuscate is the height of arrogance and apparently is based upon the belief that editors and readers are flipping morons. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:::Nobody has said that D&D does not ''involve'' gathering wealth, they've said it does not revolve around gathering wealth. When you go to the movies do you watch the credits? When you plan on what you want to do for the evening do you say "oh let's go to the movies, honey; I really want to watch some credits"?

:::We can ask PJR, but I think playing a ''game'' which involves gathering wealth is just a teensy bit different than revolving your ''life'' around accumulating wealth, which is what Jesus was talking abotu in the Bible verse. It's just too darned big of stretch to be made in this article, especially with no supporting documents.

:::This is not related to this claim, but have you played D&D, Jinxmchue? You aren't supporting yourself with 3rd party references, and a lot of the things you say are nonsensical to anyone who has played. To bring back the example you gave of a "thief" class, you laughed it off as a minor difference, but if you played the game you would know that there actually is no real comparison between a "thief" and a "rogue".

:::Lastly, I told you before to be civil. Calling people arrogant liars is ''not'' being civil. I've given you significantly more leeway than would most, but my fuse is getting short. Please try and stick to the arguments at hand, ok? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::Actually, yes, they have claimed that D&D doesn't involve gathering wealth or isn't a primary focus of the game. Two edit summaries:
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399287 The game has little if anything to do with the accumulation of wealth.]
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399481 The main goal is usually to save a village/the world, not to accumulate gold.]
::::As well as comments made elsewhere on this page. All patently and demonstrably false.
::::As for my experience, I played D&D (and other games) for many, many years. I've played in many adventures with many characters in many gaming groups. I've even been a DM. I've never seen one thing that contradicts the fact that accumulating wealth is a main focus of the game. Not even paladins (who are - or were - forbidden from retaining wealth, but were given increased abilities, powers and potential as a compensation).
::::"Thief," "rogue," "six," "half-dozen." Put a pig in a dress and it's still a pig (and still stinks). Again, I direct your attention to Wikipedia, which again backs up my position, not yours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons)]. No distinction is made between "rogue" and "thief."
::::If unabashedly and plainly stating facts is "uncivil," then yes, I am uncivil. I never called anyone a liar or arrogant. What I said is that there are lies and obfuscations being used in regards to this article and that using them is "the height of arrogance," especially when it is easily proven that they are lies and obfuscations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you trying to argue that the reason you play the game, mainly, is to accrue wealth? This is simply not "patently and demonstratably" true. Even if the rulebooks stated (which they don't) "you should play this game if you enjoy accruing wealth", that has nothing to do with reasons ''players'' decide to play the game. Apparently (since you have finally told us your experience; thank you for the clarification) you have only played with selfish players. Last year, for example, I played in a campaign where we had to save the country from certain doom and prevent or twart the attack of a huge army of orcs, goblins, and many other evil creatures. Nobody offered us any money in return, because they were poor peasants who had none. Our characters fought to save the innocents who were too weak to save themselves. Our ''players'' played because we enjoyed the social atmosphere, the storyline, the competition, and we just loved playing the game. As I said before I went to a D&D convention last weekend where I played 4 games; in only one were our characters motivated by money, but that motivation actually happened "off screen", before our players had a say in it. Heck most of the time (especially in poor role-playing groups), the players are motivated by a fuzzy sense of "we want to play, so let's just follow any story hooks".

::::::I'm not sure why WP gets to be considered a reliable source in the thief/rogue matter, but if you read carefully, they do not equivocate; the name was changed. The entire article talks about, and uses the term, rogues. As you will see, again in the article, "theif-like qualities" (robber, thug, treasure hunter) are ascribed to the earlier editions of the game. Robbers and thugs might be rogues in the current edition, but rogue encompases much more, and as such the two can not be equivocated. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I used Wikipedia as a source you and others obviously view as being superior to Conservapedia. If Wikipedia makes no distinction between "rogue" and "thief," why should Conservapedia? Wikipedia uses the terms "rogue" and "thief" interchangeably:
::::::::''In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, rogue or thief is one of the base character classes.''
::::::::''The abilities of the thief class were drawn from various archetypes from history and myth''
:::::::The name was changed. Big whoop. "Six" and "half-dozen" still mean the same thing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::To answer your question, Jinxmchue, 'Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure?', you may not have said that was the ONLY purpose of the game, in so many words, but you have certainly very strongly implied it, and seem to be going out of your way to deny that anything else is the purpose of the game. In fact, if you think that everything said by anyone here that says something different is, as you called it, 'lies and obfuscations', can you please explain, then what you think the primary purpose of the game actually is, if it's NOT accumulating wealth?
::::::As for the edits you provided, the section those edits remove (and has since been re-added) strongly implies that the primary purpose of the game is accumulating wealth, which is incorrect. If it is, indeed, true that some Christians believe that playing D&D goes against scripture (though I've not seen any that do, personally), then perhaps the section could be reworded slightly, for example, 'Since the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24)'. This puts the point across whilst removing the implication that this is the primary goal. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:05, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth. That's your straw man. People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people). That is an integral, major part of the game and it cannot be denied. The people who are trying to deny or downplay it are lying to themselves and others. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::''No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth.''
:::::::Well, can you explain these quotes of yourself on this very page:
{{quotebox|In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.}}
{{quotebox|It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." WHY do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games.}}
{{quotebox|"It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are?}}
{{quotebox|I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game.}}
:::::::As they appear to be you saying precisely that.
:::::::''People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people).''
:::::::Sorry, no. It is simply a means to an end - you find treasure, or steal it from people, so you can buy a better sword/shield/set af armour/whatever for your character. This improves your character so they are more effective in progressing towards the end of the game or campaign. The fun is to be had, within the framework of the game, by successfully progressing to the end goal. More generally, people have fun by simply being in the company of friends (or even strangers) who enjoy doing the same thing, but that is hardly unique to D&D.
:::::::I also note that you haven't answered my question - what do you believe the primary goal of the game actually is, if it's not anything that anyone else here has said (those being 'lies and obfuscations'), and yet it is NOT accumulating wealth, as you appear to have been saying? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:38, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Bilbo the burglar==

I'm not sure how much of [[Bilbo]]'s "burglary" he eventually came to regret. Everything he stole was either taken from thieves or kidnappers.

He certainly did '''not''' regret taking the [[Arkenstone]], for he was able to use [[Thorin]]'s desire for that to settle the quarrel between the dwarves and Bard's folk. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:One of the great themes that Tolkien used in regards to Bilbo is the regrets Bilbo comes to face because of his adventures. He sees the sorrow and suffering of his friends and family caused by ill-considered adventures. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::I read the book a half dozen times. I don't recall Bilbo regretting the "burglary" of the Arkenstone. Nor did he express any regret over taking the coins from the trolls; he and Gandalf split them on the return journey to the Shire.

::The only ethical comment Bilbo made was his comment that the treasure had '''previously''' been stolen (by the trolls and the dragon) and the report that he gave nearly all of it away. In fact, he gave away the single most valuable treasure, worth "the entire price of the Shire", to Frodo.

::There's also the matter of the Ring itself. We can truly say that ''The Hobbit'' and ''The Lord of the Rings'' are books to help young people wrestle with ethical issues. Of course, the correct choices are made for them in these books.

::D&D, however, ''is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By it's very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters.''

::I don't see how playing the game teaches any "valuable" moral lesson from the "implications" of role-playing. The article simply makes this assertion.

::Thus I suggest that the POV that the game provides moral value be attributed to an adherent of that view, rather than being stated as fact. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==For your consideration==
Ed, thanks for the clean-up and I'm glad to know that an editor is there with me. I have a few points that you may wish to consider and revert or re-edit.

Firstly regarding the introduction of the term "role-playing". I intentionally moved this deeper into the article because I think what must be stressed is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' represents the first commercially available role-playing game ever. If you have a better way to accomplish this, please do so, but in think in present form it does not underscore the fact that this game birthed an industry and a new way of thinking and gaming.

Secondly, the criticisms of the game ''have'' largely been answered. Leaving this unsaid is to imply that Conservapedia does not recognize this plainly obvious fact. This does not admit that criticism was unfounded or that ALL criticisms were answered. But it is quite factual to say that the criticisms of the game have largely been answered.

Please advise. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:27, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:I would agree that Jack Chick should not be considered authoritative, given his views on the Pope being the Antichrist. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Wasn't the original boost to the game, and the cause of alarm, over the actions of a single student in a college who went AWOL for a period of time acting out Dungeons and Dragons underneath the school or something like that? I don't know the particulars, or its veracity, but that should be mentioned somewhere by someone with more knowledge of the incident.

And, as someone who really learned to play and was quite active in the game at a Christian College, I think the article comes across more strongly in the controversy realm dealing with Christianity than is warranted.

I'd imagine the game is the same now as it has always been. As a game that is like a board game except without the board and played out in the imagination of the participants, some groups of participants playing the game will fight for treasure, some will fight for causes, some will be more role playing, and some will be more hack-n-slash. The way it unfolds is not as limited as traditional games and will vary more according to the individual direction desired by the dungeon master and the participants. It is not inately good or evil, but there is nothing to stop a particular group from exploring either direction if that is their desire. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::I agree that the amount of controversy reported is out proportion to the level of controversy associated with the game. This is primarily because I haven't finished my first draft of this rewrite. I do think its important to document the controversy, largely because it is part of the history of D&D, even if there isn't much controversy anymore. Additionally, if we don't fully address the controversies, certain opinionated editors will creep this article back into ''la-la'' land. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:59, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Highly Disputable Source==
This statement is very nearly factually wrong and slanted summary from a biased article.

::''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups. The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence." Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances[9].''

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the article picks and chooses quotes to frame argument that does not really exist. For example, look at the conclusion drawn in this quote from that article:

::"One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."

::More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances, thus preventing them from serving in sensitive IDF positions, he says.

It may well be true that "More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances" but there is no indication what number of D&D players are determined to have mental or emotional issues. Furthermore, there is no indication of causality. Does D&D cause you to be a nerd? It would seem much more likely that D&D attracts nerds rather than creates them.

Finally, the quote we have in our article doesn't mention this from the same article:

::''Unsurprisingly, Igor, Matan and thier friends do not approve of this IDF policy. They say the game is only a colorful, non-violent hobby.

::"Many people who play served in the most classified units," David says. "They are intelligent and any attempt to label them as 'weird' is incorrect and unfair."''

I don't know who sourced this, but there is no indication that the claim made in our article has a basis in fact. I have deleted that paragraph and placed it here with comment:

* ''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups.'' -- This is probably true. Let's find a real source.
* ''The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence."'' -- This statement is verifiably false or at best a gross distortion of the truth. A more accurate statement would read ''According to an unnamed security official from the Israeli Defense Force "One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."''
* ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances.'' This is a half-truth. The truth is: ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations. Half of all IDF personnel who are given psychological evaluations are denied security clearances.''.

In other news, I've not finished "spells and Gods" which I think will be an important section. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:24, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Enough already==
Please can somebody explain why we have this vast and in-depth article about a toy/game/whatever, and try to pass [[Moses|this]] off? Enough with the trivia and the cruft, this article should be chopped down and an appropriate couple of external links added. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh that's an easy one to answer. Gary Gygax was an acquaintance of mine and wrote the Foreword to my book. Although I would agree that Moses was a great man, he was not acquaintance of mine and thus I do not feel personally motivated to memorialize him at this time. Gary Gygax died last week. Moses did not. I am a subject expert on ''Dungeons & Dragons''. I am not a subject expert on Moses.

::''Now a question for you'': isn't the world a big enough place for you to find a place to urinate other than in my cornflakes? I mean there are a lot of [[special:random |cornflakes in the world]]. Why choose mine? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:26, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::So what you're saying is that you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:20, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Everwill, that's a harsh sort of thing to say. I can understand Fox's irritation with the disparity between articles. No, it's not really your fault; you simply wrote about a topic on which you felt knowledgeable enough to write (and fairly well), whereas no such writer (or not enough writers) has come forth on [[Moses]] or other such articles. Please don't take it so personally when Fox expresses frustration at this situation in general, and don't respond with such snarky comments; it's better to assume exasperation than maliciousness. Fox, like I said, (I think) I understand your frustration, but I don't know if the the solution is necessarily to dismantle the less important but actually substantial articles - the problems may lie beyond that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, he does not have a conflict of interest regarding this article. On Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, we welcome edits from people with familiarity with the subject through personal experience. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry for my snippy response. I couldn't understand why someone thinks killing my enthusiasm is productive. Preventing from working this article won't get Moses written any sooner. But perhaps I was most testy because Gygax has just died. I thought I was pretty clever with the random link though. * :^) *

:::I posted Gygax's favorite Bible verse on [[Gary_Gygax | his article]]. Hope that's okay. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia is rife with errors and tilts to the wacky left, but give Wikipedia its due. Wikipedia is one of the best resources for research into popular culture. If you want to know the name of Boba Fett's uncle, or find out who is responsible for creating Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you can't (yet) beat Wikipedia. If this reference is to ever have something approaching the popularity of that reference, then you'll need a lot of articles like this one.

Furthermore, we perform a great service to young people everywhere by giving them conservative impressions and thoughts about popular culture and pop culture icons. This may well be the first and only place where they hear what we think. I don't know if there is a conservapedia article about [[Britney_Spears]] or [[Prince]] but there should be. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, there shouldn't be. And why are either of the two preceeding examples you gave of any importance whatsoever? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I guess that he answered the "why" by saying that young people ''will'' be looking for information about those people, so we should have a conservative article on them. Otherwise, they will simply look elsewhere and likely get a different viewpoint. That does, admittedly, go against things that have been said before about Conservapedia, but I think it might be a valid point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Just because pop culture is not important to you (and most of the time to me) does not mean that pop culture is not important. But, the "importance" of pop culture is irrelevant. The fact is -- important or not -- impressionable kids and young adults have a lot of interest in popular culture. Therefore, it is our place to provide reliable information and conservative values-based commentary.

Instead of lauding the accomplishments of drinking womanizing pop stars, we can identify them for what they are: weak-minded, insecurity and desperate for attention. Instead of lavishing attention on trollops who don't wear underwear, we should mock them as tramps and harlots. The alternative is not to ignore Britney Spears and Anna Nicole because they aren't "important". Kids need to know that VanderSloot might be evil for killing Natalie Holloway, but they also need to know how she is responsible for the lifestyle choices she made.

Our culture is chock full of people whose lives have been wrecked by an adherence to the liberal lifestyle. From Marilyn Monroe to Jimi Hendrix to Bon Scott to Keith Whitley to Keith Ledger, we have a ready supply of lessons for youth who may be attracted to the liberal lifestyle. We do those youth a disservice when we simply dismiss these people as unimportant.

Movies, art, and pop stars are the ceremonies, hymns and saints of the pop church. To dismiss this as "unimportant" is to cede liberals the power to spin culturally subversive messages to expand the secular progressive agenda. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Your inside knowledge of the game through your acquaintance with Gary Gygax is valuable, and I see no conflict of interest. The rules of Wikipedia do not apply here. WP's goal is "neutrality", while ours is to be "trustworthy". Having an inside track is good!

:I can understand why you might be irritated with a request to drop the subject you know well. No one can ask you to conduct research on a topic that is new to you, and we could not expect good results from such research anyway. Better to let each person write about what he already knows, and do a bit of light research to chase down details and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==And the beat goes on ... ==
I just finished "Unchristian Activities". An editorial review to sift out my opinions might be helpful. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

:On the whole, I like it - it seems nicely balanced, giving both sides of the debate. I do have concerns about the 'warning to parents and players', though. It is still balanced, as it seems to give two different sides to that issue, but it seems to be describing differing opinions, rather than relying on verifiable facts, and it also leaves out both the idea that both opinions may be wrong (D&D could, in effect, be 'just a game' to many players, having neither a positive or negative effect), and the idea that playing as an 'evil' character has precisely the opposite effect than the article suggests (it 'gets it out of your system', so to speak, so you don't act in such a manner outside of the game, in real life). The part about guns also has me doubly concerned, as it seemingly drags a whole different issue into the article, which I'm not sure is appropriate, and it also seems to try to simplify each side of the gun control issue into a few words, at the cost of leaving out important details (for example, some anti-gun folk call guns 'evil' because, whilst they are tools, they're tools designed for a single function - to kill). Other than that, nice work, not just on that section, but the whole page. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::In all honesty, the "parental advisory" tidbit is not very encyclopedic in nature. Even if you're trying to be helpful, I think it's safe to assume you're only setting yourself and this article up as easy targets for anyone who wants to have their conservapedia prejudices confirmed. [[User:Lichthammer|Lichthammer]] 00:45, 11 April 2008 (CET)

:::Your idea that there is a third category other than good and evil, is itself evil (IMHO). It is a typical liberal idea to declare that nothing is good or evil (I think [[Nietschze]] popularized this idea).

:::If it's "just a game", then it's good. If it "gets it out of your system", then it's good. The question remains whether role-playing '''does''' get evil out of one's system. Some say that acting out fantasies of good or evil '''reinforce''' those same good or evil tendencies. Let's continue this at [[Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::A small note, in a family friendly encyclopedia we're not going to advocate acting out evil so someone can become good any more than someone would have recommended to Hitler to act out being a good and compassionate man so he could become more evil. We have a tendency to follow that which we feed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, I agree that the reverse of what I said isn't true (that people who are evil in real life don't get more evil by playing at being good to 'get it out of their system'), but it's not exactly an uncommon notion that everyone has a dark side. Releasing that 'dark side' within the confines of a game, for some people, may very well act as a sort of 'stress relief', and stop that 'dark side' from being released in real life. However, perhaps I wasn't very clear, but the point I was making there was that, whilst the section is balanced by having two differing opinions, there are alternative opinions to the two posed, and it is two differing '''opinions''', so should it be in the article at all? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have a few more paragraphs to finish up. I'm going to explain the basics of game play. As for these criticisms, I think they are quite valid, but I think I've provided a framework for the debate without offering up every answer. I wholeheartedly agree that it is never a good idea to confuse one argument with another, so I do think that references to the gun control argument can be left out. That said, I think the idea that this is a tool/toy needs to be made. D&D is not inherently good or evil, but it is up to the players to choose to use it for good or evil. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Far from finished==
This is far from finished, requiring many edits and a bit of paring down, but my first draft is complete. I'm going to leave this for a while. Hopefully some good soul will give this a friendly edit and hopefully the gremlins will keep their grubs away from it. Either way, I think it's best if I leave it for a while and then edit the edits rather than continuing to make this "all mine". There are quite a few things I would have chopped out, but I didn't want to be too merciless on other people's work. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:09, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your work. It seems to me that sections on gameplay should probably not be at the bottom of the article. Perhaps the middle after history? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:02, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the kind words. I would agree with this edit and encourage you to make it. ;^) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Is the game really about "free will?" ==

Or is it about a false perception of free will? Certainly players can say whatever they want about what their characters are doing, but the game is ultimately controlled by the Dungeon Master. The DM ultimately decides what acts are and are not allowed within the plot of the game. It's not really true free will if your choices are limited by another and/or a plotline. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:There's a great deal of variation. An experienced Dungeon Master usually molds the game around the actions of the players more than the other way around. Of course that also includes consequences for actions. But again, there is a great deal of variation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::I think if you want to argue that the game revolves around a false perception of free will, you probably need to change DMs. A good DM adjudicates what is possible within the rules ("physics") and describes the world and anything that is not a PC. So just as gravity tells you that you can't jump 100 feet into the air, the DM tells you that you need to make a jump check to try and jump 100 feet into the air (and then he will tell you that you have failed). The DM should ''not'' be telling you what you can and cannot do, though a really good DM might suggest that you do otherwise, for the safety of your character. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have become convinced that Jinxmchue's goal is to describe the conservative position in the most preposterous terms so as to better ridicule conservatives by posing as a conservative. If this is Andy Kauffman style humor, I applaud it even as I tire of it. On the other hand, if this is a sincere attempt to undermine conservative values and Conservapedia, then I forewarn you that such efforts are futile. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I don't know. I would hate to accuse someone who may have sincere beliefs of trolling. But I do know that if he hasn't been involved in the fantasy role playing world, that it will be difficult to understand, especially because of the great variation involved. Are there bad games? Of course, but there are good ones too. The question is do the rules themselves lead one to a destructive path? At least in the earlier versions that I am accustomed to, I would say no. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::He says he has played (and DMed) before, somewhere up above. I would say as well with the later versions of the game you have even more freedom (and therefore are less likely to be lead down a destructive path). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, I go back to the AD&D first edition, which I think was superior to what was produced afterwards precisely because there was a strongly defined good and evil. Demons and devils were evil and sought the active destructive and torment of humans. So what happened with the 2nd edition? They were renamed and now they fought against each other instead. It sounded like PC garbage and neutered the game. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Third Edition is a PC abomination where it seems clear that "neutral" is the preferred alignment. While the "kooky goods" are really no better than "evil", the peace-loving neutrals are not bound to any dogma. Also, before PC it was common practice to use "he" when one means "he/she". Third edition uses "she" instead.

In a side note [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] has created articles about [[Jeb Eddy]] and [[Jim Ronca]] and the [[Democratic Underground]]. I think he's got a pretty active sense of humor and I tip my hat to him, wink and smile---even while I hope the constables haul him away. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think for one moment that Jason is in any danger of being hauled off by the constables :D [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:42, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

If memory serves, LT, aren't most of those things controlled by the setting used, not the system itself? There's nothing in the rules preventing you from having no moral ambiguity or forcing you to have non-stereotypical characters. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 20:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Addition to warnings about the game? ==

While the game itself may not be inherently evil or Satanic, I think it's pretty clear that it attracts a lot of folks who hold ideas incompatible with Christianity. Many Christian parents may not want their children associating with such individuals.

A good example is here: [http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=fa8732ac6a8fdeebe5664e1f5c4c95e8&topic=246.msg10383#new Satanism in D&D] I was pretty shocked when this was pointed out to me; notice that, among the "Brilliant Gameologists" participating in the discussion, the only debate seems to be over whether Satanism or atheism is superior. I didn't see a single even marginally positive opinion concerning Christianity.

While I'm sure these folks don't speak for everyone who plays the game, shouldn't the article reflect the possibility of encountering such viewpoints?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why don't we warn against watching TV and reading books, as well? Those both attract the same sorts. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 20:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Flawed logic, EBrown. Reading books and watching television can be done in isolation; roleplaying games are, by their nature, a group activity. As with any group activity, parents should be aware of the nature of the group. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:18, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'll grant you that, I guess. How about this, then: How about we warn parents about the dangers of encountering atheists or other non-Christians, or worse, steroid users in sports? No matter how you look at it, using an '''encyclopedia''' to warn parents that their children might talk to an atheist doesn't seem appropriate. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 20:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::If the encyclopedia in question plainly makes its purpose known, and that purpose is to be an educational resource for those of a conservative (and particularly conservative Christian) philosophy, then I think it's entirely appropriate to include such warnings. It's really no different from having, say, a website that reviews movies from a Christian perspective. While warnings to parents concerning anti-Christian themes might not be appropriate in a movie review in, say, the New York Times, it's entirely appropriate for such warnings to appear on such a website.

::::Furthermore, I will suggest that there's, again, a difference between roleplaying games and sports. While someone who participates in sports might be incidentally an atheist or even a Satanist, it's unlikely to come up in the context of that activity. I know I didn't have a lot of religious discussions while playing football. On the other hand, as the link I provided shows, it's entirely possible to use D&D as a vehicle for expressing Satanism or other questionable philosophies. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:27, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::When did scaremongering become educational? Futhermore, have you ever played D&D? In most cases, it's played in a group of friends who knew eachother previously.

:::::Do locker rooms not exist where you live?

:::::It's also entirely possible to use D&D as a vehicle for expressing Christianity. Since I know you're going to ask how and/or call me a heretic, I'll explain how: Send the players on a quest to defeat the legions of Satan (Represented by either actual demons or Atheists, your choice.) through prayer (In the form of weaponry, probably, because what measure is a non-human?) and good will. I'm sure you can come up with a less cynical version of that. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 21:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Personally, I find that saying I know what someone is going to do usually doesn't work out for the best; I prefer to respond to what they say, not to what "I know" they're going to say. The fact that there are Christian-themed roleplaying games is already well referenced in the article.

::::::Now: let's go back to your previous analogies. Let us suppose that we are discussing reading. Not all reading is created equal. I certainly think that a parent should react differently to discovering that their eleven year old child is reading, say, Great Expectations then they would to discovering that the same child was reading pornography. Nor do I think that most reasonable people would disagree with that supposition; it is wise and prudent for a parent to be aware of what their child is reading. The same applies to television viewing; I don't think most reasonable individuals would disagree that a responsible parent will keep track of what their child is watching, and how much of it they're watching.

::::::Hence, my addition to the warnings--which is, ultimately, simply a caution that the parent should keep track of their child's associations.

::::::Daphnea, in response to your question: I'm actually quite familiar with roleplaying games. I am also familiar with the use of roleplaying as a therapeutic tool. I'm aware that such tools can be used well, and that they can also be used poorly.

::::::Why is it that anyone even suggesting that some parental guidance is appropriate is automatically cast as a reactionary boogeyman? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Because you're suggesting that everyone who plays D&D is some sort of Satan-worshipping atheist (?) or other malcontent. If you're suggesting parents keep track of their childrens' friends, that's fine, but this isn't the place to do it for two reasons:
:::::::# This is an encyclopedia.
:::::::# This is the D&D article. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 21:56, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I'd love to see where I suggested that. I could've sworn that what I said was that the game tends to attract a disproportionate number of such individuals...an assertion I supported with a link to a current thread on a popular board for discussion of such games. (Please note that I'm not citing alarmism and hearsay from the 1980's; I'm citing what actual gamers are saying on actual forums today.)

:::::::::Ah, right. I forgot, you're surprised to see a discussion of LaVey Satanism (Which is /not/ worship of Satan) in a thread entitled "Satanism in D&D". Good job, there. So instead of citing alarmism and hearsay, you've cited a thread where gamers discuss what is in the topic line. On the M-rated board.
:::::::::And you go on to warn us that people who play D&D (Not all of them, I'm sorry. I should've said "a disproportionate number." On another note, I'd like to see a source for that.) might not worship your God. To anyone with a working brain, it should not come as a surprise that a game of imagination should attract people who believe differently than you. Thus, I see such a warning as unnessecary and unencyclopedic. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 23:32, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Are encyclopedias supposed to give parental guidance? As I said below, why aren't there warnings in [[Gun]]? It seems stupid to warn parents against a game and NOT warn them against a lethal weapon. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 21:50, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::By the same logic, many would argue that an encyclopedia isn't "supposed to" promote one viewpoint over another...and thus, Conservapedia should not be pro-Christian. Such arguments strike me as disingenuous at best, when ''this'' encyclopedia makes it abundantly clear that it takes a definite position, and that the articles written here will reflect that position.

:::::::Daphnea: I see no reason that a well-written article on gun safety wouldn't be a welcome addition to the project. Certainly, parents should be aware if their children are handling firearms, and should be involved in ensuring that they know how to handle them safely and responsibly. Given that gun safety is a topic unto itself, and a fairly extensive one, I think perhaps a distinct article with a link would probably be better than just an addition to the main [[Gun]] article, but YMMV. The reason I think a brief warning is appropriate in the body of ''this'' article is because, frankly, D&D doesn't strike me as a topic of as much significance as guns, and "D&D safety" doesn't seem to merit its own article.

::::::::That said: a lot of parents aren't aware of exactly what Dungeons and Dragons is, or the potential positives and negatives of the game. Thus, a warning is not out of order. I think it's a pretty safe bet that most parents are aware of the fact that guns are dangerous and can shoot people, aren't you?

:::::::Honestly, folks: D&D seems to be a sacred cow to some people, and any criticism (however mild) prompts hyperbolic accusations. I personally think the current article does a pretty good job of striking a balance between those who think the game is wonderful and those who think it poses serious moral problems for Christians. If you genuinely think that a cautionary note to parents is outside the purview of this encyclopedia (not "an encyclopedia," but ''this specific'' encyclopedia,) we could ask a sysop for clarification. I'm willing to abide by whatever they say is appropriate. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You're not criticising, you're attacking. If you /really/ want to write an unencyclopedic warning on the dangers of people using their imaginations to slay monsters and fight the forces of evil in a fantasy world, feel free to write something in the Essay namespace. That's what it's there for, after all. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:19, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::I'm not sure what information you are currently at odds about. Is it the section as written or the possibility of adding more criticism. Personally I would not expand the section on concerns as that section and the one above it seem to cover the topic in depth. As a family friendly encyclopedia we can express concerns, but should also be careful to do so within the wider framework of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:12, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::I'm confused too, I do think that we should strive to be informative regarding improper content on these games and other media (which I think is one of the things Wikipedia does worst) but at the same time the article seems to do just fine tackling these issues (from a quick skimming at least. I would change the leading text a bit but that's it.) so whether this discussion about expanding said information or reducing it? Because I personally don't think it needs any major changes. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 13:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Warnings to Parents==
Aren't we abandoning any pretence of being an informative encyclopedia when we add things like this to articles? Strangly I was just editing the Columbine High School Massacre article and I didn't see any warnings about anything there. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:34, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Daphnea, exactly what sort of warnings do you think should be in the Columbine article? "Parents should be aware that going on a shooting rampage can have negative consequences?" I'm not quite sure I see the parallel you're trying to draw here. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think there should be any warnings added to Columbine. You could come up with some pretty good warnings if you tried - warnings on letting kids own guns come to mind - but I don't think there should be such warnings, because it's not the place of an encyclopedia to issue such warnings. My point though is that if it's pointless and sily to issue such warnings in the case of Columbine, it's equally pointless and silly to issue them here. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 21:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Dungeons and Dragons

2008-06-24T17:29:35Z

WilliamH: /* Addition to warnings about the game? */

==Disappointing So-Called Conservative Views==
I have noticed that there is considerable push back from the community when it comes to labeling occultism as occultism. This site is supposed to express conservative points of view, yet any suggestion that dungeons and dragons, [[Harry Potter]], [[Lord of the Rings]], [[H. P. Lovecraft]] and even the [[Satanism]] are adopting a shockingly neutral point of view (which I thought was a Wikipedia trait). I'm half tempted to get my pastor involved in this site, since I know he'd be more willing to challenge the...and forgive me, but...the rampant fanboyism that pervades these articles despite the negative feelings I can sense it engenders. The casual use of occult themes in games and literature should be no less offensive to the Christian community than the casual use of homosexual themes in similar contexts.

Dungeons and dragons and Lord of the Rings are to Bible what Brokeback Mountain is to the Bible, the fictional depiction of abominable practices. Make no mistake that both homosexuality and occultism are "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]" in the eyes of the Lord. While these games, books and films are certainly are protected speech in this country and I would not censor them (neither dungeons and dragons nor Brokeback Mountain), that they are protected doesn't mean we should save them from all criticism or that they do not lead the faithful astray, small step by small step. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:24 (EDT)

:They are the fictional depiction of the occult. The key word there being "fictional". I find it shocking that some people actually take things like Harry Potter, D&D, Lord Of The Rings and others as serious threats to religion. It is nothing but fiction, that's all it is, it's not trying to trick people into worshipping Satan or performing witchcraft. They exist purely for the sake of entertainment. I'd be against any sort of move by the people of this site to start censoring and condemning these things. Also, having read those articles, I haven't found much fanboyism at all, just facts.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:40, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::It was fictional homosexual cowboys in Brokeback Mountain and I suspect the film didn't suggest that anyone in the audience turn gay. I'd therefore have to guess that, in your opinion, conservatives who criticized that movie's homosexual themes were all way off base, because it was harmless entertainment? Hey, the Last Temptation of Christ was a fictional representation of Jesus, so was the blasphemy in that movie also beyond reproach? [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:50 (EDT)

::: Brokeback Mountain is a whole different debate, I'm not even going to touch that one for now. I just focussed on the occult part of your post. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:52, March 13 2007 (EDT)

::::See the link above. The Bible calls them both "abomination," homosexuality and occultism alike. As a Christian I do not get to pick and choose which biblical condemnations to heed and which "don't count." In fact, occultism in American art is, to me, more troubling than homosexuality, because the occult content is widely accepted by many (even by people who are otherwise good Christians but who do not recognize that magic and the occult are every bit as condemned in the Bible as homosexuality) in a way that homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is losing in the culture war. Christians don't even realize there's a problem with occultism in the culture. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 13 March 2007 06:57 (EDT)

::::: The Bible _also_ calls eating shellfish "an abomination". I guess God Hates Shrimp? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What about[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Era]? It is a derivative of dungeons and Dragons. Would that be an ok game to play?

Cut from end of article:

:Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of Dungeons and Dragons, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Hickman">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons and Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as ""Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". In response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons and Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthluhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]].<ref name="Hickman"/>

Has it been established that Hickman has conservative politics? And what [[theology]] or Christian perspective does he believe in?

This passage asserts that all the fuss is unjustified, using the ''appeal to authority'' fallacy. (Some Wikipedians use a similar argument to justify the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]: a "consensus" of scientists says it is true, according to the U.N. which is so "impartial" it would never use [[junk science]] to score political points). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:According to his personal website he's a Mormon that has done some missionary work in Asia. I haven't found anything on his website about politics but it is pretty big. [http://www.trhickman.com/navigator.html] --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The source given for the section states that Hickman's views are conservative both politically and theologically (and among D&D people this is well known anyways). There isn't any appeal to authority fallacy occuring here, simply noting that there are Consevative Christians who don't agree with the criticisms. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: All Mormons are required to do missionary work. And going by the DragonLance books, where too much of an emphasis on good or evil is wrong and there must always be a balance, I don't see the conservative Christian elements necessarily coming through in the writing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Not to nit-pick, but the "appeal to authority" fallacy focuses on "Do this or you'll be punished" not "These people know far more than you about the topic, therefore you should listen to them." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:39, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Seems like the criticism centers on sex and sorcery. As a parent myself, I don't want my children involved in anything which promotes premarital sex, adultery, fornication or other evils. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorcery, fair enough, although that's just a fictional element - but the sexual element is way overstated. I've played these games for a decade and a half, and I've never seen anything that has to do with sex directly. Sure, there is a tradition of "immodestly dressed women", but nothing worse than Raphael or Botticelli, for instance. Besides, the art in the latest edition of D&D is horrible, so... ;-) --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 07:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::You left out ''[[National Geographic]]''. I stopped reading it because of its soft-porn semi-nude "savage" pictures. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That too, I guess. Anyway, the age of the scantly-clad females in roleplaying game products is more or less a thing of the past these days. The games are appealing to a broader audience these days, not least women, so the publishers know that they need to be careful with such things. So you can easily let your kids play the games - it'll be good for them in the long run, trust me. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no it is not. Sex sells, especially to the largely male and nerdy audience that plays D&D. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Indeed, since the primary audience of D&D is teenage boys, and teenage boys have pretty much always been hormones with legs, it stands to reason there will be some appeal to libido. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:52, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nobody buys hundreds of dollars of rulebooks to see a flash of crudely-drawn breasts. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:43, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::It's certainly an incentive. The primary rule of marketing is to find something to catch the eye of your potential consumers. Overall, it appears to have worked rather well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I've flipped through the Player's Handbook a few times... Didn't see any breasts that were worth remembering. Though... IF you're implying that you know there's nudity in it because it sells well, and that's because of the nudity in it... I'm confused. If not, I misread that post.[[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

And now even more disappointment, as the forces in favor of the positive (if fictional) depiction of wizards and witches and the occult types write a profoundly long article on their position. The fiction is twofold. First, we have the fact that the characters and scenarios are fiction. Second there's the fiction that sorcery is or could ever be anything but "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:10-12;&version=9; abomination]." I suppose I will have to let my pastor fight this one out, as I haven't the stomach for this brand of "conservatism" nor the ability (though I wish God would grant me that!) to lead people back to the light and away from their dark fantasies. Just, please, BE WARNED, that God has a plan for all of us, and it does not involve us believing that things that the Bible condemns categorically are really just "misunderstood" and "can be applied for good as well as for evil." Magic is evil. The fictional depiction of "good magic" is just a trap to lure in the unwary to thinking in a wrong headed way. Such authors might as well write about a "sinful Jesus" or "kindly Satan." Magic, even fictionally depicted, should be shown as evil even if Harry Potter uses it to save his friends. What's missing is the author's understanding of that basic fact. Jesus Saves 19:34, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::I would agree that God has a plan for us all. I would also add that you should judge not lest ye be judged. Of course, those without sin should feel free to pillory sinners like myself.

::I believe that there is no such thing as an accident. Therefore, I don't think it is an accident that God saw fit to put me in your path. Perhaps I am here to remind you that God, by definition, is beyond comprehension, so there may be a great many things godly which are beyond your comprehension? Reminded of this fact, I must inform you that I worship and believe in the same God which you worship. As such, trust that that I am doing my best to follow what I understand to be His will. I can not allow you or any man to tell me what to think, just as I would hope that you would not blindly follow any other man's interpretation of God's will. You must do what you think is right.

::That said, I must add that "magic" is a large word used to describe a great many things. In the case of most fantasy works, "magic" refers to technology that is not fully understood by the user. For example, to a cave man, a television is "magic". What you are talking about is probably "witchcraft" or "necromancy" other "dark art". These types of powers are "supernatural" or "divine". Supernatural powers which are derived from something other than God are what I understand the Bible to prohibit. There is no prohibition against prayers, miracles or technology. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: We are also told to judge with a righteous judgement; there's no total ban on judging.
::: Not everything that happens is according to God's will (in a sense). He doesn't want any of us to perish, suffer, etc. But He allows these things because we've rejected him. As such, things that could be described as accidents do occur. I can comprehend God, and clearly you believe that you can too, else you would not be making comments such as God having a plan for us all. That doesn't mean that we can or do understand ''everything'' about Him; there would be an awful lot that we don't and can't understand, but we ''can'' understand some things.
::: I quite agree, however, with your last paragraph.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Well then, we are in very nearly total agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

==Recent Edit==

Can you show me please where you get this?

<blockquote>The main purpose for this is political correctness. Fair play standards state that a player who's ''charecter'' worships a different deity than a real world deity should be denied abilities. This would indicate that polytheistic belifes are justified. Thus it is fairest for a DM to disalow real world religions to avoid offending others.</blockquote>

I am not aware of this rule, although it could of course still exist. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:20, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

The fair play I mentioned is not an official rule. It is a general principle that is common to all games. In Dungeons and Dragons clerics of any deity gain powers. If a real world deity was placed in the game a cleric of that deity could get powers from that faith. However in that same campaign if another charecter wants to play a cleric and get powers from another faith there is no fair reason to deny them those powers. However if you give both players those powers then the monotheistic principles of many religions are "wrong". Thus to avoid offending any faith it is easiest to create fake deities and disallow real world religions to prevent arguments and other problems from arrising.

[[User:NBianchi|NBianchi]]

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Weesna, could you please explain your recent edits? Removal of information from an article that multiple editors have constructed should only be undertaken with discussion of what occurred. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know about the first edit (it's hard to know if many players actually change the game around), but as a player I'll vouch for the validity of the second two edits. While it is true to say that nudity is not graphic nor a part of the game, you can find on the Wizards website both a black and white and a color version of a harpy, both have exposed breasts. As for "discouraging evil players" it's a lot harder to prove with one reference, but this also is generally not true. There are some ways to summon a demon which cost experience, but at the same time you can summon good creatures in exchange for experience as well. I will browse through my books to see if I can find a definitive quotation to prove it, but for now I hope my testimony will suffice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Your testimony is fine as far as I am concerned. If there were any difficulties with it, some other player would be sure to mention it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nice picture ==

D&D session with a guy wearing a shirt with a pentagram on it. And to think anyone wonders why people connect witchcraft/Satanism to D&D. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:32, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:That would be the same pentagram that, amongst other things, at one point, was used by Christians to represent the five wounds of Jesus? That pentagram? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 19:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::The page did come from Wikimedia Commons... I'm not sure if that falls within CP guidelines or not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::The image is correctly licensed for use here: "free to copy, distribute and transmit the work" so long as the author is attributed. Its much better than trying to claim fair use on a copyrighted image. As for the content of the image, what's the issue? It's people playing the game, read into it what you will. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

::::The issue is that the picture serves only to reinforce the presumed connection between D&D and the Darn Evil Satanists. Given your statement, I'm not sure you were at all aware of this, so this is just a heads up. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

:::::The [[pentagram]] has nothing to do with satanism. Blanket statements are best made only when one is in full possession of all facts. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==Software failures==
Possibly a superscript notice informing the reader that the correct title of the page is, in fact, Dungeons & Dragons? At the top? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:42, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I just did some checking. It looks like you can create an article called [[Dungeons & Dragons]], but you can't search using the amperand, or it only uses the first word. I don't know how moving would work in that respect. I'll ask PJR if he knows, since he seems to be on right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:48, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::Yeah I have no idea. You can link correctly to [[Dungeons & dragons]], but not [[Dungeons & Dragons]]. So maybe it's best if we just keep the link here, and add a warning at the top. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:::Huh. That's very, very weird. The admin settings should have some solution... I could ask around elsewhere if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:58, 3 February 2008 (EST)

== D&D computer games ==

Would this article be a good place to list them or should I do a related article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:Related. --[[User:SSD|SSD]] 15:21, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Gygax gone ==

The author of D&D's first 5 or more reference works, E. Gary Gygax, passed away yesterday. He was a gentle soul, creative genius and inventive mind. He wrote the Foreword to my book and he will be missed. At any rate, I tried to address a few of the silliest pieces of criticism in this article, while fully respecting the beliefs of those that there is some connection between D&D and the occult. As both a subject expert and a conservative, I find this connection wholly without merit, but I do think that questions should be answered when asked. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:It's a sad day for geeks everywhere. We'll miss you, Gary. If heaven exists, you're certainly there; maybe you can get a game going with God. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 08:29, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Ignorance in action ==
In its current state article is an embarrassment to conservatives and Christians. I tried to make a few additions while leaving the much of the article intact but was blasted with a revert. I have made my point by playing by the same rules as my opposing editor. I'm long past the point of joining in an edit war on any wiki, but let the record show that I flagged this article for review. To let this statement stand unchallenged is to open this resource up for mockery:

::''summarized in the Dark Dungeons tract by controversial fundamentalist Christian author Jack Chick[6], which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.''

This utterly preposterous hypothesis perhaps deserved vetting in 1978, but by 2008, the results are in and they are quite clear. D&D ''alone'' has generated a billion dollars in sales. Combine these sales with the near total saturation of the American market by the copycats and computer games, and then contrast this saturation with the fact that there as been no corollary explosion of witches covens and it becomes obvious that this statement is baseless. Oh wait ... that's original research.

There are no real spells in D&D, just as there is no real money in Monopoly. To assert otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that these secret spells are to be found somewhere in rulebooks. If so, can someone please footnote or reference an original work rather than an exploitative derivative work? They cannot reference this because the aren't there.

And the reference to "immodestly dressed" women is similarly silly. The art in all editions of D&D is incredibly tame compared to anything found in popular American culture. Is [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Harpy.PNG/200px-Harpy.PNG this picture] obscene? I would say no.

I'm not prepared to enter into an edit war, but I can help contribute to fair minded edits.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:45, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: Conservapedia doesn't have a rule against original research. But it still has to be true and verifiable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:21, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Let's take a look at your edits (which I reverted), shall we?
::''"Of course, anyone who has ever played D&D understands that no gods of any kinds are worshiped during the course of the game, nor is any witchcraft or sorcery of any kind practiced during any session of D&D ever."''
:That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.
::''"However, a similar argument could be made against chess (where the object is to kill your opponent and enslave his king) and Monopoly (where the point of the game is to accumulate wealth AND bankrupt your fellow players)."''
:At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role").
::''"Where RPG's differ greatly from these games is the ability to set alternative goals and chose very creative means to achieve those objectives. For example, most adult games of D&D revolve around stories analogous to [[Lord of the Rings]] or [[Chronicles of Narnia]] where the game has little to do with wealth or monsters, but rather the story is about the preservation of good in a struggle against evil."''
:In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary. Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil. Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil. "The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:02, 5 March 2008 (EST)

::Unfortunately for you it's not my job to educate you in debate form. Quite frankly, you're dealing from a biased position of ignorance. If an editor or admin requests my assistance I'll gladly help with this page, but I'm not going to spend my life energy obliterating the foolish strawmen you have posing as logical arguments. I remain a conservative and a Christian who is embarrassed by the level of ignorance exhibited in this article. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I request your assistance. Conservatives deserve to be informed about this game. If it really encourages "keeping the balance between good and evil", then we need to know this. If that claim is untrue, then we need relief from the stress that false claims like this can cause.

:Same goes for [[Harry Potter]]. Let's hear all the claims and critiques, and then do our best to sort them out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in reply to Jinxmchue, it is incredibly obvious that you have never actually played D&D. Let's take this one at a time:
:::''That's a broad brush opinion which simply is not verifiable and most likely is wrong. Perhaps none of the fictional gods and goddesses mentioned in the books are worshiped, but there are real-world gods and goddesses that are worshiped by D&D players (Wiccans and their goddess come to mind) and I've no doubt that some of those players have characters which worship the same.''
:::Well, if it's 'not verifiable', then it follows that it's 'not verifiable' that this DOES happen. How you came to the conclusion that this is 'most likely wrong' requires much explanation, as, even if a player happened to be, say, Wiccan, and had their character also be Wiccan, you have missed the fact that this is a FICTIONAL character in a FICTIONAL world. In other words, '''it does not exist'''.

:::''At best, this is obfuscation and specious reasoning. There is no killing in chess (but gosh, that might make it a more interesting game - perhaps enough to get it its own TV series like those poker shows) and neither chess nor Monopoly involve the players adopting an alternate personality (aka "role")''
:::Erm, what? Have you actually studied the history of Chess? It has it's roots in simulating battles. Every time you 'take' an opponents piece, that stands for the elimination of an enemy unit - in other words, killing most of them and driving the rest from the field. As for the fact you 'play as yourself', this actually makes Everwill's point STRONGER, if anything - you, yourself, are supposed to accumulate wealth and bankrupt the other players (in Monopoly), or kill the opposing soldiers (in Chess), not a fictional character.

:::''In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.''
:::You've got that utterly wrong. It is, in fact, the complete opposite - the accumulation of wealth and experience is so that you can make your character better (by better equipment and increased attributes and abilities) so that they are more effective in your end goal, so it is this accumulation of wealth and experience that is secondary.
:::''Indeed, there are adventures and groups of players which are focused entirely on the preservation of evil in a struggle against good. At no point in any D&D material is good ever placed over evil. They are considered two sides of a balanced equation. This is no more evident anywhere than in the Dragonlance setting. Not only does good not try to defeat evil, but good actually works towards keeping the balance between good and evil.''
:::Erm, what? There is a staggeringly large number of Dragonlance novels (about 200, I think), and I haven't read them all, but the ones I read were generally about good versus evil, with the good guys generally winning. The only thing that may be confusing you is that it is not always readily apparant whether someone is good or evil until you read the whole book, or sometimes the whole sequence of books in that particular series, and there are characters who are Neutral - in other words, they believe the correct order of the universe is a balance between good and evil. Whilst it is true, more generally, that D&D does not discourage playing evil characters, it does not encourage it either. In other words, it is '''your choice''' which you play, and there is a third choice - Neutral.
:::''Too much good is portrayed as no different than evil.''
:::Sorry, no. What D&D does is question certain concepts of good and evil. For example, some would say that always obeying the law is good. However, what if doing so means someone you know is innocent has to be punished? Or even executed? Would breaking him out of jail then be good or evil? Alternatively, if you didn't know he was innocent but broke him out simply because someone paid you to do it, is that good or evil?
:::''"The preservation of good in a struggle against evil" certainly makes for good books and movies, but it bears little resemblance to the gameplay.''
:::No, sorry, that is a completely accurate depiction of the gameplay. The only slightly unusual thing is that it is entirely your choice on which side you fight, or whether you fight to, in effect, maintain the status quo. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::Jinxmchue, if you've ever played the game, you would realize that most people ''actually'' play the game to have fun with their friends. Fighting fictional good or evil and accumulating fictional wealth are only secondary and tertiary effects. If this were not so, then you could simply find any 5 people who play D&D and instantaneously enjoy the game -- because you are fighting evil and accumulating wealth. Having just spent a weekend at a convention playing D&D, I can tell you that if you aren't having fun with people around you, the in-game benefits don't matter at all. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Goal of the game ==

It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." ''WHY'' do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games. Good gosh, people - one of the major and most popular classes in the game is the ''thief''; someone whose primary purpose in life is to gain gold! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:23, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Really? Considering there's not actually a class called "Thief," I'm rather skeptical of your claims. Have you ever actually played a game of Dungeons and Dragons? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::They probably changed things in the new version, but the classic, best known, most played version(s) had fighters, mages, thieves and clerics as the four major class groups. Seems I'm not the one who's ignorant (as usual). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:51, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm referring to the current version, which has the following classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Ranger, plus, of course, the prestige classes. The remark still stands.
:::How did you come to the rather absurd conclusion that the most played class is the rogue? And for that matter, how did you come to the conclusion that people play D&D to gain gold in an imaginary setting where there's no real use for it, and it'll probably be reset at the start of the next campaign? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::The wild and baseless leaps in what poses as logic posited by Jinxmchue are so far divorced from reality as to not merit discussion. To engage in this discussion is a mistake. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::The lies and obfuscations made in defense of this game merit confrontation and debunking. "It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::How can I put this politely? Let's just say the only 'lies and obfuscations' that I am seeing made in reference to this game are definitely ''not'' being made by Everwill. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:54, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::That's nice. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::In addition, Jinxmchue misses that it is entirely possible to play as a 'Good Rogue' by, for example, only stealing from rich, corrupt barons and the like. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:42, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh, okay. So "stealing from rich, corrupt barons" somehow nullifies the fact that the goal is still about accumulating wealth. Moral relativism is fun! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't capitalism all about the accumulation of wealth? Is capitalism evil, jinx? Sounds like we've got a communist on our hands.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I never said anything about my personal beliefs about accumulating wealth. The issue is about the paragraph in which some Christians believe that accumulating wealth is wrong. I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::So it's OK for this rich, corrupt baron to accumulate wealth by squeezing it from his subjects, but not OK for someone to take his ill-gotten gains away from him? I'm guessing you think Robin Hood was evil as well? Hmm, I guess moral relativism is, indeed, fun. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:40, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::ROFLMAO! Oh, it's "rogue," not "thief." Gosh, I stand corrected. In other news, I'll take six of one and a half-dozen of the other. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:27, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::Heaven forbid that a player should assume the role of that famed burglar Bilbo Baggins.

:::::Quite frankly, Jinxmchue the level of aggression found in your edits combined with the wholly preposterous nature of your argument leaves me wondering if your goal is to undermine the credibility of Conservapedia by staking out this ridiculous argument. It would be wholly more appropriate and productive to argue the merits of the 9/11 "Truth" theories and the Flat Earth Society than to discuss the vapid technical points you are trying to make herein. It is rare that I take such a firm stance, but it is clear that your position is so completely and utterly without merit that any "debate" with you is a waste of time.

:::::That said, I think there is a value in addressing each of these points, because people who don't know the game, or the hobby, need to know why these are baseless accusations. While I am in favor of explaining these misperceptions, I will not participate in a debate with a pompous individual who is attempting to prove something from either a position of total ignorance or prove something as an effort to diminish Conservapedia.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::That's great, Jinx. It's insulting to see you babble on like you know what you're talking about when you can't even muster up enough decency to get the class names right. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::::You need to pay more attention to Bilbo's story. He came to regret his burgling because of all the trouble, pain and sorrow that it eventually caused. In any case, that's neither here nor there. It still stands as a fact that a main goal of the game is accumulation of wealth. No amount of whitewashing or gussying up of the game can change that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

For the record, the "goal" of any scenario is decided by the GM. It varies greatly between games. For example, in the last campaign I played, we had to retrieve a staff from a thief so the world wouldn't, you know, disintegrate into nothingness. What little gold we got during the journey was spent on getting things that would prevent us from dying. To argue that the goal of any game is to collect gold is utterly illogical. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:57, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:Mmm-hmm. One example out of thousands and thousands and thousands around the world. Great argument, B. Tell me again, who is being illogical? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:52, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Carrying on==
Gary Gygax was a friend and a good man. He would no doubt be amused by this silly discourse. In his defense and honor, I will, as time permits, walk through this article with a fine tooth comb. Opening is drafted and sets the stage for what is to come. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== A little civility please? ==

Please, people, let's try to be a little more civil in our discussions here. I hate the idea of temporarily blocking people so they can cool down, but if I have to I will. How about instead of attacking each other, we make some sourced arguements? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks, HelpJazz. Over the coming days and weeks I'll finish this out. In the meantime, I would hope that an admin or editor can keep an eye on baseless reverts and edits. I've just completed the origins of the game and would expect there will be some typographical errors.

I intend next to describe what elements in the game caused a backlash and what steps the game designers took to acknowledge justifiable criticism and ignore baseless criticism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:It's likely that a goal of some contributors here is to undermine Conservapedia. Such users should be confined to the [[Debate Topics]] or blocked.

:If anyone is interested in presenting a variety of published views on D&D (or on [[role-playing games]] in general, I will support that. But subversion of the trust we are trying to build here is not acceptable here, any more than it should be in [[journalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::Ed, I have no intention of injecting my views into this article. Viewpoints should be relatively irrelevant here. I intend to explain and document the facts and let the goodly reader draw his or her own conclusions. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Not talking about '''you''', Will. I meant that other guy. And there's nothing wrong with adding in some viewpoints. Readers would like to know who supports and opposes D&D. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Even Wikipedia recognizes the truth ==

"Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and '''gather treasure''' and knowledge."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons] (Emphasis mine.) Guess someone better go over to Wikipedia and make sure that part is deleted because it's obviously false, right guys? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:Erm, what? No-one ever said that gathering treasure doesn't happen. What has been said is that your assertation that this is the only purpose of D&D and the end goal of every game or campaign is utter hogwash. In fact, gathering treasure is the means, not the end. You gather treasure to buy better stuff, which improves your character, which makes that character more effective in moving towards the end goal of the game or campaign. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:03, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:It should also be noted that even the part you chose to quote from Wikipedia actually refutes your assertation - it actually lists four things that happen in the game, with 'gathering treasure' only being one, so the sole aim of D&D is obviously not gathering treasure, even if it was listing those things as goals of the game (which it's not). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:09, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure? Please don't build straw man arguments for me. Thanks. The issue at hand is the following paragraph:
:::''Since the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24).[Citation Needed] Their feelings regarding the accumulation of wealth puts them in direct conflict with the economic system of capitalism.''
::The first part of the first sentence is undeniably true and Wikipedia agrees with it. Slaying monsters = engaging in battles. Accumulating wealth = gathering treasure. The focus of the paragraph is what some people believe are Christ's teachings regarding these two issues. (All Christians can agree that Christ never condemned solving problems and gaining knowledge.) Some people here apparently don't think D&D is about - at least in part - gathering wealth. This is demonstrably false and for those people to continue to try to lie and/or obfuscate is the height of arrogance and apparently is based upon the belief that editors and readers are flipping morons. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:::Nobody has said that D&D does not ''involve'' gathering wealth, they've said it does not revolve around gathering wealth. When you go to the movies do you watch the credits? When you plan on what you want to do for the evening do you say "oh let's go to the movies, honey; I really want to watch some credits"?

:::We can ask PJR, but I think playing a ''game'' which involves gathering wealth is just a teensy bit different than revolving your ''life'' around accumulating wealth, which is what Jesus was talking abotu in the Bible verse. It's just too darned big of stretch to be made in this article, especially with no supporting documents.

:::This is not related to this claim, but have you played D&D, Jinxmchue? You aren't supporting yourself with 3rd party references, and a lot of the things you say are nonsensical to anyone who has played. To bring back the example you gave of a "thief" class, you laughed it off as a minor difference, but if you played the game you would know that there actually is no real comparison between a "thief" and a "rogue".

:::Lastly, I told you before to be civil. Calling people arrogant liars is ''not'' being civil. I've given you significantly more leeway than would most, but my fuse is getting short. Please try and stick to the arguments at hand, ok? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:33, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::Actually, yes, they have claimed that D&D doesn't involve gathering wealth or isn't a primary focus of the game. Two edit summaries:
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399287 The game has little if anything to do with the accumulation of wealth.]
:::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dungeons_and_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=399481 The main goal is usually to save a village/the world, not to accumulate gold.]
::::As well as comments made elsewhere on this page. All patently and demonstrably false.
::::As for my experience, I played D&D (and other games) for many, many years. I've played in many adventures with many characters in many gaming groups. I've even been a DM. I've never seen one thing that contradicts the fact that accumulating wealth is a main focus of the game. Not even paladins (who are - or were - forbidden from retaining wealth, but were given increased abilities, powers and potential as a compensation).
::::"Thief," "rogue," "six," "half-dozen." Put a pig in a dress and it's still a pig (and still stinks). Again, I direct your attention to Wikipedia, which again backs up my position, not yours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons)]. No distinction is made between "rogue" and "thief."
::::If unabashedly and plainly stating facts is "uncivil," then yes, I am uncivil. I never called anyone a liar or arrogant. What I said is that there are lies and obfuscations being used in regards to this article and that using them is "the height of arrogance," especially when it is easily proven that they are lies and obfuscations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::::::I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you trying to argue that the reason you play the game, mainly, is to accrue wealth? This is simply not "patently and demonstratably" true. Even if the rulebooks stated (which they don't) "you should play this game if you enjoy accruing wealth", that has nothing to do with reasons ''players'' decide to play the game. Apparently (since you have finally told us your experience; thank you for the clarification) you have only played with selfish players. Last year, for example, I played in a campaign where we had to save the country from certain doom and prevent or twart the attack of a huge army of orcs, goblins, and many other evil creatures. Nobody offered us any money in return, because they were poor peasants who had none. Our characters fought to save the innocents who were too weak to save themselves. Our ''players'' played because we enjoyed the social atmosphere, the storyline, the competition, and we just loved playing the game. As I said before I went to a D&D convention last weekend where I played 4 games; in only one were our characters motivated by money, but that motivation actually happened "off screen", before our players had a say in it. Heck most of the time (especially in poor role-playing groups), the players are motivated by a fuzzy sense of "we want to play, so let's just follow any story hooks".

::::::I'm not sure why WP gets to be considered a reliable source in the thief/rogue matter, but if you read carefully, they do not equivocate; the name was changed. The entire article talks about, and uses the term, rogues. As you will see, again in the article, "theif-like qualities" (robber, thug, treasure hunter) are ascribed to the earlier editions of the game. Robbers and thugs might be rogues in the current edition, but rogue encompases much more, and as such the two can not be equivocated. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::I used Wikipedia as a source you and others obviously view as being superior to Conservapedia. If Wikipedia makes no distinction between "rogue" and "thief," why should Conservapedia? Wikipedia uses the terms "rogue" and "thief" interchangeably:
::::::::''In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, rogue or thief is one of the base character classes.''
::::::::''The abilities of the thief class were drawn from various archetypes from history and myth''
:::::::The name was changed. Big whoop. "Six" and "half-dozen" still mean the same thing. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::To answer your question, Jinxmchue, 'Where did I ever say that the ONLY purpose was to acquire treasure?', you may not have said that was the ONLY purpose of the game, in so many words, but you have certainly very strongly implied it, and seem to be going out of your way to deny that anything else is the purpose of the game. In fact, if you think that everything said by anyone here that says something different is, as you called it, 'lies and obfuscations', can you please explain, then what you think the primary purpose of the game actually is, if it's NOT accumulating wealth?
::::::As for the edits you provided, the section those edits remove (and has since been re-added) strongly implies that the primary purpose of the game is accumulating wealth, which is incorrect. If it is, indeed, true that some Christians believe that playing D&D goes against scripture (though I've not seen any that do, personally), then perhaps the section could be reworded slightly, for example, 'Since the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding pacifism (Matthew 5:38-42) and the accumulation of wealth (Matthew 19:24)'. This puts the point across whilst removing the implication that this is the primary goal. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:05, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth. That's your straw man. People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people). That is an integral, major part of the game and it cannot be denied. The people who are trying to deny or downplay it are lying to themselves and others. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:52, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::''No, I'm not implying anything about people playing the game to accumulate wealth or that the only purpose of the game is to accumulate wealth.''
:::::::Well, can you explain these quotes of yourself on this very page:
{{quotebox|In published D&D adventures, the primary focus is on the accumulation of wealth and experience points. The means by which those goals are accomplished (e.g. "preservation of good in a struggle against evil") is secondary.}}
{{quotebox|It's not to "save a village" or "fight evil." WHY do the players save villages or fight evil? To gain gold, power, prestige and experience points. Doing things out of the goodness of one's heart is not a concept taught in the games.}}
{{quotebox|"It's about saving villages! Really, it is!" Please. How stupid do you think people are?}}
{{quotebox|I am simply pointing out quite correctly that accumulating wealth is a major goal of the game.}}
:::::::As they appear to be you saying precisely that.
:::::::''People play the game to have fun. However, part of the fun is accumulating wealth (e.g. finding a treasure horde or stealing from people).''
:::::::Sorry, no. It is simply a means to an end - you find treasure, or steal it from people, so you can buy a better sword/shield/set af armour/whatever for your character. This improves your character so they are more effective in progressing towards the end of the game or campaign. The fun is to be had, within the framework of the game, by successfully progressing to the end goal. More generally, people have fun by simply being in the company of friends (or even strangers) who enjoy doing the same thing, but that is hardly unique to D&D.
:::::::I also note that you haven't answered my question - what do you believe the primary goal of the game actually is, if it's not anything that anyone else here has said (those being 'lies and obfuscations'), and yet it is NOT accumulating wealth, as you appear to have been saying? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:38, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Bilbo the burglar==

I'm not sure how much of [[Bilbo]]'s "burglary" he eventually came to regret. Everything he stole was either taken from thieves or kidnappers.

He certainly did '''not''' regret taking the [[Arkenstone]], for he was able to use [[Thorin]]'s desire for that to settle the quarrel between the dwarves and Bard's folk. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:One of the great themes that Tolkien used in regards to Bilbo is the regrets Bilbo comes to face because of his adventures. He sees the sorrow and suffering of his friends and family caused by ill-considered adventures. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

::I read the book a half dozen times. I don't recall Bilbo regretting the "burglary" of the Arkenstone. Nor did he express any regret over taking the coins from the trolls; he and Gandalf split them on the return journey to the Shire.

::The only ethical comment Bilbo made was his comment that the treasure had '''previously''' been stolen (by the trolls and the dragon) and the report that he gave nearly all of it away. In fact, he gave away the single most valuable treasure, worth "the entire price of the Shire", to Frodo.

::There's also the matter of the Ring itself. We can truly say that ''The Hobbit'' and ''The Lord of the Rings'' are books to help young people wrestle with ethical issues. Of course, the correct choices are made for them in these books.

::D&D, however, ''is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By it's very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters.''

::I don't see how playing the game teaches any "valuable" moral lesson from the "implications" of role-playing. The article simply makes this assertion.

::Thus I suggest that the POV that the game provides moral value be attributed to an adherent of that view, rather than being stated as fact. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==For your consideration==
Ed, thanks for the clean-up and I'm glad to know that an editor is there with me. I have a few points that you may wish to consider and revert or re-edit.

Firstly regarding the introduction of the term "role-playing". I intentionally moved this deeper into the article because I think what must be stressed is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' represents the first commercially available role-playing game ever. If you have a better way to accomplish this, please do so, but in think in present form it does not underscore the fact that this game birthed an industry and a new way of thinking and gaming.

Secondly, the criticisms of the game ''have'' largely been answered. Leaving this unsaid is to imply that Conservapedia does not recognize this plainly obvious fact. This does not admit that criticism was unfounded or that ALL criticisms were answered. But it is quite factual to say that the criticisms of the game have largely been answered.

Please advise. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:27, 7 March 2008 (EST)

:I would agree that Jack Chick should not be considered authoritative, given his views on the Pope being the Antichrist. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Wasn't the original boost to the game, and the cause of alarm, over the actions of a single student in a college who went AWOL for a period of time acting out Dungeons and Dragons underneath the school or something like that? I don't know the particulars, or its veracity, but that should be mentioned somewhere by someone with more knowledge of the incident.

And, as someone who really learned to play and was quite active in the game at a Christian College, I think the article comes across more strongly in the controversy realm dealing with Christianity than is warranted.

I'd imagine the game is the same now as it has always been. As a game that is like a board game except without the board and played out in the imagination of the participants, some groups of participants playing the game will fight for treasure, some will fight for causes, some will be more role playing, and some will be more hack-n-slash. The way it unfolds is not as limited as traditional games and will vary more according to the individual direction desired by the dungeon master and the participants. It is not inately good or evil, but there is nothing to stop a particular group from exploring either direction if that is their desire. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::I agree that the amount of controversy reported is out proportion to the level of controversy associated with the game. This is primarily because I haven't finished my first draft of this rewrite. I do think its important to document the controversy, largely because it is part of the history of D&D, even if there isn't much controversy anymore. Additionally, if we don't fully address the controversies, certain opinionated editors will creep this article back into ''la-la'' land. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:59, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

==Highly Disputable Source==
This statement is very nearly factually wrong and slanted summary from a biased article.

::''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups. The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence." Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances[9].''

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the article picks and chooses quotes to frame argument that does not really exist. For example, look at the conclusion drawn in this quote from that article:

::"One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."

::More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances, thus preventing them from serving in sensitive IDF positions, he says.

It may well be true that "More than half of the soldiers sent for evaluation receive low security clearances" but there is no indication what number of D&D players are determined to have mental or emotional issues. Furthermore, there is no indication of causality. Does D&D cause you to be a nerd? It would seem much more likely that D&D attracts nerds rather than creates them.

Finally, the quote we have in our article doesn't mention this from the same article:

::''Unsurprisingly, Igor, Matan and thier friends do not approve of this IDF policy. They say the game is only a colorful, non-violent hobby.

::"Many people who play served in the most classified units," David says. "They are intelligent and any attempt to label them as 'weird' is incorrect and unfair."''

I don't know who sourced this, but there is no indication that the claim made in our article has a basis in fact. I have deleted that paragraph and placed it here with comment:

* ''Not all criticism has come from Christian groups.'' -- This is probably true. Let's find a real source.
* ''The Israeli Defense Forces consider recruits who play roleplaying games "detached from reality and susceptible to influence."'' -- This statement is verifiably false or at best a gross distortion of the truth. A more accurate statement would read ''According to an unnamed security official from the Israeli Defense Force "One of the tests we do, either by asking soldiers directly or through information provided us, is to ask whether they take part in the game," he says. "If a soldier answers in the affirmative, he is sent to a professional for an evaluation, usually a psychologist."''
* ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations and are often denied security clearances.'' This is a half-truth. The truth is: ''Those who admit to playing are given psychological evaluations. Half of all IDF personnel who are given psychological evaluations are denied security clearances.''.

In other news, I've not finished "spells and Gods" which I think will be an important section. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:24, 8 March 2008 (EST)

==Enough already==
Please can somebody explain why we have this vast and in-depth article about a toy/game/whatever, and try to pass [[Moses|this]] off? Enough with the trivia and the cruft, this article should be chopped down and an appropriate couple of external links added. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh that's an easy one to answer. Gary Gygax was an acquaintance of mine and wrote the Foreword to my book. Although I would agree that Moses was a great man, he was not acquaintance of mine and thus I do not feel personally motivated to memorialize him at this time. Gary Gygax died last week. Moses did not. I am a subject expert on ''Dungeons & Dragons''. I am not a subject expert on Moses.

::''Now a question for you'': isn't the world a big enough place for you to find a place to urinate other than in my cornflakes? I mean there are a lot of [[special:random |cornflakes in the world]]. Why choose mine? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:26, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::So what you're saying is that you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:20, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

::Everwill, that's a harsh sort of thing to say. I can understand Fox's irritation with the disparity between articles. No, it's not really your fault; you simply wrote about a topic on which you felt knowledgeable enough to write (and fairly well), whereas no such writer (or not enough writers) has come forth on [[Moses]] or other such articles. Please don't take it so personally when Fox expresses frustration at this situation in general, and don't respond with such snarky comments; it's better to assume exasperation than maliciousness. Fox, like I said, (I think) I understand your frustration, but I don't know if the the solution is necessarily to dismantle the less important but actually substantial articles - the problems may lie beyond that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, he does not have a conflict of interest regarding this article. On Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, we welcome edits from people with familiarity with the subject through personal experience. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:12, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry for my snippy response. I couldn't understand why someone thinks killing my enthusiasm is productive. Preventing from working this article won't get Moses written any sooner. But perhaps I was most testy because Gygax has just died. I thought I was pretty clever with the random link though. * :^) *

:::I posted Gygax's favorite Bible verse on [[Gary_Gygax | his article]]. Hope that's okay. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia is rife with errors and tilts to the wacky left, but give Wikipedia its due. Wikipedia is one of the best resources for research into popular culture. If you want to know the name of Boba Fett's uncle, or find out who is responsible for creating Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you can't (yet) beat Wikipedia. If this reference is to ever have something approaching the popularity of that reference, then you'll need a lot of articles like this one.

Furthermore, we perform a great service to young people everywhere by giving them conservative impressions and thoughts about popular culture and pop culture icons. This may well be the first and only place where they hear what we think. I don't know if there is a conservapedia article about [[Britney_Spears]] or [[Prince]] but there should be. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:No, there shouldn't be. And why are either of the two preceeding examples you gave of any importance whatsoever? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I guess that he answered the "why" by saying that young people ''will'' be looking for information about those people, so we should have a conservative article on them. Otherwise, they will simply look elsewhere and likely get a different viewpoint. That does, admittedly, go against things that have been said before about Conservapedia, but I think it might be a valid point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Just because pop culture is not important to you (and most of the time to me) does not mean that pop culture is not important. But, the "importance" of pop culture is irrelevant. The fact is -- important or not -- impressionable kids and young adults have a lot of interest in popular culture. Therefore, it is our place to provide reliable information and conservative values-based commentary.

Instead of lauding the accomplishments of drinking womanizing pop stars, we can identify them for what they are: weak-minded, insecurity and desperate for attention. Instead of lavishing attention on trollops who don't wear underwear, we should mock them as tramps and harlots. The alternative is not to ignore Britney Spears and Anna Nicole because they aren't "important". Kids need to know that VanderSloot might be evil for killing Natalie Holloway, but they also need to know how she is responsible for the lifestyle choices she made.

Our culture is chock full of people whose lives have been wrecked by an adherence to the liberal lifestyle. From Marilyn Monroe to Jimi Hendrix to Bon Scott to Keith Whitley to Keith Ledger, we have a ready supply of lessons for youth who may be attracted to the liberal lifestyle. We do those youth a disservice when we simply dismiss these people as unimportant.

Movies, art, and pop stars are the ceremonies, hymns and saints of the pop church. To dismiss this as "unimportant" is to cede liberals the power to spin culturally subversive messages to expand the secular progressive agenda. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Your inside knowledge of the game through your acquaintance with Gary Gygax is valuable, and I see no conflict of interest. The rules of Wikipedia do not apply here. WP's goal is "neutrality", while ours is to be "trustworthy". Having an inside track is good!

:I can understand why you might be irritated with a request to drop the subject you know well. No one can ask you to conduct research on a topic that is new to you, and we could not expect good results from such research anyway. Better to let each person write about what he already knows, and do a bit of light research to chase down details and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==And the beat goes on ... ==
I just finished "Unchristian Activities". An editorial review to sift out my opinions might be helpful. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

:On the whole, I like it - it seems nicely balanced, giving both sides of the debate. I do have concerns about the 'warning to parents and players', though. It is still balanced, as it seems to give two different sides to that issue, but it seems to be describing differing opinions, rather than relying on verifiable facts, and it also leaves out both the idea that both opinions may be wrong (D&D could, in effect, be 'just a game' to many players, having neither a positive or negative effect), and the idea that playing as an 'evil' character has precisely the opposite effect than the article suggests (it 'gets it out of your system', so to speak, so you don't act in such a manner outside of the game, in real life). The part about guns also has me doubly concerned, as it seemingly drags a whole different issue into the article, which I'm not sure is appropriate, and it also seems to try to simplify each side of the gun control issue into a few words, at the cost of leaving out important details (for example, some anti-gun folk call guns 'evil' because, whilst they are tools, they're tools designed for a single function - to kill). Other than that, nice work, not just on that section, but the whole page. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::In all honesty, the "parental advisory" tidbit is not very encyclopedic in nature. Even if you're trying to be helpful, I think it's safe to assume you're only setting yourself and this article up as easy targets for anyone who wants to have their conservapedia prejudices confirmed. [[User:Lichthammer|Lichthammer]] 00:45, 11 April 2008 (CET)

:::Your idea that there is a third category other than good and evil, is itself evil (IMHO). It is a typical liberal idea to declare that nothing is good or evil (I think [[Nietschze]] popularized this idea).

:::If it's "just a game", then it's good. If it "gets it out of your system", then it's good. The question remains whether role-playing '''does''' get evil out of one's system. Some say that acting out fantasies of good or evil '''reinforce''' those same good or evil tendencies. Let's continue this at [[Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::A small note, in a family friendly encyclopedia we're not going to advocate acting out evil so someone can become good any more than someone would have recommended to Hitler to act out being a good and compassionate man so he could become more evil. We have a tendency to follow that which we feed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, I agree that the reverse of what I said isn't true (that people who are evil in real life don't get more evil by playing at being good to 'get it out of their system'), but it's not exactly an uncommon notion that everyone has a dark side. Releasing that 'dark side' within the confines of a game, for some people, may very well act as a sort of 'stress relief', and stop that 'dark side' from being released in real life. However, perhaps I wasn't very clear, but the point I was making there was that, whilst the section is balanced by having two differing opinions, there are alternative opinions to the two posed, and it is two differing '''opinions''', so should it be in the article at all? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have a few more paragraphs to finish up. I'm going to explain the basics of game play. As for these criticisms, I think they are quite valid, but I think I've provided a framework for the debate without offering up every answer. I wholeheartedly agree that it is never a good idea to confuse one argument with another, so I do think that references to the gun control argument can be left out. That said, I think the idea that this is a tool/toy needs to be made. D&D is not inherently good or evil, but it is up to the players to choose to use it for good or evil. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Far from finished==
This is far from finished, requiring many edits and a bit of paring down, but my first draft is complete. I'm going to leave this for a while. Hopefully some good soul will give this a friendly edit and hopefully the gremlins will keep their grubs away from it. Either way, I think it's best if I leave it for a while and then edit the edits rather than continuing to make this "all mine". There are quite a few things I would have chopped out, but I didn't want to be too merciless on other people's work. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:09, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your work. It seems to me that sections on gameplay should probably not be at the bottom of the article. Perhaps the middle after history? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:02, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the kind words. I would agree with this edit and encourage you to make it. ;^) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Is the game really about "free will?" ==

Or is it about a false perception of free will? Certainly players can say whatever they want about what their characters are doing, but the game is ultimately controlled by the Dungeon Master. The DM ultimately decides what acts are and are not allowed within the plot of the game. It's not really true free will if your choices are limited by another and/or a plotline. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:There's a great deal of variation. An experienced Dungeon Master usually molds the game around the actions of the players more than the other way around. Of course that also includes consequences for actions. But again, there is a great deal of variation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

::I think if you want to argue that the game revolves around a false perception of free will, you probably need to change DMs. A good DM adjudicates what is possible within the rules ("physics") and describes the world and anything that is not a PC. So just as gravity tells you that you can't jump 100 feet into the air, the DM tells you that you need to make a jump check to try and jump 100 feet into the air (and then he will tell you that you have failed). The DM should ''not'' be telling you what you can and cannot do, though a really good DM might suggest that you do otherwise, for the safety of your character. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I have become convinced that Jinxmchue's goal is to describe the conservative position in the most preposterous terms so as to better ridicule conservatives by posing as a conservative. If this is Andy Kauffman style humor, I applaud it even as I tire of it. On the other hand, if this is a sincere attempt to undermine conservative values and Conservapedia, then I forewarn you that such efforts are futile. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I don't know. I would hate to accuse someone who may have sincere beliefs of trolling. But I do know that if he hasn't been involved in the fantasy role playing world, that it will be difficult to understand, especially because of the great variation involved. Are there bad games? Of course, but there are good ones too. The question is do the rules themselves lead one to a destructive path? At least in the earlier versions that I am accustomed to, I would say no. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::He says he has played (and DMed) before, somewhere up above. I would say as well with the later versions of the game you have even more freedom (and therefore are less likely to be lead down a destructive path). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:57, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, I go back to the AD&D first edition, which I think was superior to what was produced afterwards precisely because there was a strongly defined good and evil. Demons and devils were evil and sought the active destructive and torment of humans. So what happened with the 2nd edition? They were renamed and now they fought against each other instead. It sounded like PC garbage and neutered the game. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Third Edition is a PC abomination where it seems clear that "neutral" is the preferred alignment. While the "kooky goods" are really no better than "evil", the peace-loving neutrals are not bound to any dogma. Also, before PC it was common practice to use "he" when one means "he/she". Third edition uses "she" instead.

In a side note [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] has created articles about [[Jeb Eddy]] and [[Jim Ronca]] and the [[Democratic Underground]]. I think he's got a pretty active sense of humor and I tip my hat to him, wink and smile---even while I hope the constables haul him away. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think for one moment that Jason is in any danger of being hauled off by the constables :D [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:42, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

If memory serves, LT, aren't most of those things controlled by the setting used, not the system itself? There's nothing in the rules preventing you from having no moral ambiguity or forcing you to have non-stereotypical characters. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 20:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Addition to warnings about the game? ==

While the game itself may not be inherently evil or Satanic, I think it's pretty clear that it attracts a lot of folks who hold ideas incompatible with Christianity. Many Christian parents may not want their children associating with such individuals.

A good example is here: [http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=fa8732ac6a8fdeebe5664e1f5c4c95e8&topic=246.msg10383#new Satanism in D&D] I was pretty shocked when this was pointed out to me; notice that, among the "Brilliant Gameologists" participating in the discussion, the only debate seems to be over whether Satanism or atheism is superior. I didn't see a single even marginally positive opinion concerning Christianity.

While I'm sure these folks don't speak for everyone who plays the game, shouldn't the article reflect the possibility of encountering such viewpoints?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why don't we warn against watching TV and reading books, as well? Those both attract the same sorts. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 20:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Flawed logic, EBrown. Reading books and watching television can be done in isolation; roleplaying games are, by their nature, a group activity. As with any group activity, parents should be aware of the nature of the group. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:18, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'll grant you that, I guess. How about this, then: How about we warn parents about the dangers of encountering atheists or other non-Christians, or worse, steroid users in sports? No matter how you look at it, using an '''encyclopedia''' to warn parents that their children might talk to an atheist doesn't seem appropriate. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 20:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::If the encyclopedia in question plainly makes its purpose known, and that purpose is to be an educational resource for those of a conservative (and particularly conservative Christian) philosophy, then I think it's entirely appropriate to include such warnings. It's really no different from having, say, a website that reviews movies from a Christian perspective. While warnings to parents concerning anti-Christian themes might not be appropriate in a movie review in, say, the New York Times, it's entirely appropriate for such warnings to appear on such a website.

::::Furthermore, I will suggest that there's, again, a difference between roleplaying games and sports. While someone who participates in sports might be incidentally an atheist or even a Satanist, it's unlikely to come up in the context of that activity. I know I didn't have a lot of religious discussions while playing football. On the other hand, as the link I provided shows, it's entirely possible to use D&D as a vehicle for expressing Satanism or other questionable philosophies. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:27, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::When did scaremongering become educational? Futhermore, have you ever played D&D? In most cases, it's played in a group of friends who knew eachother previously.

:::::Do locker rooms not exist where you live?

:::::It's also entirely possible to use D&D as a vehicle for expressing Christianity. Since I know you're going to ask how and/or call me a heretic, I'll explain how: Send the players on a quest to defeat the legions of Satan (Represented by either actual demons or Atheists, your choice.) through prayer (In the form of weaponry, probably, because what measure is a non-human?) and good will. I'm sure you can come up with a less cynical version of that. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 21:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Personally, I find that saying I know what someone is going to do usually doesn't work out for the best; I prefer to respond to what they say, not to what "I know" they're going to say. The fact that there are Christian-themed roleplaying games is already well referenced in the article.

::::::Now: let's go back to your previous analogies. Let us suppose that we are discussing reading. Not all reading is created equal. I certainly think that a parent should react differently to discovering that their eleven year old child is reading, say, Great Expectations then they would to discovering that the same child was reading pornography. Nor do I think that most reasonable people would disagree with that supposition; it is wise and prudent for a parent to be aware of what their child is reading. The same applies to television viewing; I don't think most reasonable individuals would disagree that a responsible parent will keep track of what their child is watching, and how much of it they're watching.

::::::Hence, my addition to the warnings--which is, ultimately, simply a caution that the parent should keep track of their child's associations.

::::::Daphnea, in response to your question: I'm actually quite familiar with roleplaying games. I am also familiar with the use of roleplaying as a therapeutic tool. I'm aware that such tools can be used well, and that they can also be used poorly.

::::::Why is it that anyone even suggesting that some parental guidance is appropriate is automatically cast as a reactionary boogeyman? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Because you're suggesting that everyone who plays D&D is some sort of Satan-worshipping atheist (?) or other malcontent. If you're suggesting parents keep track of their childrens' friends, that's fine, but this isn't the place to do it for two reasons:
:::::::# This is an encyclopedia.
:::::::# This is the D&D article. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 21:56, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I'd love to see where I suggested that. I could've sworn that what I said was that the game tends to attract a disproportionate number of such individuals...an assertion I supported with a link to a current thread on a popular board for discussion of such games. (Please note that I'm not citing alarmism and hearsay from the 1980's; I'm citing what actual gamers are saying on actual forums today.)

:::::::::Ah, right. I forgot, you're surprised to see a discussion of LaVey Satanism (Which is /not/ worship of Satan) in a thread entitled "Satanism in D&D". Good job, there. So instead of citing alarmism and hearsay, you've cited a thread where gamers discuss what is in the topic line. On the M-rated board.
:::::::::And you go on to warn us that people who play D&D (Not all of them, I'm sorry. I should've said "a disproportionate number." On another note, I'd like to see a source for that.) might not worship your God. To anyone with a working brain, it should not come as a surprise that a game of imagination should attract people who believe differently than you. Thus, I see such a warning as unnessecary and unencyclopedic. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 23:32, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Are encyclopedias supposed to give parental guidance? As I said below, why aren't there warnings in [[Gun]]? It seems stupid to warn parents against a game and NOT warn them against a lethal weapon. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 21:50, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::By the same logic, many would argue that an encyclopedia isn't "supposed to" promote one viewpoint over another...and thus, Conservapedia should not be pro-Christian. Such arguments strike me as disingenuous at best, when ''this'' encyclopedia makes it abundantly clear that it takes a definite position, and that the articles written here will reflect that position.

:::::::Daphnea: I see no reason that a well-written article on gun safety wouldn't be a welcome addition to the project. Certainly, parents should be aware if their children are handling firearms, and should be involved in ensuring that they know how to handle them safely and responsibly. Given that gun safety is a topic unto itself, and a fairly extensive one, I think perhaps a distinct article with a link would probably be better than just an addition to the main [[Gun]] article, but YMMV. The reason I think a brief warning is appropriate in the body of ''this'' article is because, frankly, D&D doesn't strike me as a topic of as much significance as guns, and "D&D safety" doesn't seem to merit its own article.

::::::::That said: a lot of parents aren't aware of exactly what Dungeons and Dragons is, or the potential positives and negatives of the game. Thus, a warning is not out of order. I think it's a pretty safe bet that most parents are aware of the fact that guns are dangerous and can shoot people, aren't you?

:::::::Honestly, folks: D&D seems to be a sacred cow to some people, and any criticism (however mild) prompts hyperbolic accusations. I personally think the current article does a pretty good job of striking a balance between those who think the game is wonderful and those who think it poses serious moral problems for Christians. If you genuinely think that a cautionary note to parents is outside the purview of this encyclopedia (not "an encyclopedia," but ''this specific'' encyclopedia,) we could ask a sysop for clarification. I'm willing to abide by whatever they say is appropriate. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You're not criticising, you're attacking. If you /really/ want to write an unencyclopedic warning on the dangers of people using their imaginations to slay monsters and fight the forces of evil in a fantasy world, feel free to write something in the Essay namespace. That's what it's there for, after all. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 10:19, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::I'm not sure what information you are currently at odds about. Is it the section as written or the possibility of adding more criticism. Personally I would not expand the section on concerns as that section and the one above it seem to cover the topic in depth. As a family friendly encyclopedia we can express concerns, but should also be careful to do so within the wider framework of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:12, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::I'm confused too, I do think that we should strive to be informative regarding improper content on these games and other media (which I think is one of the things Wikipedia does worst) but at the same time the article seems to do just fine tackling these issues (I would change the leading text a bit but that's it) so whether this discussion about expanding said information or reducing it? Because I personally don't think it needs any major changes. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 13:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Warnings to Parents==
Aren't we abandoning any pretence of being an informative encyclopedia when we add things like this to articles? Strangly I was just editing the Columbine High School Massacre article and I didn't see any warnings about anything there. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:34, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Daphnea, exactly what sort of warnings do you think should be in the Columbine article? "Parents should be aware that going on a shooting rampage can have negative consequences?" I'm not quite sure I see the parallel you're trying to draw here. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think there should be any warnings added to Columbine. You could come up with some pretty good warnings if you tried - warnings on letting kids own guns come to mind - but I don't think there should be such warnings, because it's not the place of an encyclopedia to issue such warnings. My point though is that if it's pointless and sily to issue such warnings in the case of Columbine, it's equally pointless and silly to issue them here. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 21:16, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorceresses

2008-06-24T17:10:33Z