Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bible

2009-10-16T13:39:00Z

AFM: /* Judaism */ has -> have

[[Image:800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The Holy Bible, opened to the Book of Isaiah.]]
{{Bible}}
The '''Bible''', or the '''Holy Scriptures''', is the collection of texts sacred to [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]], and consists of two parts: the thirty-nine books of the Jewish faith known as the '''Tanakh''', or the [[Old Testament]], to which additional books are recognized by [[Christians]]; and the twenty-seven books and letters of the [[New Testament]] of the Christian faith. Originally written in [[Hebrew]], Aramaic, and Greek, the Bible has been translated in more than two thousand languages; in terms of sales and distribution the Bible is the most-widely distributed, largest-selling book in history;<ref> The Bible continues to be the best-selling book ever. Americans alone buy 25 million Bibles a year, according to Publisher's Weekly. Bible sales are now reaching $609 million a year, with specialty Bibles available for myriad "niche" audiences, from motorcycle riders to campers, brides and archaeologists. "Immerse," a water-resistant Bible for troops overseas, is now available from publisher Bardin & Marsee. [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070529-111815-7952r.htm Polls: Most believe Bible as God's word] - Jennifer Harper, ''The Washington Times'' - May 30, 2007] </ref>
the over-all influence and impact the Bible has had on literature, culture, and history is beyond calculation. Most [[Christians]], Protestant and Catholic, agree on the books of the [[New Testament]], but the Protestant Bible includes 66 books of the [[Old Testament]] while the Catholic Bible includes an extra 7 books, for a total of 73.<ref>The Catholic Bible includes these books that are not included in the Protestant Bible:
# The Wisdom of Solomon
# Tobit
# Sirach
# Judith
# 1st Maccabees
# 2nd Maccabees
# Baruch [http://www.catholicbible101.com/theholybible.htm]</ref> The Protestant Bible has 593,493 words in the Old Testament and 181,253 words in the New Testament.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/about.html</ref>

==Name==
The word "Bible" had its origins in an ancient [[Phoenicia]]n seaport called [[Byblos]], which was so-named as a result of the trade and manufacture of writing material based on the [[papyrus]] or byblos reed, used extensively in antiquity for making [[scroll]]s and [[book]]s. The [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''biblos'' was based upon this, and it came to be the word for ''book'' (a small book was termed ''biblion''), and by the 2nd century A.D. Greek [[Christianity|Christians]] had called the Scriptures ''ta Biblia'' ('''τα βιβλία''' ''the books''), which was transferred to [[Latin]] by dropping the ''ta''; the word made its way to [[Old French]] where the plural was dropped in favor of the singular, hence becoming the [[English]] word ''Bible''. (Unger, pg 143; Moulton; Blass)

==Books of the Bible==
===The Old Testament===
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="360" style="margin-left:5px" class="wikitable"
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament layout
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jewish
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Christian
|-
|Genesis
|Genesis
|-
|Exodus
|Exodus
|-
|Leviticus
|Leviticus
|-
|Numbers
|Numbers
|-
|Deuteronomy
|Deuteronomy
|-
|Joshua
|Joshua
|-
|Samuel
|Judges
|-
|Kings
|Ruth
|-
|Isaiah
|1st Samuel
|-
|Jeremiah
|2nd Samuel
|-
|Ezekiel
|1st Kings
|-
|The Minor Prophets
|2nd Kings
|-
|Psalms
|1st Chronicles
|-
|Proverbs
|2nd Chronicles
|-
|Job
|Ezra
|-
|Song of Songs
|Nehemiah
|-
|Ruth
|Esther
|-
|Lamentations
|Job
|-
|Ecclesiastes
|Psalms
|-
|Ester
|Proverbs
|-
|Daniel
|Ecclesiastes
|-
|Ezra
|Song of Solomon
|-
|Chronicles
|Isaiah
|-
|
|Jeremiah
|-
|
|Lamentations
|-
|
|Ezekiel
|-
|
|Daniel
|-
|
|The Minor Prophets
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Dates of each Book
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Old Testament
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|New Testament
|-
|Genesis, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Matthew, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Exodus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Mark, A.D. 60-65
|-
|Leviticus, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Luke, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Numbers, 1440-1400 B.C.
|John, A.D. 95
|-
|Deuteronomy, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Acts, A.D. 58-65
|-
|Joshua, 1400-1360 B.C.
|Romans, A.D. 58
|-
|Judges, c. 1020 B.C.
|1st Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|Ruth, c. 1090 B.C.
|2nd Corinthians, A.D. 57
|-
|1st Samuel
|Galatians, A.D. 56
|-
|2nd Samuel
|Ephesians, A.D. 62-63
|-
|1st Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Philippians, A.D. 58-60
|-
|2nd Kings, 609-600 B.C.
|Colosians, A.D. 61-63
|-
|1st Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Thessalonians, A.D. 52
|-
|2nd Chronicles, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Thessalonians, A.D. 53
|-
|Ezra, c. 400 B.C.
|1st Timothy, A.D. 62-65
|-
|Nehemiah, c. 400 B.C.
|2nd Timothy, A.D. 65-66
|-
|Esther, 464-425 B.C.
|Titus, A.D. 65
|-
|Job, 1440-1400 B.C.
|Philemon, A.D. 65
|-
|Psalms, 1004-965 B.C.
|Hebrews, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Proverbs, 965-925 B.C.
|James, A.D. 63-64
|-
|Eccleisiastes, 965-925 B.C.
|1st Peter, A.D. 64
|-
|Song of Solomon, 965-925 B.C.
|2nd Peter, A.D. 65
|-
|Isaiah, 785-697 B.C.
|1st John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Jeremiah, 587-538 B.C.
|2nd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Lamentations, 587-538 B.C.
|3rd John, A.D. 90-100
|-
|Ezekiel, 592-572 B.C.
|Jude, c. A.D. 70-75
|-
|Daniel, 539-520 B.C.
|Revelation, A.D. 96-98
|-
|Hosea, 753-731 B.C.
|
|-
|Joel, 835-796 B.C.
|
|-
|Amos, 787-747 B.C.
|
|-
|Obadiah, 848-841 B.C.
|
|-
|Jonah, 771-754 B.C.
|
|-
|Micah, 715-687 B.C.
|
|-
|Nahum, 661-612 B.C.
|
|-
|Habbakuk, 625-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Zephaniah, 621-608 B.C.
|
|-
|Haggai, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Zechariah, 520 B.C.
|
|-
|Malachi, 455 B.C.
|
|}
The [[Old Testament]], also called the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, consists of thirty-nine books. The books themselves were originally written in [[Hebrew]], and later on in the [[Aramaic]] language of Palestine; the Greek language version written after the conquest of [[Alexander the Great]] is known as the [[Septuagint]]. [[Melito]], a bishop of [[Sardis]] in [[Lydia]] (in what is now [[Turkey]]), is said to have coined the phrase ''Old Testament'' about A.D. 170. The Old Testament is divided in three parts (hence, "Tanakh") within the Jewish community: the [[Torah]] ("Law"), or [[Pentateuch]], the five books of [[Moses]]; [[Nevi'im]] ("Prophets"), and [[Ketuvim]] ("Writings,” or [[Hagiographa]]). Here the arrangement of the books differs somewhat from the Old Testament as used by Christians, however the actual writing of each book remains the same. The Christian order of the the books of the Bible follow the Chronology of the events and the personages being related, while in the Jewish order, though there is a chronological framework, the order follows more the importance, influence, "weight of usage" within Judaism. Thus, for orthodox Judaism, The Torah of Moses (the 5 books of Moses) come first, and are the most authoritative of all Scripture. Under the Pharasaic theory that the Moses was given the Oral law explicating how the written law was to be applied, at the same time as he was given the written law contained in the Bible, and that oral law passed on through the generations, the Mishna and the Gemara composing the Talmud is equally authoritative with the Torah of Moses. Then the Prophets come next in authority. But the Prophets are broader than considered by the Christian ordering. The Prophets do include what Christians call the Former and the Latter, or the Major and the Minor prophets, but it also includes what Christinns consider History - such as the books of the Kings. The last in authority for every day life of the Jew in terms of "regulation", actually form a great influence in the Synagogue worship - the Writings, with a heavy emphasis on the Psalms.

====Torah====
The Five books of Moses, in their Hebrew and English names:
*Bereisheet ("in the beginning"), or [[Genesis]]
*Shemot (“names”), or [[Exodus]]
*Vayikra (“and God called”), or [[Leviticus]]
*Bemidbar (“in the Wilderness”), or [[Numbers]]
*Devarim (“words”), or [[Deuteronomy]]

The first eleven chapters of ''Genesis'' provide the account of the [[Creation]], the history of God's early relationship with humanity, and the [[Deluge]] of [[Noah]]. The remaining thirty-nine chapters detail the account of God's covenant with the early Hebrew nation, led by the patriarchs [[Abraham]], [[Isaac]] and [[Jacob]] (or Israel), and one of Jacob's children, [[Joseph]]. It tells the beginnings of God's chosen people, of how God commanded Abraham to leave his family and home to settle in the land of [[Canaan]], and how the Children of Israel later moved to Egypt. The remainder of the Torah, beginning with ''Exodus'', tells the story of the great Hebrew leader [[Moses]], and of the Hebrews through their sojourn and slavery in Egypt, their escape from bondage, and their wanderings in the desert until they finally enter the Promised Land.

====Nevi'im====
The [[Nevi'im]] ("Prophets") is the story of the rise toward, and ultimately reaching, the Hebrew monarchy; the sad period of anarchy and revolt leading to the division into the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel; and the prophets who judged the kings of both in God's name. It ends with the conquest of both kingdoms and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Minor Prophets are considered a single book in the Nevi'um; in Christianity they have been split into twelve separate books and named for their authors.
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)|Joshua]]
* [[Judges (Biblical book)|Judges]]
* [[I Samuel]]
* [[II Samuel]]
* [[I Kings]]
* [[II Kings]]
* [[Isaiah (Biblical book)|Isaiah]]
* [[Jeremiah (Biblical book)|Jeremiah]]
* [[Ezekiel (Biblical book)|Ezekiel]]
* [[The Minor Prophets]]
**[[Hosea (Biblical book)|Hosea]]
** [[Joel (Biblical book)|Joel]]
** [[Amos (Biblical book)|Amos]]
** [[Obadiah (Biblical book)|Obadiah]]
** [[Jonah (Biblical book)|Jonah]]
** [[Micah (Biblical book)|Micah]]
** [[Nahum (Biblical book)|Nahum]]
** [[Habakkuk (Biblical book)|Habakkuk]]
** [[Zephaniah (Biblical book)|Zephaniah]]
** [[Haggai (Biblical book)|Haggai]]
** [[Zechariah (Biblical book)|Zechariah]]
** [[Malachi (Biblical book)|Malachi]]

====Ketuvim====
The [[Ketuvim]], or "Writings," contain lyrical poetry, philosophical reflections on life, and the writings of the prophets and other Jewish leaders during the exile in [[Babylon]].
* [[Psalms]]
* [[Proverbs]]
* [[Book of Job]]
* [[Song of Songs]], also called [[Song of Solomon]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Book of Ruth]]
* [[Lamentations]]
* [[Ecclesiastes]]
* [[Esther]]
* [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]]
* [[Ezra]], divided into the two books of Ezra and [[Nehemiah]] in the Christian Bible.
* [[Books of Chronicles]]

[[David]] has been named as the author of the ''Psalms''; [[Solomon]] is believed to have written ''Song of Songs'' in his youth, the ''Proverbs'' in his prime, and ''Ecclesiastes'' during his old age. The prophet [[Jeremiah]] is thought to have written the aptly-named ''Lamentations'' at the beginning of the exile in Babylon. The ''Book of Ruth'' is the only biblical book that centers entirely on a non-Jew, a [[Moabite]] who married a Jew and became an ancestor of both David and [[Jesus Christ]]. ''Esther'' is unique as it is the only book in the Bible not to mention God. [[Moses]] is considered to be the author of ''Job''.

===The melodies of the Old Testament===
The Hebrew of the present day Old Testament is composed of the Hebrew consonents and, added on at a later stage, the vowels. Along with these two elements, other signs were added which indicated the melodies that were sung along with the words or phrases. Some of the signs were positioned above the individual consonents, some below, and some to the side. Some of these melody signs were associated with others providing a musical pattern that corresponds with the opening of a thought, similar to the beginning of a sentence (ex. "merkha"), the continuation of a thought (ex. "munakh"), tying in one word with the following, as one melody flowed into the next, the "resting" or completion of a thought, much in "the same way that a comma (ex. "azla"), though not ending a sentence, makes for the "semi"-ending or minor completion of a thought, a major break in the run of thoughts ("etnachta"), though the run of thought would be resumed until the major completion ("sof pasuq"), much in the same way the a period brings to a stop and a completion as a sentence ends. Thus the musical signs in the Hebrew text also provide an interpretion of the text current to the times in which the signs were incorporated as part of the text. The signs that tie one word to another providing one thought are called "conjunctive" signs and the signs that separate words and the thought of them are called "disjuctive". An example of the use of these signs to interprete the Hebrew text is the well known prophesy of the One to come. The Hebrew letters can either be understood to read "His name shall be called Wonderful counsellor of the mighty God", or "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God." The melody signs (called in Hebrew "Ta'mei HaMikra) decide for the latter. After "Wonderful" there is a disjuctive, after "Counsellor" there is a disjuctive, and after "Mighty" (but adj. after the noun in Hebrew order) there is a conjunctive. It is possible to reconstruct to some extent the melody and the interpretation of the Old Testament current in the first century and therefore the melody and the interpretation of Jesus Himself. This is because of the following: the present day melodies of the various dispersions of the Jews are to a great extent different one from the other. Some of these dispersions are the Ashkenazi, representing the Jews exiled from Israel by the Romans in 70 A.D. and then on to the Rhine Valley,and then onto parts of Eastern Europe, Western Europe, America, etc. the Sephardim who saw the beginnings of their disperion from Spain in the 15th Century and then on to Greece, Turkey, North Aftrica. Holland, and America, the Yemenites, the Bnei Israel of India, the Jews of Ethiopia, etc. etc, Yet, with the diversity in melodies of the Scriptures, there are certain features which are either identical or strikingly similar. Musicologist, Joel Segal, pointed out over 40 years ago, that that could only have been possible if these dispersions were at one time together in the same place. The only time that all these dispersions were together in the same place was prior to the great dispersion of the first century and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

===Old Testament Apocrypha===
The [[Apocrypha]] was written during the four hundred years between the last book of the Old Testament and the birth of Christ. The term itself comes from the Greek word ''apokruphos'' ("hidden" or "concealed"), and although they have an actual history and literary value, the fourteen books which make up the Apocrypha have been rejected as canonical by both the Jewish faith and most denominations of the Christian church due to historical, geographical, or literal inaccuracies; the teaching of doctrines which contradict inspired Scripture; and a lack of elements and structure which give genuine Scripture its unique characteristic (Unger, pg. 70). The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, among others, include the Apocrypha in their versions of the Bible, considering them to be canonical.

The Apocryphal books had been used in both Israel and Egypt and are part of the Old Testament in the Greek language used by Jews all over the Greek speaking world - particularly Alexandria, Egypt. This version is called the Septuaginta. The Septuaginta fell into disuse among Jews for two reasons - 1. Greek speaking Christians were using the Septuaginta in their efforts to bring Jews to faith in Jesus Christ 2. A number of the Apocryphal books were also apocalyptic, that is, focusing on the last days, the KIngdom of God in battle against the kingdoms of this world and the downfall of this world's empires. This was considered dangerous and liable to provoke Rome against the Jews. Alternative Greek translations to the Septuaginta, which was considered "loose", were adopted by the Rabbis. These were the translations of three proselytes to Judaism, Theodosious, Aquillas, and Symmachus. The Jewish Rabbinic "Council" of Jamnia (Yavneh on the Mediterraenian coast of Israel) in 90 A.D., under the leadership of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, effectively excluded the Apocraphal books (along with the Septuaginta) from the Jewish Canon by requiring, for a book to be considered canonical, that it have been written in Hebrew (and Aramaic). Actually, a number of the apocryphal books, or portions thereof, had been written originally in Hebrew, most notably, the Book of Ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) found in Hebrew at Qumran with the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but this was unknown to Yohanan Ben Zakkai and the Council of Jamnia in the first century. Under the impetus of Renaissance learning, Protestant scholars, now able to translate the Bible directly from the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, instead of having to go through the Latin Vulgate, went directly to the Hebrew text. But this was the Hebrew text (eventually to be called the "Massoretic text") of the canon of books that had been authorized by the Council of Jamnia. In this way, most Protestant churches came to not include the Apocryphal books in their Canon of Scripture.

The following are the books which are most frequently referred to by the title ''Apocrypha'':
*[[1 Esdras]]
*[[2 Esdras]]
*[[1 Maccabees]]
*[[2 Maccabees]]
*[[Book of Tobit]]
*[[Book of Judith]]
*[[Book of Wisdom]]
*[[Ecclesiasticus]], also known as Sirach
*[[Book of Baruch]]
:*[[Epistle of Jeremiah]] is sometimes listed as separate book or the last chapter of Baruch
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]
*Greek language additions to the [[Book of Esther]]

Additions to the book of Daniel
*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children]]
*[[Story of Susanna]]
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]

Between 90-95 A.D. the Jewish [[Council of Jamnia]] revised the canon of the Old Testament, ensuring that the books involved conformed to the Torah, were written in the Hebrew language, written in Palestine, and written before 400 B.C. As a result, the Apocrypha was removed from the canon. <ref>http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html</ref>

===The New Testament===
The [[New Testament]] is a collection of twenty-seven books and letters, written by the early Christian community, and written primarily in [[Greek]]. The emphasis of the New Testament is the life, teachings, and gift of salvation from the central figure of the whole work, Jesus of Nazareth. These books are grouped into the following:

====[[Gospels|The Gospels]]====
The ''Gospels'' contain the history of Jesus. The ''Acts of the Apostles'' are a continuance of the Gospels, documenting the history of the early church, beginning immediately following Jesus' death and resurrection. Of the authors, only Matthew and John had met Jesus; they were among His disciples during His earthly ministry. Mark was a companion of Peter, and his gospel was the first to be written down, about A.D. 50. Luke is considered the author of both his gospel and the ''Acts''.
*[[Gospel of Matthew]]
*[[Gospel of Mark]]
*[[Gospel of Luke]]
*[[Gospel of John]]
*[[Acts of the Apostles]]

====[[Pauline Epistles]]====
These are letters written to various early Christian communities by the [[Apostle Paul]].
*[[Epistle to the Romans]]
*[[First Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Corinthians]]
*[[Epistle to the Galatians]]
*[[Epistle to the Philippians]]
*[[Epistle to Philemon]]
*[[First Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Second Epistle to the Thessalonians]]
*[[Epistle to the Ephesians]]
*[[Epistle to the Colossians]]
*[[First Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Second Epistle to Timothy]]
*[[Epistle to Titus]]
*[[Epistle to the Hebrews]]

Paul has been attributed by many as the author of ''Epistle to the Hebrews'', but several others, such as [[Barnabas]], [[Silas]], [[Stephen]], [[Apollos]] and [[Priscilla]] are also claimed to be the author. The controversy, however, does not affect the genuiness of the epistle. (Unger, pg. 748)

====[[General Epistles]]====
*[[Epistle of James]]
*[[First Epistle of Peter]]
*[[Second Epistle of Peter]]
*[[First Epistle of John]]
*[[Second Epistle of John]]
*[[Third Epistle of John]]
*[[Epistle of Jude]]

====Revelation====
The [[Book of Revelation]] is the last work in the New Testament as well as the whole Bible, written close to A.D. 100 by the [[Apostle John]] during his exile on the Greek island of [[Patmos]]. Revelation is concerned with the condition of the [[Seven Churches of Asia]] before going deeply into a description of the [[Last Days]] prior to the beginning of the [[Millennial Age]].

Most [[Fundamentalism|Fundamentalists]] hold to "[[Dispensationalism]]", a theory of the meaning of Revelations and other prophecies that was developed in the 19th century and is summarized in the ''Scofield Reference Bible'' (1909, 1917).

==Non-uniformity of language and style of original Scriptures==
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if it was one book instead the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way througout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example in the Hebrew, have imbedded within narrative of one period, as the narrative of the deeds of the prophets Debora, a similar poetic recounting in a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. There are even different Hebrew languages from the same period but different authors, having come from different origins and cultural levels.

For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of languages in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel, it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene" , and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations.

===Inspiration===
Although the Old Testament is written by many [[homo sapiens|human]] authors, New Testament authors claim that these men were writing under the inspiration of God.

The apostle [[Paul]] wrote that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
Similarly the apostle [[Saint Peter|Peter]] wrote, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

====Formation of New Testament and Jewish technical transmission====
In the first century and prior, the ear was more important than the eye, as far as retaining in memory. Jews would receive orally, that is, from hearing, the laws that they believed originated with Moses and then passed them on to others, down through the generations.It was important to link the present rabbis by names who taught it with the rabbis by name who had passed it on to them, on back as far as possible to Moses on Mt. Sinai. This was the startling difference of Jesus. By saying "You have heard it said, but I say unto you..." , He was by-passing Moses and the others after and getting His teaching direct from the Father.

This Jewish way of receiving (QBL) and handing on (MSR) is summed up in the lead saying of the "Ethics of the Fathers" tractate of the [[Mishna]], "Moses received Torah from God at Sinai. He transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, the prophets to the members of the Great Assembly [Sanhedrin] (1:1)." The teaching thus transmitted was memorized word for word by groups of disciples (Talmidim) together, thereby minimizing, by the common knowledge and plublic repetitions, all innovations and errors, though there might well have been "stylizing" for ease of retention and recall. receiving and handing on (transmission), receiving and handing on.

This methodology, with its technical Hebrew terminology appears in the New Testament with the same technical meaning and purpose, for how the earliest Christian teaching was carried on prior to the formation of the New Testament and during the time of its formation. This ensured the validity of the teaching and its authenticity going back, not to Moses, but to the time of Jesus Himself. "For I handed over (Gk. pare'doka, Heb. MSR) to you at the first what I also received (Gk. pare'labon, Heb. QBL) that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures..." l Cor. 15:3. Paul knew all of the "deposit of faith" three ways, in the usual "collaborative" way of God - from Scriptures (the Old Testament), from experience (seeing the living Christ on the road to Damascas), and from authenticated oral tradition/transmission involving "receiving" and "handing on".

,

==Authority of Bible in religious communities==
The role of the Bible in the life of differing communities varies widely by both the inner tenents of the community and the outer influences bearing on the community.
===Judaism===
Orthodox Judaism through the centuries, while it was only marginally affected by growing secularization and modern learning, held to a "differing level of level of authority" understanding of the authority of the Hebrew Bible. This did not imply a different level of inspiration, but rather that importance to the regulation of life was prime for the Torah of Moses, the 5 books of the Law. But the Pharasaic teaching also posited an Oral Law given to Moses by God that was passed on through the centuries through Joshua, the prophets, pairs of Rabbis, until this day. The Oral law is found in the Talmud (Mishna and the Gemara together) The oral law became the decisive interpreter, teacher and regulator of the Written Law and determined the course of Jewish Orthodox life. The second section of the Old Testament, the Prophets, is known to the Jewish Community primarily through the synagogue readings of the prophets. the Haftorah, that are assigned to conclude the weekly reading of the Law. The Psalms, the most formative of all the Writings, besides being common throughout the synagogue services, are used in various devotional prayer contexts. Orthodox Judaism has little been affected by modern Higher Criticism of the Bible. Reformed Judaism, originally developed in Germany, and Conservative Judaism, to a lesser extent, have been greatly affected.

===Mainline Protestants===
Mainline Protestantism, represented in the major churches and their seminaries, has greatly been affected by "modernism" based on advanced scholarly research, especially from Germany in the 19th century. The "Higher Criticism" ignored God's participation in the production of Scripture. Prime among these theories is the Documentary theory of Penteteuch origins (Wellhausen- Graff) that posit that Moses wrote little or nothing, Instead the Bible originated in four sources coming from various periods. These are sources are termed J (for the use of "Jehovah" for the name of God), E (for the use of "Elohim"), P (priestly), and D (Deutoronomic). The spirit of the New Testament is far more important than the text of either Testament for modern Protestant theology.

====Orthodox Jewish critique of Documentary theory====
Jewish Orthodox scholars have pointed to flaws of the Documentary Hypothesis. For instance, Orthodox Jewish Scholar Cassuto has pointed out that rather than the names for God varying according to author and period, they vary according to emphasis from the same period, that of Moses - "Jehovah" being used for the God in his dealing with His covenental people Israel, and "Elohim" being use when His dealing with mankind are emphasis. Likewise the two terms usually translated "making a covenant", lkhrot brit (to "cut" a covenant) and lehaqim brit (to "raise" a covenenat) are not from two sources but mean different things - to initiate a covenant and to fulfill a covenant.

===Evangelical Protestants===
Evangelical Protestantism belives strongly in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the whole Bible and has been the most receptive of Biblical Authority. Believing in full inspiration of the all Scripture does not mean to evangelicalism equal importance of all Scriptures for the healthy growth of the Christian community. This is because Evangelicalism, following Scripture's own understanding, believes in progressive revelation throughout Biblical time, culminating in Jesus Christ, and no further (thus obviating the role of Tradition). Thus Evangelicalism, does not hold to the application of Mosaic Legislation, and other biblical elements that Orthodox Judaism holds to. This applies to faith and to morals. The Mosaic regulation on executing a rebellious child does not present a problem to evangelical thought as, according to Paul and Hebrews, the Law has been rendered obsolete by the New Covenant. The Destruction of the Temple and the place for sacrifice of all kinds, present no problem for evangelicalism, as they did for Judasim, as Christ's sacrifice on the cross has now "fulfilled" the proscriptions of the Law and the ceremonials attached. Thus there is a sort of Levels of Authority understanding for evangelicalism similar (but for different reasons) to the levels of authority of Judaism.

Evangelical Churches vigorously promote the reading of Scripture through Sunday sermons and Bible study programs. Emphasis is placed on "each one understanding". Coupled with American individualism, and lack of tradional vehicles of authority, this sometimes leads to spinterring and each man's interpretation "is as good as any other". Nevertheless, the "Fiundamentals" defined in 1910 are strongly retained by the Evangelical Churches - the divinity of Christ, His death for sins and Resurrection from the dead, His second coming.

===Eastern Orthodox===
The Orthodox Churches througout the world, whether of Greek, Russian, Rumanian, the various middle eastern varieties, emphasis the synod (Council) of Bishops, basis on the example of the "Council" of Jerusalem in the book of Acts, as the God authorized agent of interpretation and application of the Scriptures. Understanding that Jesus' words, " He (the Holy Spirit) wil lead you into all truth", Orthodoxy believes that the synod of bishops, none of whom are individually infallible, are given guidance from the Holy Spirit so that the Scriptures are rightly applied to the Christian Community enabling the Church to never stray from Christ. That is, the Church is given "indefectability". A minority Orthodox Church thought holds to "infallibility" in synodal decision rather than or instead of "indefectability". Scripture in the Orthodox churches are butressed by creedal formulations, the decisions of belief of past synods, and are less susceptible to the modern Higher Criticism. The Resurrection of Christ, virgin birth, return of Christ from Heaven to Earth, are all part and parcel of these churches. Individual interpretation of Scripture and manner of life are limited then by the teaching authority (the magisterium) granted to the Epsicopate - the Synod of bishops.

===Roman Catholic===
The Roman Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Churches have a strong sense of the Authority given to the Bishops by Christ to teach, interpret, defend the Faith and therefore to exercise the responsibility to interprete Scripture to the Faithful. But since Vatican ll, there has been an increased effort to bring Scripture knowledge to the laity and now there has been an increase of Scripture reading and study programs throughout most sections of the Church. This as been abetted by the Catholic Charismatic movement which has had the effect of promoting individual appropriation of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit and with that, the devotional and intellectual use of Holy Scriptures. However, the role of "Majesterium", that is the Teaching Authority, strongly sets limits to individual interpretation. The Roman Catholic church understands that though the Majesterium is given to all the bishops, the definitive exercise is limited to one bishop - the bishop ov Rome, the Pope. Further, it is believed that the Pope, when declaring dogma (teaching) ex-Cathedra (from the chair) speaks infaillibly (on matters of faith and morals). The first time the Pope has promulgated dogma ex-cathedra was to promulgate the doctrine itself of Papal Infallibility. The Pope , through the Vatican prelates and all the bishops can regulate much of Catholic community life, and some of the regualtion based on the interpretation of Scripture or the application of interporetation of Scripture. An example of this is the prohibition of abortion. The Church has accepted most of the modern Higher Critical methodology of Scripture, including the Documentary theory of origins first developed within German Protestantism. But the effects of this on the tenents of the Christian Faith are much mitigated due to the creedal affirmations of the Church developed centuries ago and Papal authority. This the Roman Catholic Church does not waver on the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the death and resurrection of Christ, and the second comming.

==Evangelical Understanding of the History of the Bible==
Rejecting the "Higher Criticism" accepted by the mainline Protestant denominations, Evangelicals and many Catholics hold to a more traditional history of the Bible. This section summarizes their views.

[[Image:Gospel of Luke in Arab.gif|thumb|This tenth-century Egyptian codex was donated to Pope Eugenius IV by the Coptic delegates at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Translated from a Coptic original, it is one of the earliest Arabic versions of any part of the New Testament, none of which can be dated before the late eighth or ninth centuries.]]

The oldest books of the Bible are certainly the five books of the Torah and ''Job''. In ''1st Kings'' 6:1, Solomon is stated to have begun building the Temple "''in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come up out of the land of Egypt''". It had been established by scholars and historians that Solomon had begun building the Temple in the fourth year of his reign, or 961 B.C., making the [[date of the Exodus]] under Moses to have been 1441 B.C. During the following forty years Moses wrote the Torah and ''Job'', completing them before his death at [[Mt. Nebo]] about 1400 B.C. According to Biblical scholar and historian Robert D. Wilson the Torah as it stands dates from the time of Moses, the five books constitute one continuous work, and was written by a single individual, Moses himself (Wilson, pg 11).

The remaining books of the Old Testament were written at various times since the death of Moses, with ''Malachi'', the last Old Testament book, being written about 455 B.C. During this period each of the books was written and re-written on parchment or papyrus, with the editors taking great care in their work; a single Biblical book hand-written today can take weeks to complete. The older scrolls were disposed of by burial or systematic destruction when worn from normal usage; as a result, the oldest surviving examples of Biblical manuscripts are those which have been carefully preserved either by direct actions of people (such as monasteries), or by removal from forces of decay. Currently, the oldest surviving manuscripts are those found within the caves of Qumran in 1948 and known as the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]], dating between 250 B.C. to A.D. 70; the complete ''Isaiah'' scroll of this collection dates to 150 B.C.

Around 200 B.C. the [[Septuagint]], a Greek-language version of the Old Testament, was completed. This was due to the Hellenization of large areas of the Middle East after the conquest of Alexander the Great, making Greek the de-facto language for everyday communications and business. The Septuagint marks the first time in history that the Bible was translated into a foreign language.

===Early New Testament history===
In 1st Timothy 5:8, Paul quoted as scripture ''"the laborer is worthy of his hire."'' This line is found nowhere else in the Bible except Matthew 10:10 and Luke 5:7. In 2nd Peter 3:15-16, Peter classes Paul's letters with "other scriptures". Both lines are indicative of the writing down and general use of the New Testament prior to A.D. 60 (Halley, pg. 741-742). Spurious "gospels" which are known to have appeared by A.D. 100, make references to the New Testament. [[Clement of Rome]], writing in his own letter to the Corinthians in A.D. 95, refers to ''Matthew'', ''Luke'', ''Corinthians'', ''Hebrews'', ''1st Timothy'', and ''1st Peter'' (Halley, pg. 743).

The oldest surviving New Testament fragment of which there is a reliable date is the [[John Rylands Fragment]] (P52) of the ''Gospel of John'', dating from 117-138 A.D., just decades from when the Gospel was first written. <ref>[http://www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html N.T. Ancient Manuscripts]</ref> The time span between the writing of the New Testament and the oldest surviving fragments are well under two hundred years. By comparison, Greek classics such as [[Herodotus]], [[Plato]], [[Euripides]], and [[Homer]] have a time span well over a thousand years each between the date of the oldest known fragment of writing and the time period they were first written.

==Translations==
===The Peshitta===
The second translated version of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament (after the Greek Septuaginta) was the Aramaic language Peshitta. In 36 A.D., both the Queen of Adiabene (the last existing Province of the hated and feared by the Jews Assyrian Empire), known in Greek as Queen Helena (not the mother of Constantine) and known to the Jews as Queen ShlomZion ("Peace of Zion"), and her son King Ezad were converted to Judaism. Queen Helena's conversion, as wiell as others of the Kingdom, furthered the already developing translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in her Kingdom's language -Aramaic. That developing translation came to be known as the Peshitta - meaning simple or common speech, in much the same way as the Hebrew Bible would be translated into Latin by Jerome, with extensive help from a Rabbi,and the resultant translation would be called the Vulgate - meaning simple or common speech. The Peshitta, retaining elements of the then Jewish "[[Targum]]ic" (interpretive) and other Jewish understandings of the Hebrew Bible (see[[Midrash]]), is primarily based on the Pre-Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures - though certain books, such as the Prophet Isaiah,are translations primarily from the Septuagint The development of the Old Testament Peshitta translation is held by some to have taken place alternatively in Adiabene's nearby neighbor Edessa.

As Thomas and his followers went to India, others (possibly Adai (Thaddeus), the Galilean from Caesarea Phillipi among them) arrived in [[Adiabene]], and having gone probaly to the synagogues first, as did the Apostle Paul), they found already, if not a populous, then an elite governmental element, conversant with the Biblical message in Aramaic. From these people, hearing the preaching of the messengers from Israel ,came believers in Jesus Christ, and soon after, came the translation of the Greek New Testament Scriptures into Aramaic, and so the Peshitta was added to by inclusion of the New Testament in Aramaic. Unlike the Greek canon of the New Testament Scriptures, the Peshitta originally did not include the following books: the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second Epistle of John, the Third Epistle of John, the Epistle of Jude and the Book of Revelation. But these books translated into the Syriac (as Christian Aramaic is known) are part of the Peshitta now and used by the Aramaic based churches, primarily in India and the Middle East - the Syrian Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East (Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East), the Indian Orthodox Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Maronite Church, the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, the Syro-Malabar Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.

Adiabene and its surroundings then became the sending center for a mission to the East that would eventually, taking advantage of the newly rediscovered monsoon winds blowing for months across the Arabian sea, making it possible for ships to no longer hug the coasts, and taking advantage of the "Silk Road" all the way from Antioch in Syria to China, take the message of Jesus Christ to India (bringing about the Aramaic (Syriac) language churches of Kerala) and even to China itself. And so, the Peshitta, written in the Middle East, become the Scriptures, for a while, of the Far East Churches of Jesus Christ, particularly in India.

===The Vulgate===
[[Jerome]], a Latin scholar deeply interested in the study of the Scriptures, completed the second edition of the Bible in the Latin language. The ''[[Vulgate]]'' was meant to replace the inaccuracies of the earlier ''[[Vetus Latina]]'', the standard Bible of the early Catholic Church. Jerome had moved to [[Jerusalem]] in 382, and set to work on what eventually became a fresh translation of the Bible from the Greek of the ''Septuagint'' to translating the New Testament into Latin; from 390-405 he decided to re-translate his Old Testament directly from the Hebrew then in use by the Jewish community. The ''Vulgate'' had a marked influence in church history, and remained the standard Latin Bible in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries; such was the length of time in use that it was finally replaced by the ''[[Nova Vulgata]]'' in 1979.
==Printing==
[[Image:Gutenburg1.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Printers copy of a page from a Gutenberg Bible, printed in Germany about 1469.]]
[[Johannes Gutenberg]] of [[Mainz]], [[Germany]] invented the first mechanical printing press in 1448. His machine consisted of a large press which when cranked down, pressed a sheet of paper upon a platform in which were set thousands of inked metal letter typefaces (called "movable type"), set in place to read for a particular page. The first book in history printed by this method was the [[Gutenberg Bible]], in the ''Vulgate'' Latin version, of which 180 were printed, and approximately 50 survive today in varying conditions around the world.

The Gutenberg Bible marked another first: printed Bibles could be mass produced to get into the hands of many people at a low cost. They first had to be translated out of Latin into a common language, and [[Martin Luther]] made the great German translation, 1522-1534. The Protestant Reformers emphasized that laymen should study the Bible, and printing made it possible to go beyond the interpretationsd shown in stained glass windows to the actual text.

==English language versions of the Bible==

===Wycliff's Bible===
The first translation of the Bible into English was made under the supervision of the English cleric [[John Wyclif]] in the 1380's, with the assistance of Nicholas Hereford and John Purvey. Wyclif held that the Bible should be placed directly in the hands of the people, but was this was opposed by the English Church hierarchy of his day; indeed, one of Wyclif's opponents, Henry Knighton, compared giving the Bible to the people in English to "casting pearls before swine". Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury promulgated a ban on all English Bibles in 1407, and possession of one was considered evidence of [[heresy]].

Wyclif's was a scholarly translation, based on the [[Latin]], [[Greek]], and [[Hebrew]] texts, but was found to be unweildy due to its adherence to Latin grammar (in which, for instance, verbs tend to be at the end of sentences). A second Wycliffite translation was prepared late in this period, which avoided this problem, but due to the fact that it could only be distributed in manuscript form, it was an expensive volume. Outside of the nobility and gentry, it was more common to see only a single [[The Gospels|Gospel]], or a copy of the Psalms, than an entire Bible, which cost more than the average working person could earn in a year.

Over the next century, its form of English gradually became antiquated, leading English Protestants such as [[William Tyndale]] to feel that an entirely new translation was needed.

===Tyndale===
During the middle of the 16th century there was a renewed sense of the need to get the Bible directly into the hands of the common man; prior to that the Bible was restricted to readings in the Church alone. The Reformers were a group of people who were shocked at the differences between what the Roman Catholic Church was practicing as opposed to what the Bible stated can or cannot be done (this was one of the causes of the [[Reformation]]). At great cost to themselves, the Reformers began the work of translating the Bible in the various languages of Europe; the printing press would ensure the newly-translated Bibles would be mass-produced.

[[William Tyndale]] was committed to getting the Bible in the hands of his English countrymen. Expressing open defiance of the Pope, Tyndale declared that if God would spare his life he would make it possible for even an ordinary farmer to know more about the Scriptures than the Pope. <ref>http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/tyndale.htm</ref> Tyndale's translation of the New Testament was completed by 1525. By April, 1526, 6,000 copies were printed and delivered to England. Official opposition led to the destruction of most of them. Nevertheless, the printing press rendered it impossible to completely suppress such a book, and new copies were printed and smuggled into [[England]] Tyndale was arrested and charged with heresy for his efforts on May 21, 1536, and was executed the following year. His efforts at translating the Bible led to the Matthews and Bishop's Bibles, then finally to the [[King James Version]], where ninety percent of the text closely follows Tyndale's translation.

===Authorised or King James Version===
[[Image:E-sword.jpg|thumb|200px|right|The internet has increased the availability of the Bible world-wide. Shown here is a screenshot to [[E-Sword]], a freely-downloadable Bible study program. <ref>[http://www.e-sword.net E-Sword]</ref> (Rick Meyers, 2007)]]
In 1601 King [[James I]] selected forty-seven of the ablest scholars in [[England]] to undertake the creation of a standard Bible in English, based upon careful translations of the [[Masoretic Text]] used by the Jewish community, and the best Greek translations (especially the ''[[Textus Receptus]]'') then available. The scholars were divided into six committees in [[Oxford]], [[Westminster]], and [[Cambridge]], with each scholar had dedicating himself to doing a portion of the Bible, often consulting each other to check the flow and harmony of the work in progress. The result was the 1611 Authorised Version, known in [[United States of America|America]] as the [[King James Bible|King James Version]].

The effects of the Authorised Version were profound. Using less than 2,500 different words in its vocabulary, this Bible was written in a poetic style matched by few. The work influenced the writings of [[Shakespeare]]. [[John Milton]] has numerous images taken from this Bible in his ''[[Paradise Lost]]''. The direct style of writing caused it to be easily available to the common man. Poets and writers, such as [[Herman Melville]], [[Walt Whitman]], [[Emily Dickinson]] and many others were deeply inspired by it. It altered the course of English history, with England growing to a world power since the book's publication; when asked by a visiting dignitary what made England great, [[Queen Victoria]] pulled out her copy of the Bible and declared "This is the secret of England's greatness."

=== Other versions ===

Today, the Bible is available in many versions across the English-speaking world, and has been translated into languages spoken by the vast majority of people on Earth, and even portions into a recently-created language from the fictional world of [[Star Trek]], [[Klingon]]. <ref>[http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible Translation Project]</ref> The past two decades saw the emergence of [[Internet]] use; the creation of the Bible as a software program was inevitable, and several, such as [[E-Sword]] and Theophilos, are available at no cost with a wealth of Bible-study material as well.

==Bible Scientific Foreknowledge==
[[Bible scientific foreknowledge]] holds that the Bible shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed. Many Christian scientists and apologists such as the Christian scientists and apologists at [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]] assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

==Humor in the Bible==

{{main|Humor in the Bible}}

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains irony, puns, sarcasm, etc. It may be noted that the sense of what is humorous varies from people to people and from nation to nation, as well as varying from age to age. What caused a chuckle, smile, or laughter in the biblical "genre" was more connected with ''satisfaction'' at the vindication of righteousness among men. Thus to our day and age, and the commonality of people, for believers and non believers, the meaning of the spewing up of Jonah on the shores (even the great fish could not stomach him!) might be viewed as God working out His original will in history, Jonah flight from responsiblity being aborted, for the "days and ages" of the Bible, there was the added satisfaction derived from the understanding that God was not mocked by the rebellion of Jonah. Likewise that the "many cattle" also found repentence and acceptance by God, would not have brought the smile of glee, mingled with doubt, but the smile of satisfaction that God's wide heart found its exultant victory over the measly, narrow perspective of the renagade prophet. There was no shame to stifle the Biblical chuckle at the "hows" of the vindication of God's justice. Yet, what we consider humorous also appears:

For example:

:After noticing that his father-in-law Laban was not treating him as in the past, Jacob decided to flee with his family. Rachel, one of Jacob’s wives, stole her father Laban’s teraphim (statues used for idolatry and/or divination). Laban pursued them and intercepted them in the Gilead mountains (Genesis 31:30): "Why have you stolen my gods?" Laban said to Jacob. The Midrash comments that it cannot be much of a god if it can be stolen (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 74:8). Jonsson (1985, 44-45) suggests that there is humor (albeit "rough" humor) in the fact that, not only was Laban deceived, but his idols were actually underneath his daughter Rachel’s posterior while she claimed that the "manner of women" was upon her. This idol did not get much respect. [http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/bibhumor.htm]

==Bible Translations==
The Bible has been translated many times and in many ways so anyone, from the youngest child to the learned scholar, can read the entire scpripture in their language and reading level. A Latin version is the [[Latin Vulgate]] Bible. Here are some common English versions:

*[[American Standard Version]]
*[[Amplified Bible]]
*[[Douey-Rheims]]
*[[English Standard Version]]
*[[Good News Version]]
*[[King James Version]]
*[[Living Bible]]
*[[New American Standard Version]]
*[[New English Bible]]
*[[New International Version]]
*[[New King James Version]]
*[[Revised Standard Version]]
*[[Revised Version]]
*[[Septuagint]]
*[[Conservative Bible]] - still a work-in-progress here at Conservapedia

==Bible versions==
Apart from Bibles that include the [[Apocrypha]], The [[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]] is a distinct version that was produced to justify many of the unique doctrines of [[Jehovah's Witnesses]].

== See also ==
*[[Bible exegesis]]
*[[Bible prophecy]]
*[[Biblical accuracy]]
*[[Famous Bible paintings]]
*[[Midrash]]
*[[Targum]]
*[[Aramaic Church]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Conservative Bible Project]]

==External links==
===Bible societies ===
*[http://www.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society]
*[http://www.biblesociety.org/ United Bible Society]
*[http://www.ibs.org/ The International Bible Society (New York/Colorado Springs)]
*[http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer World Bible Translation Center]
*[http://www.wycliffe.org/home.htm Wycliffe Bible Translators]
*[http://www.labibliaweb.com/ La Biblia] In Spanish.

===Online, internet, and downloadable Bibles===
====Hebrew====
* [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm Hebrew-English Bible] ([[Jewish Publication Society of America|JPS]] 1917 translation; includes Hebrew audio)
* [http://tanakhml2.alacartejava.net/cocoon/tanakhml/d13.php2xml?sfr=1&prq=1&pnt=tru&acc=tru&dia=tru&enc=heb XML Hebrew-English (KJV) Bible]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Hebrew_OT/ Old Testament in Hebrew]

====Latin====
* [http://www.LatinVulgate.com/ Latin Vulgate] — Latin Vulgate with parallel Douay-Rheims and King James English translations
* [http://www.sacredbible.org/ SacredBible.org] — Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/Vulgate/ Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405 A.D.)]

====English====
* [http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html AudioBible] — Audio version of the King James Version.
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/ Blue Letter Bible] — On-line interactive reference library continuously updated from the teachings and commentaries of selected pastors and teachers who hold to the conservative, historical Christian faith.
* [http://www.e-sword.net E-sword] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.onlinebible.net/ The Online Bible North America] — Downloadable Bible for Windows.
* [http://www.theophilos.sk/ Theophilos Bible program]
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/ASB/ American Standard Version].
* [http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/ English Standard Version] from Good News/Crossway (the publisher).
* [http://www.verselink.org/ King James Version with dictionary].
* [http://www.spcm.org/english/KJV/ King James Version].
* [http://www.newlivingtranslation.com New Living Translation]
* [http://bible.oremus.org/ New Revised Standard Version].
* [http://www.europepourchrist.org/biblesite/WEB/ World English Bible].
* [http://www.dynamicbible.com/ King James Version built using AJAX technologies], with Strongs and Greek Morphological Codes by Robinson.
* [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm#index The Hypertext Bible] with side-by-side translations in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at the [[Internet Sacred Text Archive]]
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/ Bible Gateway at GospelCom.net] text search in any one of many translations in numerous languages.
* [http://www.biblereadthrough.com/ Bible Read-Through] — read through the Bible in a year aid.
* [http://www.TheFreeBible.com/ TheFreeBible.com] Bible software downloads
* [http://www.scripture4all.org/ Interlinear (word-by-word) translation of the Christian Bible] Hebrew and Koine Greek
* http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/aramaic_nt_resources.htm - Aramaic New Testament resources
* [http://www.spcm.org/en/versions.php Over 40 versions of the Bible]
* [http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/Bibletranslationsandstudies.html Eastern and Western Armenian Bible]
* [http://www.bible9.com/ Online Bible (King James Version & Old Testament)]
* [http://www.spcm.org/LSG_FR/ Bible — Louis Segond de 1910]
* [http://www.latinvulgate.com/christverse.aspx Complete Sayings of Christ]
* [http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/ Crosswalk.com Parallel Bible]
* [http://www.blueletterbible.org/search.html#verse Blue Letter Bible]
* [http://recoveryversion.org/ Recovery Version Bible]

====Spanish====

* [http://www.wbtc.com/site/PageServer?pagename=downloads_spanish Spanish Bible] PDT version
* [http://www.labibliaweb.com/cid/1 Versiones de la Biblia] In Spanish.

====Turkish====
* [http://www.incil.info Turkish Bible] (Turkish Old and New Testament)

====Finnish====
* [http://www.raamattu-kirja.com Finnish Bible] (Finnish Old and New Testament)
* [http://vastaus.net Raamattu] (Study Finnish Bible)

====Japanese====
*[http://www.ibsstl.org/bibles/japanese/index.php On-line version hosted by the International Bible Society]
*[http://www.bible.or.jp/e/index.html Japan Bible Society]

====Others====
* [http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html Bible Timeline]
* [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/bible/TO_Torah_880.htm?OVRAW=Torah&OVKEY=torah&OVMTC=standard My Jewish Learning.com]
* [http://search.americanbible.org/ American Bible Society] to search NASB, KJV, CEV, ASV and others.
* [http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html University of Virginia Library] KJV word proximity search.
* [http://www.1enormousidea.com/Default.aspx?tabid=42 Many translations in English, verse by verse]
* [http://www.bible-marathi.com Nava Karar] NT Translation from Greek to Marathi
* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html Gender-neutral Bible translations].
* [http://www.evangelicalbible.com/why.htm Word-for-Word vs.Thought-for-Thought translation] Outlines the difference between formal and dynamic equivalent translation philosopy.
* [http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible].

===Commentaries and analysis===
* [http://www.ldolphin.org/icc-am.html Biblical chronology] by Alan Montgomery, B.Sc.(Hon)
* [http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryID=411&rsid=478 Biblical History], The Jewish History Resource Center — Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
* [http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=63255 Judaica Press Translation] — online Jewish translation of the Tanakh.
* [http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_1.htm Reading and Understanding the Bible].
* [http://en.bibleinfo.com/ Source for Bible Answers].
* [http://www.amazingfacts.org/school/af_logon.asp Amazing Facts Bible Studies].
* [http://www.iishj.org/images/Bible.pdf Learning Bible Today] — a historical approach the Bible.
* [http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/gill/ John Gill's Exposition of the Bible] — verse by verse commentary.
* [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.i.html/ Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible] — unabridged.
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Topical References]
*[http://www.verselink.org/ Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia]

===Wikis===
* [http://bible.tmtm.com BibleWiki]
* [http://wikible.org Wikible]

==Bibliography==
* Achtemeier, Paul J., ed. ''Harper's Bible Dictionary'' (1985), 1190pp; mainstream scholarship
* Ackroyd, P.R., ed. ''The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome; the West from the Fathers to the Reformation; the West from the Reformation to the Present Day'' (3 vol 1978), standard summary of scholarship; [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Bible-Beginnings-Jerome/dp/0521099730/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243248143&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1]; [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Bible-Fathers-Reformation/dp/0521290171/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243248143&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search vol 2]; [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Bible-Reformation-Present/dp/0521290163/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243248143&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 3]
* Coggins, R.J. ''Introducing the Old Testament'' (Oxford University Press: 1990), 172pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=22765464 online edition]
* Morgan, Robert, and John Barton. ''Biblical Interpretation'' (Oxford University Press: 1988), 342 pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=74356941 online edition]
* Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob, ed. ''The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible'' ('''NIDB''') (5 vol 2009), the latest mainstream scholarship
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1966; new edition 2006); Evangelical
**Unger, Merril F. ''The New Unger's Bible Dictionary'', (2006); 1416pp; Evangelical
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Handbook'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL (1967); Evangelical.
*Halley, Henry H. ''Halley's Bible Handbook'', Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1965); Evangelical
* Sandys-Wunsch, John. ''What Have They Done to the Bible: A History of Modern Biblical Interpretation'' 2005) Scholarly history of transations and interpretations to 1900; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814650287 excerpt and text search]
* Williamspn, Peter. ''Catholic principles for interpreting scripture: a study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's The interpretation of the Bible in the Church'' (2001); Catholic; [http://books.google.com/books?id=kooFtFGQsfsC&dq=intitle:bible+intitle:interpretation&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2000&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpts and text search]
*Wilson, Robert D. ''A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament'', Sunday School Times, Inc, Philadelphia, PA (1926).

===Language===
*Blass, Frederich, and others. ''A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature,'' translated by Robert W. Funk; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1961); German edition ''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch'' Friedrich Rehkopf, editor, 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.
*Moulton, James H., and others. ''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'' (two volumes), edited by Wilbert Francis Howard, T&T Clark Publishers, Harrisburg, PA (1985); originally published 1920, Edinburgh, Scotland.
*Bauer, Walter. ''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, editors; 6th edition. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany (1988). Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Bible| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Book of Worship]]

Talk:God

2009-10-14T22:53:48Z

AFM: /* Neutrality */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

The bible is proof that god exists; it has historical accounts of people meeting god. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:10, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

There is also the case of [[irreducible complexity]]. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:13, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:The problem is that quite a few people do not consider the Bible a reliable source. In e.g. the New Testament, the Gospels are written by anonymous people decades after the death of Jesus, and the origine of the Old Testament and the rest of the Tanakh remains unknown. If we do, however, regard the Bible as a historical source, even then, it can't be used as decisive proof of anything. Even modern sources can't, because you will have to consider their reliability. And then what about all the other sources contradicting it? What about e.g. the Qur'an? It is actually a much more reliable source since we know its author to be the creator of the religion, Muhammed. Or what about the Iliad? Do those texts also prove their respective religions and the existence of their gods? Or should we have to be a little more critical when reading sources than to consider the words of the Bible decisive proof?--[[User:AFM|AFM]] 18:53, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

:Wikipedia blocks articles also, don't forget. Article which are subject to constant vandalism have editing disabled, George W Bush for example. Given the nature of this site it's reasonable to expect much vandalism directed towards the god article. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

I heard something about god which I found quite interesting, if good is all powerful and loves us all why is there needless suffering in the world? If good is all powerful and doesn't love us why worship him? If god isn't all powerful and loves us then he's pretty much useless and if god isn't all powerful and doesn't love us then it's pretty much the same thing[[User:Nobodyyouareawareof|Nobodyyouareawareof]] 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm far from a zealot, but these arguments always strike me as hopelessly simplistic. Why do we presume that we can understand God? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even? I imagine that small children (never mind animals, insects, etc...) can't comprehend why, if I claim to love them, I make them eat their vegetables, don't let them stay up as long they want, and so on. Just because a person believes that unconditional love and unlimited power should yield no suffering doesn't actually make it true.

:Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-wonders, wonders (ooom ba doo-oo oom!) who wrote the book of Job...''

:The argument against God's benevolence is severely flawed. It assumes that suffering serves no useful purpose and that a human society where God prohibits all suffering will necessarily be better than having suffering.
:Even reading the Book of Job won't be enough. You're going to need a doctorate or two in religious philosophy, etc., before you can seriously debate the Problem of Evil. --[[User:BaneWintermute|BaneWintermute]]

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==other views of god==

The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.<--Previous comment left by [[Nobodyyouareawareof]]
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

== Error in first sentence (concept of God), or missing reference==
It is WRONG to say that God is the creator of the Universe. The Holy Bible tells us that God has created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. The author of this entry distorts this knowledge by claiming that God has created the Universe. There is no reference for this, however. Kluivert 18 August 2007

==God's Evidence==
I say we should include the fact that, despite many philosophical and scientific tentatives of people to prove him, God has never ever unconfutably shown his existence. I think this is very important in the being of God, because he is so good he leaves us the freedom to choose to believe him or not. He still wants us to search for him, and not accept him as an unquestionable truth. He wants as to believe, he wants us to ''choose'' to believe. This can't be kept unwritten. P.S. Sorry for any language mistakes, I'm Italian.[[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 09:21, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: I appreciate that you have problems with the language, but I can't figure out what word you meant by "unconfutably". "Irrefutably", perhaps? No matter how strong the evidence, some still won't believe, so I'm not sure that irrefutable evidence, in the absolute sense, is really possible. And for someone who is basically saying that we can't know of God's existence as a certainty, you seem to be quite certain about what this uncertain God wants us to believe. I agree that He wants us to ''choose'' to believe, but I also think that He wants us to be convinced, not uncertain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven [[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::: I believe that He has made His existence quite clear, but my point was that because some people won't believe no matter how clear He makes existence known, so there's no point is saying that He could have made it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::::He can certainly make it clearer. Every action we can observe today has an explanation independent of God, and the Bible is old enough that many believe it to be of dubious credibility in terms of the literal, physical events that took place. Consistent, verifiable, clear violations of the laws of physics (especially connected with a religious setting) would do much to convince many unbelievers. Nonetheless, God does not intervene in that way, and this is an important aspect of His character. [[User:BaneWintermute|BaneWintermute]]
::::: Sounds like a bit of chronological snobbery in there. Why does its age undermine its credibility? (Or are you suggesting that that's the view of many people, but not your view?) If there were ''consistent'' and ''verifiable'' (by means of repeatable tests) "violations" of the laws of physics, then surely those "violations" would indicate that we have the laws of physics wrong? And that they aren't really "violations" at all? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Breach of commandments? ==

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't know how any of the article as is follows this rule. The most flagrant violation being

"God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin."

How is this even remotely verifiable?[[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:23, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
: By reference to a very reliable document: The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::So then the bible counts as absolute truth? And "verification" means "looking at the bible"? [[User:Qc|Qc]] 08:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Why did you just move the goalposts from "verifiable" to "absolute truth"? Is that a tacit admission that your original criticism didn't stand up to scrutiny? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Since the references to the bible that deal with this article are impossible to verify objectively, (ie, god punishes the wicked in hell) the only conclusion is that CP (or at least you as an editor) treat the bible as absolute truth. Not that this is wrong in itself, but it seems to violate the "verifiable" commandment or at least represent a lack of understanding of the word. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: If someone posts a claim on Wikipedia, it has to be cited from a "reliable source". They say nothing about being able to verify that the "reliable source" is correct. Similar applies here. The claim can be verified from a source that has proven reliability. There's no requirement to independently check every claim made by that source. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I think the problem is here a lack of clarity in the first commandment, specifically what is meant by "verifiable" They really should elaborate considerably, especially since this is such a controversial arena. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::On what basis do you claim that the bible is reliable? I see nothing in either [[Bible]] nor [[:Category:Bible]] which attempts to explain the bible's supposed reliability. If you're going to call the Bible a reliable source I think you should justify it. --[[User:Tigerthink|Tigerthink]] 20:42, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::: You didn't look hard enough. In [[:Category:Bible]] there is an entry for [[Biblical accuracy]], which does just what you ask for: an attempt to explain the Bible's reliability. Admittedly, it's not much more than a stub, so "attempt" is an apt term, but it is at least an attempt. Probably a few other articles in that category also provide some evidence of reliability, but I haven't checked further. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 2 January 2009 (EST)
:::Of course the Bible is reliable! How can you get more reliable than God's own word?[[User:Petertatchell23|Petertatchell23]] 10:43, 16 January 2009 (EST)
I think his point was that the Bible wasn't proven to be written by God as a primary source. As a very old collection, the bible may be subject to inaccuracy or exaggeration of "God's own word." This is just a point, I'm not illustrating my own beliefs. [[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 20:20 14 May 2009

== Suggestion ==

*Add to the start of the article:

::''This article is about the God of the Bible. For the use of the term to refer to any deity, see [[Other gods]].''

:My usual disclaimers apply. Feel free to ignore this if you want. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:53, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
:: There's already a link to [[Other gods]]. I nearly did add a line similar to your suggestion, but then decided that it really wasn't necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==
Why is God usually referred to as a 'he'? Wouldn't God be more properly termed an 'it', being what God is? That's just a small section of Christianity that I was curious about. --[[User:GeorgeO|GeorgeO]] 16:06, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
: My opinion is that "he" is not primarily a ''masculine'' term, but a term used for a ''person'', i.e. a gender-neutral term, as is the term "man" (which is not to deny that both terms ''also'' have gender-specific uses). In Genesis, it says that God created "man" both male and female. "Man" can be used as synonymous with "mankind" or "human", and I believe that "he" and similar terms are similarly used in a gender-neutral way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence?==

Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves? If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late? If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it? If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain? And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

* Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves?
:Often times dealing with infinite elements has a tendency to appear to be contradictory, even in nature. If two objects are approaching each other with each going the speed of light, then how fast are they approaching? 1+1=2, but not in this case. The answer is the speed of light. 1+1=1

* If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late?
:Not intervening is not the same as not seeing

* If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?
:Yes. But this is more of an exercise in absurdity than anything having to do with God. It's basically taking a nonsensical statement and then putting God into it. Example: Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?

* If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain?
:Taking the story of Adam and Eve that you reference above, our original moral compass has been skewed, but He has still given us a way to know Him personally.

* And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god?
:Jealous has a different meaning there than we usually ascribe to it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:36, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Why would two objects going at the speed of light approach at the speed of light?

:Science states that is what occurs; it is a paradox. But when a paradox comes from science, which is limited, it is accepted. When it comes from God, who is not limited, it is fought.

If he saw it, but was just not intervening, why would he ask them how they knew they were naked?

:The same reason parents will ask their children questions that they already know the answer to. It has more to do with the children than the parents doesn't it?

If we had a good original moral compass, then why would he let us take it away,

:Free will

... and why did Eve disobey God on the advice of a snake?

:Free will

Exercise in absurdity? Yes. But doesn't that have something to do with omnipotence? Absurdity in the form of a direct contradiction is a valid argument form, a reductio ad absurdum, also known as proof by contradiction. This shows that nothing is omnipotent.

:I would disagree that the ability to create a nonsense argument means that omnipotence is impossible. By the same logic there is no such thing as infinity (a much easier argument), but infinity must exist for current secular positions on where our universe came from.

What's wrong with it? And jealousy is defined by resentment of a rival. Didn't Elijah kill the prophets of Baal in the name of God? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

:Yes he did. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:11, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

It is not a paradox. You are simply not adding velocities correctly. At very high speeds, special relativity tends to be counter-intuitive. 90%c+90%c does not equal 180%c. It comes over 99%c, but not quite at the speed of light. Counter-intuitive in numbers, but it is also faulty to think that winning a game of chance with 1% to win can have the chance be raised in a linear fashion because 1/100 + 1/100 = 2/100 or 1/50, as 100 tries will not guarantee you a win, although 1/100 multiplied by 100 equals 100%.

Free will is your answer for almost half of these. But is it truly free? Science shows that serotonin, dopamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, etc. can influence behaviors such as aggression and addiction. Doesn't he know what neurons are activating in our brain?

Could you provide an example of a contradiction proving infinity wrong? Because if A leads to B, and B isn't true, how can A be true. You would disagree, but could you tell me why?

Yes, Elijah killed the prophets of Baal, that tore their hair out in an attempt to stir their god. They clearly believed in Baal, but there was no mercy nonetheless. So isn't he a jealous god, in every sense of the word? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 9 October 2008

== Nav box ==

Could a sysop either unlock the article or add <nowiki>{{DivineComedy}}</nowiki> at the end? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:11, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
: Unlocked for one week (will automatically relock, I presume—I wanted to try that out). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Wikipedia

2009-10-14T22:40:22Z

AFM: /* Neutrality */

= Content Disputes =

==Relevance of introductory information?==

Why:

- a) is it relevant that Jimmy Wales is an atheist, when no mention is made that the majority of users here seem to have a strong creationist, Christian bias?
- b) is there no information about the Brittanica-Wikipedia assessment that showed wikipedia to be of similar general accuracy?
- c) do numerous arguments on the wikipedia article rely on the argument that anyone can edit the various articles, when, in fact, the majority of this encylopaedia's articles can be edited by anyone?
- d) is there no mention of Conservapedia's reliance on Wikipedia's principles?

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

The need for factual evidence (not based solely upon polls, which are essentially a measurement of mass opinion) abounds in this article as well as the rest of this site. Without evidence supporting your claims, you create straw-man arguments that are easy to refute. They will maintain no sway in those who are not yet persuaded, for these people will look past your argument into your logical fallacies. Please just keep this in mind during creation of future articles. {{unsigned|TheFlaxenFox}} December 2007.

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

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

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

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

Footnote 178 is a link to another site. When I went to that site, I could find no indication of the quotation that was presumably from there. This needs to be corrected. [[User:Kdammers|Kdammers]] 18:54, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== "Controversy" ==

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

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

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

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

"mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed. " seems like some rather big speculation -- you may want to provide evidence for this claim. {{unsigned|Usapatriotgwb}}

:It's WP:Common knowledge [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

#A disproportionate number of Wikipedia arbcom members are avowed homosexuals. I debated a lesbian one at length on IRC more than once.
#Sodom and Gomorrah are good Biblical references. Sodomy is named for [[Sodom]], because the men of the city wanted to ''know'' (i.e. fornicate with) the two special male visitors in Lot's house. He criticized this illicit desire indirectly, with his comment about his daughters. I assume that any man who seduced a daughter of Lot would have had to marry her (see [[shotgun wedding]]); later in the Old Testament, laws about this were given by Moses. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:In particular, David R. seems to be citing an opinion given in ''Slate'' by Brendan I. Koerner, a contributing editor at ''Wired'' and a columnist for the ''New York Times'':
:*The word "sodomy" itself is something of a misnomer, since the Bible contains no mention of homosexual conduct among the residents of Sodom. That corrupt city was not destroyed because of acts of buggery but rather because its citizens were inhospitable to God's angelic messengers. [http://www.slate.com/?id=2075271]
:{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the expression is "rip off", not "rip of". And I wouldn't claim that wikipedia was "established" at anything ... except smearing victims and misleading students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I second that. It's such a rip off that if it wasn't for conservapedia's different logo and the overwhelming spelling errors and biased views, I'd almost have a hard time telling the websites apart. At least this way we can keep the majority of lower IQ readers and writers off of wikipedia. {{unsigned|CanAnyoneHereSpell}}

: At least you can spell "rip off" properly! Well done! Now all you have to do is learn to sign your name and you'll be all set. Try our [[economics lectures]] and maybe you can actually learn something too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, look at his phrase. "Since conservipedia is pretty much a rip off Wikipedia..." That doesn't make sense. A "rip of Wikipedia" makes more sense. It would have to be "A rip off of Wikipedia" in order to be correct. And I agree, Wikipedia is much more established than this pathetic website. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias! It just has a LACK of a conservative bias! The bias that this website is overflowing with. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::Merely claiming all that doesn't make it so. You've offered an opinion, with no reason to back that opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Assuming you meant "rip" of Wikipedia - Conservapedia started its material from scratch, so it's not just a modified clone of Wikipedia's knowledge base. (This works both for and against Conservapedia - it avoids importing the pitfalls that Conservapedia aims to avoid in Wikipedia's material, but a lot of Conservapedia's more obscure articles have much less information than their Wikipedia counterparts.) The phrasing "Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users" is intended to describe the website to Conservapedia users may not be familiar with Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

So I was reading this article and saw this: "Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of USA Today from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability." His case about Wikipedia threatening free speech is based on the fact that it is free for anyone to voice their opinions and not controlled by the government. Sorry guys, i know it must be hard trying to uphold the conservative practices with what little backing you can find, but really - please try to make some sense with what you put on here. I'm only looking out for you guys, and you're not doing anything with this site but declaring your close-mindedness and denouncing every single detail that you don't completely agree with. Thanks, and have a nice day. Oh, and by the by, your warning stating "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors" is the exact same formatting used on the Wikipedia, the very same site you are trying to protest. -- [[User:genghis19958|genghis19958]] 23:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::While liberal bias clearly has no place in Conservapedia, I'm feeling some anti-Wikipedia bias in this article. It begins by characterising Wikipedia as a website full of ridiculous, obscure and irrelevant information, and dedicates the majority of the article to individuals' complaints of Wikipedia's flaws. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:50, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Your issue here appears to be with user John Smith, the user who has problems with your edits. Remember that like Conservapedia, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, without requiring the approval of Wikipedia staff or administrators. Having one's edits reverted (in this case, by a single user who may or may not be correct in doing so) should not be considered a form of official censorship by Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:46, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA)</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia's page on oversights]: "Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made." [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Just a minor spelling error, "...the gravity of thier concerns". -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 18:26, 22 February 2008 (EST)

: Great catch. I just fixed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is a scam, in my humble opinion. Wikipedia editors impose a markedly [[liberal]] point of view as reflected in the dozens of examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. That Wikipedia claims to be neutral while exhibiting so much [[liberal]] bias is preposterous. It would be as though the [[Village Voice]] claimed to present a "neutral point of view." It doesn't pretend that, and no one would believe it if it did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I love George Bush. He's doing things right in Iraq. Some of the things they say about him on Wikipedia are outrageous.

[[Image:http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v104/6/37/1437360279/n1437360279_30078698_5294.jpg]]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

Actually, Wikipedia contains a quite large article called "Criticism of Wikipedia" solely dedicated to criticism towards ''themselves''. Is there anything more neutral than that? If you really want to criticize Wikipedia for not being neutral, begin by adding an article to Conservapedia called "Criticism of Conservapedia" or at least a section on the page about Conservapedia containing criticism without repudiation immediately afterwards as in [[Conservapedia#Testimonies and Impact]]. Sure you like this site, but you won't claim it to be perfect, will you?--[[User:AFM|AFM]] 18:40, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== References ==

I've noticed that the references are not uniform. While most use the appropriate reference label to show up under the References section, a large number do not. Perhaps this should be made consistent? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:50, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:If we could get the article unlocked it would make it a tad easier, unfortunately I have other business IRL to attend to and will be unavailable for a few hours (at least). [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: I've unprotected the page for you to improve it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

=="arcane British royalty"==
- This is just plain wrong. Henry Liddell is in no way an example of "arcane British royalty". Being an aristocrat is not the same as being Royal. Henry Liddell was not even part of the aristocracy, being that his "grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne" means he was 4 generations from the title, maybe a member of the upper classes (because of his job as Vice Chancellor of Oxford University), but more likely just upper middle class! He is not a figure of huge historical note for sure, but was a scholar whose work is still in use and the father of Alice of "Alice in Wonderland". He certainly features, on the margins, in many histories of the period and books of Victorian biography, so is not unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. What exactly is your mention of his wikipedia article supposed to imply about wikipedia? It implies something about yourselves as he is neither arcane, "requiring secret or mysterious knowledge" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, nor a member of the Royal family. So 1). what's your point? 2. Get it right! {{unsigned|Swdr}}

* It's pretty obscure. Why should an American care about the aristocracy of nineteenth century Britain? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::"Burn the Library of Alexandria! All we need to know is in the Koran!" [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:15, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, this is a warning: improve the quality of your edits or your account will be blocked. Sarcasm, idiocy, silliness, or simply juvenile behavior is not appropriate here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I fail to see what's juvenile about using an incident from history (even an apocryphal one) to point out the anti-intellectualism of someone's apparent claim that "it's unnecessary to know that, no one should write about it," which is how I read JonathanDrain's comment. And lest the reference to the Koran concern you, the comment is meant to point out the idiocy of thinking the Koran has all the answers and nothing else is worth reading. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:34, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The Earls of Strathmore were ancestors of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (1900-2001) and hence of our own dear Queen, so tho' HL wasn't royalty himself he did have a link to the royals, and a pretty arcane one, at that! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Agreement in tense ==

I suggest changing "...discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied" to "...had lied". --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 14:01, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

== Rutgers-Ivy "hoax" ==

I'm curious as to what sources you had for the idea that the Ivy League invitation to Rutgers was a "hoax". That's all. [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 23:41, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have it backwards. A source is not needed to prove that something never existed. The burden is on the person who makes the claim that something happened to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Um... faulty logic? You need to prove the hoax exists. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 20:41, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

==Arbitary blocking==

Someone named R. Fiend just blocked my Wikipedia account for 48 hours - no reason given. ;-)

Typical hijinks at the asylum run by the inmates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are you running an attack site, Ed? The proposed decision says, "a period of investigation should occur, including attempts to negotiate with the site regarding the objectionable material. If it possible without republication of sensitive material, the matter should be discussed at a forum such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#A_wait] Maybe it's guilt by association. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, someone saw my message on my user talk page there and unblocked me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:57, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::The big ArbCom case, "Attack sites." This Principal here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Malicious_sites_2] is one vote away from becoming new WP policy, with much unforseen consequences, and no mechanism to determine what is and what isn't a "Malicious site." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Paul L. Boyer otherwise known as R. fiend can pretty much do and say anything he likes at Wikipedia. His claim to fame is that he once appeared on Jeopardy! where he was said to be working as a bartender. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 13:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

::Dwain, got any diffs? A bartender on Jeopardy! is enough to be WP expert in the field of knowledge. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:25, 18 November 2007 (EST)

==Stunning the world==
*The most popular online encyclopedia, Wikipedia has stunned the world; and as a leading force in the open source revolution has shaken assumptions regarding knowledge and scholarship to their very roots. Its reliability has been challenged because of its policy to let anyone contribute to it, but it has stood up remarkably to tests and comparisons to conventional sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. [http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Info:Main_Page]

::You sound like a wikipedia infomerical. It has hardly "stunned the world". The concept was a good one, but the implementation was where problems kicked in. And wikipedia only has comparable information to encyclopedias in non-controversial areas, and even then it has a tendency to sound a bit disjointed. Look at the article on the moon for instance. Although no new information has been found for a while, there have been 50 edits since the start of the month. There's a constant battle of pushing and pulling inherent in wikipedia and its political correctness. One person dared to show distances in miles as well as kilometers -- of course he was reverted.

::Most of us here would praise the original concept, but what it became helps to serve as an example to us of what not to do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:46, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

WP isn't all bad. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:27, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Languages ==
At risk of sounding disingenuous, couldn't this be perceived as hypocrisy: "There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, although only 130 have more than 1000 articles." - It's phrased as a criticism, but it should be noted that, for example, Conservapedia has only English language articles. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 23:23, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Arcane British royalty ==
In the opening paragraph, Wikipedia's entry on Henry Liddell is cited as an example of arcane British royalty. He wasn't royalty. Either another example should be found or the text changed to something like "obscure British nobility". [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:11, 12 December 2007 (EST)

: Thank you. Change made as requested. Factual truth comes first, though I can't resist observing that this correction seems rather arcane on this side of the pond!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:56, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::Well, yes, I can understand that. Indeed, royalty is simply the "uppermost" tier of nobility. But British royalty is actually very small with only about a dozen or so members, i.e. the family of the monarch, and so none of them, at least in the UK, are particularly obscure even though they might be the US.
::As I'm on a roll, I might also point out that Henry Liddell isn't notable for his nobility - I'm not even sure whether he was nobility or simply Esquire. Rather he is notable for those things in the opening paragraph of his entry on Wikipedia. I'm sure there must be a better example. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:14, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::: Well, I went and looked at the entry again, and some of those "notable" things of Henry Liddell do not seem terribly significant in 2007. I do think the copying by [[Wikipedia]] of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, with its very British view of that outdated world, plays a role here. Also, not to be overly contentious, but the point is not whether the entry is notable, but that the entry is filled with junk about arcane nobility. Still, I agree, there might be an even better example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:::: Yes, the criticism was not of the article's subject itself, but of some of the trivia in it. But I do find it annoying when insular Americans judge the merit of something on how important it is to Americans. And although the connection to Alice in Wonderland is merely trivia, it's ''interesting'' trivia! (Perhaps it shouldn't be in the introduction, though.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Philip, I think I can safely speak for all non-Brits, or at least all non-English speaking people, in describing [[Wikipedia]]'s trivia about British nobility as "arcane"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: I'm not sure what relevance "non-English speaking people" have for an ''English'' language encyclopaedia, but apart from that, perhaps you are correct. I actually decided that I better look up "arcane" to be sure I understood the word, and it wasn't quite what I thought it was. ''Arcane: mysterious; secret; obscure.'' Yes, I guess for many people the British nobility is a bit mysterious and obscure. But then I could say much the same about calculus, quantum theory, and definitely the American system for electing presidents which I've ''never'' been able to comprehend! But isn't an encyclopaedia intended to demystify the mysterious and clarify the obscure? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 12 December 2007 (EST)

= Content Suggestions =
==SOME positive aspects of WP?==

I'm going to tread lightly here. I know there is loads of animosity toward Wikipedia here, but wouldn't it be fair to mention SOME of the good aspects of the site? To me, it seems like most of the WP articles disputed here are only on highly-politicized topics. Personally, I have found that many of the basic science articles (fundamental physics and chemistry, especially most of the mathematics branches) as well as many of the History articles are quite good and seem to line up exactly with my university texts.

I think it is fair to mention the virtue of WP's non-politicized articles, as they greatly outnumber the hot-button subjects. I will not start editing the page until I can collaborate with somebody though. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, there are of course lots of positive aspects of Wikipedia especially, as you say, in articles that are not contentious along socio-political lines. And even those articles that are contentious tend to be good - there is no reason why conservatives shouldn't exert as much editorial pressure as liberals, which of course they do.

:But two reasons why Conservapedia will not publish pro-Wikipedia content. Firstly, it's in direct competition with it. Not commercially but for what it sees as the hearts and minds of the new generation. Secondly, Conservapedia does not pretend to be NPOV. It promotes a dichotomy between left and right. So, while Wikipedia has good things to say about Conservapedia and even bad things to say about itself, Conservapedia doesn't want to dilute its anti-Wikipedia stance at all.

:While I agree with you that Conservapedia would be taken more seriously by mainstream conservatives if it could allow itself to be a little more balanced, I feel this is unlikely in this currently hyped atmosphere of them and us. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:: In the lead sentence of its entry about [[Conservapedia]], [[Wikipedia]] lies about our "stated purpose" in an attempt to smear us. This has been pointed out in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but the [[liberals]] at [[Wikipedia]] won't correct it. I doubt you will either.

:: No, there's little of value in a cite as devoted to lies, gossip and pornography as [[Wikipedia]] is. What's next, you're going to insist that the National Enquirer has much redeeming value? Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::"Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism." (from Wikipedia's intro on Conservapedia).

:::Where's the lie in the above, Aschlafy? Or is it a simple error? Or a difference in opinion. I don't know - genuinely interested. And why don't you change it?

:::Personally I don't find Wikipedia particularly dedicated to lies, gossip and pornography. Sure, it's there if you look for it, but I don't. Wikipedia has many redeeming features - it would churlish to deny it. I still maintain they should be covered in this article to lend a bit of balance. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:46, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm.. actually I think I see what you're getting at. I think sentence means that the stated purpose is to create "an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint" and that it is "supportive of ... Young Earth creationism". But yes, that form of words might suggest that the latter was also a stated aim. I could attempt to change it... [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:52, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Done. Let me know what you think. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Better, but the term "supportive" (used twice) is still wrong, non-encyclopedic, and an attempt to smear Conservapedia. Also, note how [[liberals]] have flagged the entry and are likely to change or revert any improvements you make. One [[liberal]] has already modified your edit! Welcome to how [[Wikipedia]] operates in removing improvements and ensuring continuing [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::...the "liberal" edit did nothing more than moving a source to its proper place. The source reads:
{{cquote|Welcome to Conservapedia – Wikipedia from a creationist perspective. [...] Perhaps not surprisingly, it seems creationism gets top marks in every one of its 5,100 entries.}}
:::::So it seems like "supportive" is not a too unfitting word in this context. The "problem" is not in Wikipedia, it's in the source. And it's in the source because Conservapedia does give exactly that impression. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:09, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, one editor has moved a citation - correctly by the looks of it. How is "supportive" wrong? I'm not trying to be difficult - I just don't get it. What would be a better NPOV form of words in your view? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:12, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::: What are you quoting from ... a [[liberal]] article trying to smear [[Conservapedia]]? And that makes something factual????

:::::: Suppose I changed [[Wikipedia]]'s entry and described Wikipedia as "supportive" of the homosexual lifestyle and abortion-on-demand. Would you accept that as a proper description at the beginning of its entry? No, I doubt you would. Yet [[Wikipedia]] insists on its baseless smears of Conservapedia, which is not "supportive" of any specific position. Our [[rules]] have been clear from the very beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Aschfly, can I just get this straight, please? Are you denying that Conservapedia is supportive of a conservative viewpoint? Or a Youth Earth Creationist viewpoint? Or both? Or what?

:::::::The text as it now stands states that Conservapedia is supportive of a conservative view and many of the articles are supportive of a YEC view. Is this not correct? If it isn't, what form of words would be correct? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:50, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not going to waste time by repeating this again. If you would like to remove the lies from Wikipedia's entry about Conservative, then that would be welcome, though I'd expect Wikipedia editors to reinsert the lies.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::If you tell me what the lies are and why, I will try to. Or give a link that describes them. Or tell me what your preferred set of words would be. I don't see why this is proving to be so difficult. I've obviously missed previous discussions on this. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:10, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I think the original point has been diluted with all of this unnecessary talk regarding the definition Wikipedia currently provides for Conservapedia. The only comment I'll make is that Wikipedia's article seems quite balanced, and I've been contributing heavily to it lately to make sure this site isn't unnecessarily mocked. I am against bias. Now, the real question/issue is whether there are merits to be found in using Wikipedia, a site which hosts nearly 2 million articles. Granted some maybe viewed by others to be "anti-intellectual" in nature - if you don't want to read about music groups, television shows, movies, video games etc..etc..that's fine. But take a gander at Wikipedia's repository for science related articles. This includes cell biology, biochemistry, pharmacology, medicine (pathology) and countless other categories. They are extremely well written, neutral, sourced, and informative. And I'm not talking about Evolution. I echo the original commentors observations - it also applies to historical, geographical, and mathematical articles. I think this article itself would benefit from a fleshing out. You don't have to PRETEND NPOV, but you can still strive for it. Right now it's just a list of negativity that represents a minutia of problems with Wikipedia articles in the past. Just my two cents. I would be more than happy to help. And before anyone calls me on liberal bias, I beg you to look past those classifications and see that I am a Wikipedian and a Conservapedian. Thanks guys. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I've read (or tried to plow through) many of Wikipedia's life sciences articles. They are poorly written. They are no good for beginners, i.e., people who don't know much about biology for example. And they are biased against the idea that human beings may have more to them than just their physical bodies.

:::You can't say much about people without considering the [[spiritual body]] [[St. Paul]] spoke of, and you can't describe human life without [[free will]] and [[life after death]]. Moreover, how can you talk about the children without describing their [[God|Father]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:50, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has many positive features. I wouldn't have devoted 3 years of spare time to it, if I thought it was utterly useless. For one thing, it pioneered the concept of a free online encyclopedia which is collaboratively written.

Oh, and they're moving their headquarters to San Francisco, where they'll be surrounded by more liberals than ever before. ;-) [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/10/BU69SNMQ2.DTL] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:36, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:Either that or they're moving to the Ninth Federal Judicial District in hopes of more favorable rulings from all the lawsuits they have. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:46, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Cut from intro:

:Content on Wikipedia is controlled by and released under the "GNU Free Documentation License" (GFDL) requirements. Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's edits on Wikipedia.

Maybe we can divide this article into general information of interest - such as the license and the ease of editing - and the strenuous criticism of its leftist bias and general unreliability. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:41, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

:A great idea! We'll call the former [[Wikipedia]] and the latter [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]! ...no, wait... ;)
:Seriously, though, it's nice that a sysop finally (implicitly) admits that practically the entire article is just pointing out how bad WP is and that good/neutral info is so rare that it practically sticks out. This article is to Wikipedia what [[Theory of Evolution]] is to evolution: Little actual info, tons of preaching how it's bad and shouldn't be trusted. I fully support the idea of having an actual article about Wikipedia. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 21:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::Finally? I've been saying so all along. Remember, I'm still on the Mediation Committee at Wikipedia. And I used to be a senior admin until the inmates took over the asylum.

::Wikipedia is a good idea, poorly managed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:32, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

==Two pages?==
This is just an idea, but maybe all the sections of the Wikipedia page talking about it's scandals and stuff could be moved to a separate page (like [[Controversy in wikipedia]] or something like that, and this page could just summarize wikipedia, Kinda like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia this], except include some of the bad aspects as well). [[User:1984|1984]] 17:40, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

==Major Faux Pas from using Wikipedia==
Due to a mis-quote on Wikipedia a group of university professors caused Pope Benedict XVI to cancel a lecture at La Sapienza University in Rome in January 2008. This garnered international attention and was a major embarassment to the university.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7188860.stm

http://www.zenit.org/article-21701?l=english

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020707.html

==Ethnocentrism==

* I personally think this article should also mention Wikipedia's preference for American content over non-American content (or, for that matter, criticisms raised by non-American users). As a British user on [[Wikipedia]], I can testify to such bias, hence why I am now active on [[Conservapedia]]. Take Wikipedia's ''List of films considered the worst'' or ''List of films considered the best'' - on both articles, nearly all films are American, and no attention is made to European or Asian films. And then we have an entry I made on their ''DC Comics'' page a while back, highlighting DC Comics' apparent tradition of portraying British and French characters in a negative light. All I got for my pains was a speedy deletion and a comment with language strong enough to peel paint off of my doorframe. [[User:Crablogger]] 12:28 GMT, 22 April 2009

= Other =
==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]
::Yes, this is true. Liberals, pagans and freemasons seem to be in control of all content at Wikipedia. A freemason merely has to express outrage at a quote (usually one by a freemason) regarding freemasonry on a userpage or person.al website and everyone jumps to remove the information. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 15:32, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should auto ban blacks and chinese and jews and anyone who isn't white, straight, a man, conservative, and christian, too. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::: And you too? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:07, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The user BushUSA99 was blocked infinitely for the above posting, and I considered reverting it too but left it to show cause. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Did you know ... ==
Did you know that you can buy a listing in Wikipedia on eBay? Ebay user diremine, who has a 99,9% positive feedback, provides the service of getting an article about your business inside Wikipedia, 10
interwiki links to your article and 2 external links to your website. [http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160146092291&ssPageName=MERCOSI_VI_ROSI_PR4_PCN_BIX&refitem=160144755846&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&refwidgettype=osi_widget] [http://myworld.ebay.com/diremine] Wikipedia suggests there are spy's and traitors who assist with this.(Wikizine - number: 79)

:Diremine is already indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for that reason, as you can see at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Diremine his user page]. Wikipedia will not tolerate such abuse. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 15:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Fox News ==

FOX news once said they couldn't find out why "Geromino" is yelled when people sky dive. The guy was like "I looked in wikipedia, but only because it really isn't something serious." Well, I looked that up on wikipedia, and I found out why they yell it.

The 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment's motto and slogan was named after him. In 1940, the night before their first mass jump, U.S. paratroopers at Fort Benning watched the film Geronimo and a Private Aubrey Eberhardt announced he would shout the name when he jumped to prove he was not scared. The trend has since caught on elsewhere. This unit was the first Airborne unit in U.S. History. [4][5] {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

:So? Take it up with Fox, not us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic... ==

Ok, Bob. You don't mind if I call you Bob, fo you? Nice, Bob. Ok, let's begin...
While I know that Conservapedia hasn't made a claim to be neutral I will point this out anyway. Since, logiacally, an encyclopdia which is subjective is hardly a trustworthy one. It is uncertain if it is even an ecyclopedia at all...
Ok, the majority of this "criticism" comes from the human mr. Brandt. My money is on the fact that Brandt either drives a personal vendetta against Wikipedia. He could, of course, be an ally of this "encyclopedia". In either case this is a highly questionable source since whe don't know anything about him except that he is a "wikipedia critic". Does that make him trustworthy? Hardly. Anyone can pick a source but the source has to have some form of authority in that area.
You are not following, Bob? Didn't think so.
In short, a professor in english is highly qualified to come with statements about English grammar. On the other hand is not not qualified as a source when writing an article about geology. And what is required to be a wikipedia critic? Well, you should qualify if you hate wikipedia which rarely makes you a reliable source.
Ok, Bob, do you follow? Smashing.
The main criticism is that wikipedia has errors in it. From your point of view that is, Bob. Translated into normal English wikipedia's (rather correct) version of reality collides with you (rather incorrect) version of reality. Oh, was that too complicated, Bob? You understand? Highly impressive.

Now, finally, even if wikipedia has errors (which I am sure it has) no one is perfect. Take ten articles from wikipedia and ten from conservapedia and compare them to the generally accepted vision of reality. I believe wikipedia will prove to be the most reliable source of information. So while wikipedia may have it flaws conservapedia is like a made-up encyclopedia where the majority of the articles suffer from delusion. Was that too complicated, Bob? It was, wasn't it? Too bad, my time is running up, Bob. Adieu.

/Cthulhu

: Do your sample of 10 on each site and you will find that Conservapedia is superior.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Cthulhu, there are several problems with your rant.
::* You seem to presume that being subjective and being trustworthy are mutually exclusive, but this is not self-evident and you haven't explained how it is so.
::* The main criticism of Wikipedia is not that it has errors, but that it has systemic problems which encourage and/or perpetuate errors. Several of the criticisms, for example, are that errors were corrected then the corrections were reverted to the error state.
::* You made a number of assertions as though self-evidently true, but which of course we would reject, and you haven't substantiated them. Things such as "you (sic) (rather incorrect) version of reality" and "the majority of articles suffer from delusion".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I hit Conservapedia's "Random Page" button ten times to take a sample of ten, then compared them to their counterparts on Wikipedia.
* [[COBE]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE COBE]
* [[Clamato]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato Clamato]
* [[Ancient Art]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_art Ancient art]
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua Book of Joshua]
* [[Aksum]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum Kingdom of Aksum]
* [[Hypertonic solution]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertonic Hypertonic]
* [[The Renaissance]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance Renaissance]
* [[Option]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) Option (finance)]
* [[Shoe laces]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelaces Shoelaces]
* [[Robert Parris Moses]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parris_Moses Robert Parris Moses]
Opinions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:38, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Seems like it is 10 - 0 to wikipedia. While conservapedia wrote about one paragraph wikipedia wrote a few pages. Could you repeat what you said about conservapeda being superior, Bob? You don't mind if I call you Bob, right. Smashing.

--[[User:Cthulhu|Cthulhu]] 16:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:More writing does not necessarily equate to superiority. Conservapedia is new, and concise. Articles will grow, but in view of where is the conservative viewpoint allowed to be presented, which do you find to do a better job? Since we live in an open society, people don't have to choose one or the other. They can make their own decisions, but at least they have Conservapedia as a source if they desire and they have the capability to get information and perspectives that might otherwise be lacking or hard to find.

:By the way, be glad I wasn't looking where you signed on as a user as you would have been blocked up front for the name. Why not just call yourself Kali? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, a longer article is not necessarily better but in this case it is irrelevant. The conservapedia version of the articles generally was and idiot-version of the wikipedia one. To clearify, contained VERY general information whereas wikipedia had more extensive and in-depth information. Bob, you don't mind if I call you Bob, do you? Capital. You see, Bob, when you say that conservapedia is better in giving information from a conservative viewpoint this is not the case. The viewpoint is the same but wikipedia generally have more and better detailed information. You are following me? Smashing.

When Bob over there claims that conservapedia is "supreme" it was from an encyclopedia perspective. An encyclopdia's function is to contain articles within one or seveal topics. Wikipedia's articles are, in these examples, more detailed and professional. Thus conservapedia cannot be "supreme". Bob, you also claim that conservapedia is still young, etc. That I can agree with but if that is the case you people shouldn't come with absurd statements such as "you will find that conservapedia is supreme" and then pretend like it was some kind of paranthetis that you can conviniently ignore when it suits you.

And finally, Bob, considering my user name: Resorting to threats like "I could had banned you if I wanted" is REALLY mature (note, Bob, that I'm being ironical). Resorting to threats only proves that your arguments lack substance. My user name is my business as long as it doesn't contain anything illegal or offensive which it does not. Cthulhu is a fictional pre-christian entity which figured in anumber of horror stories written by H.P. Lovecraft. And my name...as a principle I don't give out my real name on the internet as a securiy measure and that is not negotiable, Bob.

//Cthulhu
:Just a point of clarification, we do reserve the right to reject user names for reasons other than being illegal or offensive. See [[special:userLogin]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Verbose and choppy writing is not the hallmark of professionalism. The Wikipedia articles come across as largely disjointed and difficult to get an overall feel, as one would expect from a large number of editors often at odds and trying to push their particular writing. I prefer many of the Conservapedia articles due to their smoother flow and a greater sense of capturing the subject matter. It's similar to your writing, for instance. Filled with a variety of duplicated cut and paste insults, the overall product is to take up space without meaning. I would suggest, in life, that you consider a path where you may grow to understand that viewpoints apart from your own still have a right to be expressed. Peace to you in finding this path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:51, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==For the record==
For the record, I was one of the "other Wikipedia Review" editors investigating the Essjay scandal. Here [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20408] I raised the possibility Essjay could be more than one person. Here, Brandt confronts Essjay, and asks, "Are you more than one person?" [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/usermess.png] it should also noted, the forum was frequented by high level WP Administrators who were active participants in these discussions, and new all relevent facts. Therefore, the discoveries made on January 19, that Essjay had lied & put the credibility of WP at stake in a most compromising way was known to high level WP Admins who regulalry report back on activities on the mailing lists before ''Jimbo'' appointed Essjay to ArbCom, with the full knowledge the ''The New Yorker'' was about to print a retraction on the lies and disinformation.

How this got fouled up in WP's internal bureacracy, is only a cause for speculation. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:17, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

== Waste ==

Isn't this article just bashing Wikipedia, not a very nice (or informative) article

: It's factual and balanced about [[Wikipedia]], which is more than can be said about [[Wikipedia]]'s smears in its entry about [[Conservapedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::This article is far from balanced (and I believe that's the general consensus among your users) - there isn't a single informative statement that doesn't have to do directly with some kind of verbose scandal or minutia error that existed in a handful of articles out of millions. No offense Aschlafly, but the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia is an example of what this one should be -resourceful, neutral, and informative in ALL aspects. Just my two cents. Cheers. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:01, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:I don't think this whole website is very factual or helpful in anyway, it is just to promote a very conserative agenda.
[[User:EtAlt292|EtAlt292]] 14:48, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::hot button issues maybe, but not the majority of the articles. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:56, 9 December 2007 (EST)

: EtAlt292, how about stating your political beliefs (e.g., [[liberal]]) before pretending to be unbiased in your comments???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::I kinda take exception to that statement - Just because someone disagrees with certain issues doesn't make them inherently biased, or in this case "liberal". I self-identify as a liberal (mostly because if I was forced to pick a label, that would be it), although I normally eschew such classifications, but I don't consider myself biased at all. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:39, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::Let's look at the conclusion of this article [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html]covering the recent Overstock.com/Bagley/Attack sites incident:
{{QuoteBox|If you ask Judd Bagley and Patrick Byrne what's going on, they'll tell you the ban is part of much larger attempt to discredit their views on naked shorting. They believe that a small group of people is using Wikipedia as means of controlling public opinion. 

"'''When you think of how the public consciousness of an issue can develop, one of the first things that's going to happen in today’s age is people are going to Google the issue and then read the Wikipedia article''' that comes up," Byrne says. "So if you can control that article, you can really deflect the discourse." 

Whatever the motives behind it, there's no doubt that the Wikipedia inner circle rules those four articles with an iron fist. And as Charles Ainsworth points out, this puts a cloud over the entire encyclopedia. 

"Wikipedia, in its way, is of great benefit to the web community," he says. "But I've also been greatly dismayed that Wikipedia has apparently attracted some intelligent but problematic personalities with ambition, secret personal agendas, and cold, ruthless behavior towards other editors and ideas that they perceive as threatening their power, position, or agendas. '''What's disheartening is that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation not only don't do anything about it, but they appear to support these charlatans''' to some degree." 

"When Bagley attempted to level the playing field, he was banished immediately," Ainsworth continues. "Obviously, there's something seriously wrong with the way Wikipedia is being managed and administered. I don't know if it threatens the long-term viability of the project or not, but it is cause for concern among those of us who spend a lot of hours actually trying to write quality articles." }}

:::Northing has been added from Bagley's case to this article, yet the conclusions are virtually identical to what is already presented here.

:::For the record, see Byrne's posting to Daniel Brandt here, "''your'' gangsters turn out to be connected to ''our'' gangsters."[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=3761&view=findpost&p=14936] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:40, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== More sources for section on Barbara Bauer ==

Should have better sourcing. We should add [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Barbara%20Bauer] where the quoted comment actually occurred as well as possibly including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_31#Barbara_Bauer] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_7] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_25] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_26] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Bauer]. The Bauer dispute seems that it might be more complicated. I'm struggling to understand what happened so we can add more to it. It looks like some liberal science fiction writers tried to hijack a lot of Wikipedia and got away with it until Bauer filed suit. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 23:56, 16 January 2008 (EST)

==Quoting from Wikipedia==

I am aware that the Commandments forbid quoting from Wikipedia, unless it is done to illustrate a liberal point of view, but what would be the problem if the quoted material was something which Conservapedians found unobjectionable? I have just joined, and have not made any edits yet. But I'm a musician by profession, and so one of the first areas of this encyclopedia I looked at was the one on music. Compare the page here on, say, Music Theory with the equivalent page on Wikipedia. The difference in quality is immense; the Conservapedia page is innacurate and confusing, to say the least. I can't think of any possible liberal bias which could lurk within a topic like that, and any that did exist (such as British spellings or BCE dates) could be easily edited. So what is the rule regarding this subject?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 20:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:Hi and welcome. My take on the issue is that we just don't lift text from wikipedia. As I understand the way WP works, there is no original research or creative writing there, so their information must show where it is from, and so there should be no problem with us being able to use the same or similar sources to produce our own articles without having to actually take text from WP. With regard to the article you mention, it may well be that we have no one (unlike yourself that is) who is a professional musician or at least an informed amateur to produce - yet - a quality technical article. Of course, you are welcome to bring your knowledge to the crease and I'm sure everyone here, and our readers, would be very grateful for your efforts there :) My musical knowledge is limited to "I know what I like" lol [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:29, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:In furtherance of Fox's comments, Eoinc, if you wrote the entry on Wikipedia, then of course you can copy your own work. But I compared our [[music theory]] to Wikipedia's and personally I prefer our concise, encyclopedic treatment. Wikipedia has not one, not two, but three big disclaimers in its entry, the first of which says it was taken almost entirely from one source! Moreover, the Wikipedia entry is far to long and tedious to be educational. I'm a teacher and know the value of conciseness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:We may be confusing two issues here. As mentioned above, you are not allowed to copy from Wikipedia, unless it is entirely your own work. But you are also not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference, which I think may be what Eoinc is referring to. Wikipedia has a similar rule, i.e. that you cannot use other on-line encyclopedias, blogs, etc. as sources. It has to be what they refer to as a "reliable source". Similarly, we don't find Wikipedia necessarily reliable, so you can't use it as a source. But as Fox said, you may be able to use and cite the same sources that Wikipedia uses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia minimizes Bozell's criticism. ==

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._Brent_Bozell_III&diff=prev&oldid=157974132]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:51, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikilink cleanup ==

There are some inappropriately-linked dates in the [[Wikipedia#The_scandal_breaks]] section. Could someone clean this up or unlock it so that I can do it? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:04, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Atheist ==

What relevance does saying Wales is an atheist have? The website is not atheist and covers all ranges of topics, so I don't understand why this has any place in the first sentence of the article. [[User:Luano|Luano]] 19:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Because atheist = bad. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, how unbelievably insulting is that? Way to make an unwarranted generalization, dude. Unfortunately, that is exactly why they make hay of Wales' religious beliefs (or lack thereof) - because the founders of this site seriously believe that an atheist is somehow the worst thing someone could possibly be. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 15:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Jimbo Wales==
Do you think were helping the conservative cause by calling "Jimmy Wales" "Jimbo Wales".

: I thought he preferred that nickname. We don't care but we often use the nicknames preferred by the person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

==Sexual obsession==
Is there a way to source and point out Wikipedia's obsession with sexual trivia and sexual phraseology without sullying this reference? One of the mildest of such articles is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_tail Whale Tail]. My point is that how can any reference take itself seriously when it has entire articles devoted to peeking at female underwear which include links to more articles on topics such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttock_cleavage Butt Cleavage].
I apologize if this shocks or offends. I'd just like to point out how juvenile and base Wikipedia is. It also puts into perspective Wikipedia's wild claim on the number of articles it has. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

== Er.. ==

:well, in all fairness they also cover a large number of other subjects in addition to sexual trivia and phraseology, they have a great deal of information on masonry, biology etc., But I agree that some of those articals just don't need to exist.

==Rachel Marsden==
Ex-girlfriend of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, now Wale's biggest critic. Her summary describes Wikipedia as an "online libel board," that "any loser can use to smear people who are more successful than them." http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9999282-2.html , July 25, 2008--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:39, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
:I would just point out that n ex-girlfriend, particularly one that became such under not very amicable circumstances, might not be the best or most unbiased source imaginable. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:32, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
:: True, due to her circumstances. However, replace her name with any known conservative, just keep the quotes. I bet you still get the truth about Wikipedia!--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== Arabic wikipedia ==

Hi, any one can do/write an article about the Arabic wikipedia, please review the talk page here, nd help if u can, it's so biased [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arabic_Wikipedia The arabic wiki]
Regards.

::Are you Stayfi? If so, I really suggest you take some ESL courses before you make any further attempts to enact change at Wikipedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:33, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::hhh, eh, u can always add an a or an A, if u didn't get it, i changed it for u, dude, just so simple. --[[User:Stayfi|Stayfi]] 15:25, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

== Typo ==

There is a typo in the article, currently. "Mr. Farah has repeatedly has been..." I would have made the change myself, but the article is protected. What does one have to do around here to prove one's credentials for editing the article about Wikipedia? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] 15:45, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

: Done, six minutes after your request. Not bad, eh? It's unlocked for general editing now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:51, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

==Endorsement==

The introduction to Wikipedia's own "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry reads, "The Seigenthaler and Essjay incidents caused criticism of Wikipedia's reliability and usefulness as a reference." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia] Googles return some 74,000 hits for "Essjay." Wikipedia's attempts to rewrite its own history are well known. Conservapedia's entry on Wikipedia, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia#cite_note-135 footnote 136] {[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=0&p=20992&#entry20992 original source]) refers to the site admin at Wikipediareview who blow the Essjay fraud wide open, exposed the scandal, provoked the international condemnation and flight of experts and academics who washed thier hands of the project. This site admins name is Somey. Of all the apologetics, coverups & disinformation abundant, Somey has now said about Conservapedia's entry on Wikipedia, "their version of the Essjay story is one of the more accurate ones I've seen." [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=7152&view=findpost&p=176421]
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:24, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-10-14T22:25:31Z

AFM: /* Nobel Peace Prize */

{{protect|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Obama clueless about American history==
In introducing Sotomayor, he flubs the constitution being the paper written over 200 years ago, mistakenly says 20 centuries ago. Maybe Totus was thinking the other paper written 20 centuries ago, the Bible! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiRhHqlzaG4 Video Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago]
::A much as I hate to say this, I think taht was simply a slip of the tongue nothing more, also sign your comments please--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:02, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

::This really says more about you than about Obama, you're willing to think that a person with a Harvard education is below the line of mental retardation when it comes to History - US history in particular. It was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. If everytime Obama made a slip of the tongue you overreacted like this then you wouldn't be able to see the actual substance and be unable critisize his legislation or his political way. Really, grow up and stop looking for mistakes like that as it makes conservatives and you in particular look stupid and petty.

== Unlock article? ==

Can this article be unlocked? [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:22, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Specifically I want to delete this

"# Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. "

This doesn't offer any evidence of Obama being a Muslim. [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

:Actually, it does. For example, if this practice didn't exist, somebody might say, "Obama can't be a practicing muslim because a practicing muslim wouldn't deny Islam." The existence of this practice makes all of Obama's claims to Christianity irrelevant, because it proves he would make those assertions regardless of his actual religion. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 00:05, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::Actually, ConservativeCanuck has a point, it makes the facts sound like conspiracy theory when they're mixed up with terms like that thrown around. Taqiyya is solely a shi'ia muslim doctrine. Indonesia is Sunni muslim (actually the people the doctrine was created to hide from) and its not part of their teachings. He doesn't need a magical doctrine to just lie outright. -[[User:JMaker|JMaker]] 11:58, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==Obama Received Aid as Foreign Student?==

I've seen this reported in several places. Apparently, Obama (under the name "Barry Soetoro") received financial aid as "a foreign student from Indonesia." The mainstream media seems to have basically ignored this; does anyone know more about it? This would lend quite a bit of credence to those who question his American citizenship. <ref>http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/obama-receives-foreign-student-tuition-aid-smoking-gun-finally-found/#more-6734</ref> <ref>http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1995743.aspx</ref>

==The Muslim Section==
The call to prayer is very beautiful, one need not be a muslim to appreciate it.

"Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them" Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension could see that he was referring to having muslim in his family (he does) and lliving in a Muslim-majority country (he did) Neither of these prove him to be a muslim.

"He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." That proves him to be a muslim? So if you don't muslims have to either convert or live in the stone age, you're must be a muslim yourself?

"Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President" I believe there's some requirement for using your middle name in the oath.

"Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." Did he use a Koran, where is anything Islamic found there. Perhaps he's just not a very devout christian, is that a problem?

"On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[34] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view" Yes, Fareed Zakaria is a muslim, if one day, I turn on CNN and watch his show am I now a muslim? All of these prove not that Obama is a muslim, but that he simply isn't a anti-muslim fanatic and is open to all beliefs.

"Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior" It's absurd to think he was using the conventional use?

"Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth."
Malcolm X has inspired millions for his activity in the civil rights movement. The Nation of Islam was a radical group, but I can understand radicalism in the face of what had been done to african-americans at the time. Malcolm X left the group because he disagreed with their radical views. I fail to see how seeing him as an inspiration makes someone a muslim. I'm jewish, I'm inspired by Martin Luther King, that makes me a christian?

I could go on on and on, but I won't. Aside from all of this, what if he is muslim? Are muslims not allowed to be president? Can a muslim child not dream to one day be president just like every other kid? --[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well, it is an open question, IMO, or should be. The open question about his place of birth is another. The Koran actually calls for the use of deceit and violence against those who do not accept it 100%. That, in and of itself gives one pause. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:13, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

::I will add that since Israelis were prominent in U.S. politics circa '70's, from that time forward Muslim American's began to be heavily invested thanks to Middle East states such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait. Their ultimate goal was to get Muslims into U.S. politics. Today are the fruits from that investment, Illinois's Barack Obama and Keith Ellis. Chicago has over 400 Mosques, some capacity over 1,000. Home to Muslim Farrakhan, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood ties, big Saudi charities, Fundraising for dead Palestine suicide bombers. Obama bows out of great thanks and respect for the King.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:24, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Keith Ellis is from Minnesota not Illinois. Neither Keith Ellis or Barack Obama received donations from Middle Eastern countries.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: Then why is he keeping his campaign donations secret? Answer: they are coming from compromised foreign Muslim sources.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:15, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

I fail to see how it is relevant that President Obama may or may not be of the muslum faith. If he came out and said that he was muslum, then you could put that as his faith, but it is not important enough to have an entire section about

== Article in disrepair ==

Please, we need to either unlock the article or the moderators need to be responsive to the talk page. The frequency of updates is embarrassing for such a high value article. Several sections need to be cleaned up, which is too tedious for just a handful of administrators. This man is destroying our country and we are not keeping up. If we do this right, we can become one of the best repositories of Obama scandals and transgressions, but we have to be at least current.

Now as far as specific content, I'd like to expand on the Ayres ghost writing ''Dreams From My Father''. Jack Cashill updated his argument two days ago (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html), and frankly, I think is proven well enough to warrant sufficient detail in the article. I'd propose a paragraph here on the talk page, but I feel it may be ignored like my last suggestion. [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: Here is the other proposal I had. I suggest the following paragraph be added to the end of the section "Obama and Elitism":
<blockquote>
:Obama clearly exhibited his elitism on his May 5, 2009 limousine trip to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.<re.f>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE</ref> Intended to showcase a connection to the ways of common Americans, Obama instead struggled to compose his order, finally settling on a cheeseburger with fancy Grey Poupon french mustard. This combination is rare among those who frequent burger joints in the United States, demonstrating Obama's lack of familiarity with U. S. culture and lack of American upbringing. Naturally, the liberal media abetted Obama by covering this up during their doting coverage <r.ef>http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html</ref>, in which he purchased burgers for liberal reporters.<r.ef>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/05/barack-and-joe-go-to-white-castle-%E2%80%A6-i-mean-ray%E2%80%99s-hell-burger/</ref>
</blockquote>

:(I broke the ref tags so it would be easier to copy and paste.) There are a lot of ways to attack him, but roughly since the election, little is making its way into the article. The time for mourning is over; now we catalog! [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:*''Fancy French mustard?'' Are you being serious? I have been to a place in Madison, Wisconsin that has a "Dijon Burger". And the area is known for its sausages, Brats, and most places routinely offer that kind of mustard. Granted Madison is a bastion of fuzzy liberal thinking, but still... And your statement about their being "lots of ways to attack him" is totally out of place here. We are an encyclopedia, and therefore do not "attack". If you, or anyone, want to think adding facts is the same as attacking, that is just clap-trap. Your Grey Poupon suggestion smacks of disingenuous mischief. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:35, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: The best criticism of Obama you can think of, is he isn't familiar with American burger joints? I personally find the average burger joint greasy and disgusting (and usually trayf), that doesn't mean I'm un-American.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:06, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

First, thanks for following up with me. The reason my proposal is not "disingenuous mischief" is that it is not my creation. As I linked, the criticism comes from reputable sources like Sean Hannity, as well as Ingraham, Limbaugh and many others I forget. Also, and very importantly, it is not merely about mustard but about the media fawning over him (see the legal insurrection link). It is popular conservative discussion. Thus, if we are to have a section on elitism, and given the solid sources, it merits discussion. If it then does not make it in, or we decide that the Elitism section for some reason is not justified (I would object), then I will accept. Another point I was to argue is about the attack. Conservapedia does not have to be the attacker, but it should help the reader to formulate an attack. The best niche for our 'pedia is to be where conservatives go to help develop an attack on a liberal or anti-American position. If someone wants to show Obama is an elitist, he can come to the Elitism section, follow the links and choose which arguments to make. And if he wants to prove Obama's a Muslim, he can ignore Elitism completely. On the other hand, if we just want to be a synopsis facts without direction, we are competing with Google and Wikipedia. It thus helps to include as many attacks as possible as long as they are vetted. Maybe I'm wrong or in the minority. And BTW, River Falls.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:07, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

== Table of Contents ==

Seeing as so many people find the position to be a problem, and more importantly that moving the ToC up would bury important information on Obamas muslim faith, could we include the ToC into the muslim "faith" section, as a side colum perhaps? Just a suggestion --[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:47, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:I like that. How about the following: Make "Religion: Described in the article" link to the relevant section(s), shorten the intro and integrate many of the details into the body or into new sections, then bring up the ToC. That way, the ToC is early, but the Muslim section is not push very far down. (Note that one of my criticisms tacitly in mind above is that the intro section rambles and the TOC is not first.) [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:12, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:: The article in general is ordered in a completely bizarre fashion. Regardless of how important the list of facts linking Obama to Islam is, it's way to long to preempt the table of contents, which is stuck around the end of page two as it is. Is isn't that the question of Obama's faith isn't an important one, because it is; it's just that the list of facts - many of which even I would admit are pretty tangential - don't constitute an important portion of Obama's brief bio, which is what normally goes above the TOC. Toss a reference to the controversy over his faith into the intro, then bury the list of facts (I might be biased against them because they're sort of ugly) somewhere in the article, parallel to where faith is talked about in the articles about other famous people. Perhaps, due to its contentious nature, spin it off into its own article, where it can grow into a more encyclopedic format. There's also a bunch of random criticisms and negative observations which, while appropriate for the article, are scattered sort of hodgepodge. The second most important biographical fact about Obama is not that his aunt is living in the United States illegally. Note that I'm -not- saying that it's not an important fact, it's just not a basic fact about Obama. Regardless of what he gets from the MSM, he doesn't deserve any sort of special treatment from CP. His article should be formatted in the same order as anybody else's, with random controversies and criticisms going into a controversies and criticisms section, in their own articles, or woven into sections of the biography where they are -directly- relevant. Given the number of sort of disconnected criticisms (like the "statements" section, which is great to read, but sort of unsituated), I really think a separate page for miscellaneous controversies and criticisms is warranted.[[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 16:16, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== Pakistani pronounciation ==

"Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one." I don't see this as relevant evidence of anything, you gonna call World War II veterans french because they correctly pronounce Bastogne?

:Typical of liberal deflection, moral equivalence. Open your mind. It will indeed set you free. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:30, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

::Set me free? Sounds more like it will make me angry and make me start hating everybody that doesn't think the same thing as me.

:::Seems to me you already are, posting anonymously, not owning what you post. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:05, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

I agree with the anonymous poster, using the correct pronunciation of a word is not evidence of someone's religion. Are foreign (non-Christian) leaders that know how to pronounce America like a native born American accused of being Christian? These kind of obviously biased statements were what Conservapedia was created to get rid of, isn't it?

==Updating a link==
Earlier tonight, somebody mentioned the reference link was broken, and suggested we remove that content. I snapped at him, for suggesting to remove that content, but it turns out the link actually is broken. I did a simple google search for the quote, and found hundreds of sources. Here's a few of the working links:

http://middleeast.about.com/b/2009/04/06/obama-in-turkey-at-the-gates-of-islam.htm
http://www.freep.com/article/20090604/NEWS05/906040435/
http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=6235.4664.0.0

Can we replace the current reference 22 with this reference? [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:21, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:I've unlocked it for you to update the link. Please edit in a constructive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::I would like to point out that the user who pointed out the broken link was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABush20082012&year=&month=-1 blocked] infinitely for pointing it out. [[User:InnocenceIntent|InnocenceIntent]] 11:19, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:::The reason provided for the block does not support your comment, and the user name chosen by the blocked user was ridiculous. But you want to spend your time as an advocate for that blocked user who has not made a single substantive edit, then please take it up with TK. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:23, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: I hate to disagree, and if the block was based on his name I am, but the only edits he made were to this page, about the broken link. [[User:InnocenceIntent|InnocenceIntent]] 11:25, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Godspeed to you. I see you were previously blocked, or at least I intended to, because I deleted your user page:
<blockquote>
22:41, 12 April 2009 TK deleted "User:InnocenceIntent" ‎ (Troublemaker/Troll)
</blockquote>
Obviously I judged your intent not too innocent before, and your past edits show obvious trolling, including reverting an Admin:
<blockquote>
# 22:25, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (Undo revision 652421 by Jpatt (Talk) My original revision was undone by patt due to a personal bias by the user.)
# 22:18, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (adding information about how the ACLU has fought for Christians.)
</blockquote>
And I can now see why, again, since you didn't do what Aschlafly said to, and posted here again, rather than contacting me. Such actions (the reason(s) for so doing) are immediately obvious to those of us who have been around here for a while. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:34, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Andy, thank you for unlocking the page - I fixed the broken link, so if you'd like to re-lock, it should be fine now. I'm going to go ahead and check all the other links on the page, and if they're not working, find replacements. If I find anything, I'll post here. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Many Broken Links==
OK, this deserves its own section. There are many broken reference links, which I'm trying to find replacements for.

5, first link, doesn't seem to be working for me, but it might just be me. This link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104131/posts would provide a reference for the same statement.

9 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6051268.ece would provide a reference for the same statement.

12 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=9fab8324-a1a1-4ad6-840f-76b04a405a65&CATEGORYNAME=INTER would provie a reference for the same statement.

19 has the same link listed twice. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems kind of sloppy to me.

Reference (23) is broken, the page no longer exists. This is my fault, since I just added it, but (22) is just fine as a single reference. So we can eliminate this broken link without replacement, especially for a statement that returns as many google hits as this one does.

Reference (26) is broken. This is a toughie - most online references are copy-paste of the Wikipedia article, which itself sites these books:
:A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. 2004.
:l-Qarashi, Baqir Shareef (2007). The life of Imam Husain. Qum: Ansariyan Publications.
I don't have these books, and I haven't read them, so I don't know if they back up the reference.

Reference (28) links to a video which, by the decription provided by the uploader, attempts to discredit the quote being referenced. A shorter video which arrives at the quote in question faster is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

Reference (49) redirects to the blog's main page, and blog does not have a search feature. Regardless of whether link is broken or not, we should replace with http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html which is more to the point.

References (56) and (57) are the same link, we can delete one for neatness.

Reference (61) isn't even a reference. Suggest instead using http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26101

References (72), (73), and (75) are all broken. Suggest replacing all three with http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

Reference (89) is broken, but we can just link to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]].

Reference (91) is broken, suggest replacement with http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/01/obama_campaign_to_return_aunts.html

References (97), (98), and (100) are broken. These were the same as (72), (73), (75), so we should have a single reference http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html and have all 6 of these citations be to this one article.

Reference (115) is broken, replace with http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Reference (128) is broken, suggest replacement with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/obamas-in-control-no-more_n_105407.html and rewrite of sentence which cites this reference.

References (129) and (130) are identical, suggest we delete one for neatness.

Reference (132) is broken, but will be difficult to replace. Citation is a direct reference to the reference and the authors of the reference. I'll work on this.

Reference (140) is broken, replace with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/john-lewis-warns-mccain-y_n_133903.html

(150) is broken, replace with http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

(152-154, 158) each have two identical links, delete one each for neatness.

(163) isn't a reference, but maybe Andy has the review procedures lying around so we can cite them?

(171) Access denied - we shouldn't cite references that require subscriptions. Suggest http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753197/posts for same content, by Limbaugh.

(182) is broken, replace with http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28189

(184) is broken, replace with http://vodpod.com/watch/956078-obama-we-already-have-economic-disaster-from-john-mccains-president-george-w-bush

Suggest rewrite of last two paragraphs of "Politcal Views" section, to reflect his election and change "current president" to "George W. Bush"

(187-189) are broken, I'm still working on replacements.

(190) is broken, replace with http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts

(191) has two identical links, delete one for neatness

(201) is broken, replace with http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html

(203) is broken, replace with http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370529,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r1:c0.487981:b25437592:z0

(209) is broken, replace with http://www.politicalbase.com/forums/topic/obama-rebukes-mccain-camp-on-terrorism-criticism/3781/

(215) and (217) are broken, replace both with http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

[[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

That should be everything, though I might have missed something. Since it appears I can still edit the Obama page, I'm gonna go ahead and start this. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:We should lock this article again, it's being vandalized already. I'll just copy the source into a word document, make the necessary changes, and alert a sysop when it's ready to go up. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:51, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for identifying the broken links, but why not simply fix it directly? The entry is unprotected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Great work! I wonder why you deleted this, however: "After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: The source for that was missing, and I found a new link which supported the relevant statement in the article, but not that addendum in the references. The new reference I found does not make that statement verbatim, although, it's basically implied - I'll continue to look for a reference for that sentence. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 21:59, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: I have been looking, and I can't find a source for this statement. I've re-added it with a citation needed. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 23:12, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Can someone insert this?==
My browser can't handle editing the page, can someone insert this under 'Election': In the weeks leading up to the election, Obama's staff worked to delay investigations by the [[Justice Department]] into allegations of voter fraud committed by [[ACORN]], Obama's former employer. In this way, hundreds of thousands, if not many more, votes may have been overcounted. [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=297446] --[[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:28, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:The link checks out, content's relevant, I added this material to the election section, but maybe it might be better placed in presidential campaign? Dunno. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 21:35, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks, Mr. JDBowen! It may be better there; but I think that, since more people look at this page, it may be okay here, too. Whatever you decide, I'm just happy it's out here! --[[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:45, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

==liberal vandalism: mulatto==
While an accurate statement, it may be a derogatory slang (mule-like). User remains blocked for disobeying sysop, lying. Remove--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:34, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
:Um... yeah, it's extremely derogatory and it's still up. We might as well call him.. well, n******. I see you have the last edit, so I won't remove it - but is that an accident that it's still up? Can we please take that down? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 09:40, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::It's obvious liberal vandalism, JacobB, and you could have fixed it directly yourself. Please do fix vandalism directly in the future as that is more efficient. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

==Animal rights==

In an article entitled "Does President-Elect Obama Bring Hope for Animals?" [[PETA]] quotes Obama as saying,
:"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." [http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/11/does_president-.php]
Interesting. Wikipedia reports in its Animal Rights article,
:"On November 24, 1933, the ...animal protection law, was introduced, with [[Adolf Hitler]] announcing an end to animal cruelty: ..."In the new Reich, no more animal cruelty will be allowed." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#1933:_Tierschutzgesetz]
[[Himmler]] likewise is famous for preaching kindness to animals [http://www.manasjournal.org/pdf_library/VolumeXIII_1960/XIII-11.pdf p.2]

Perhpas this area needs more study. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:17, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

::Great find! This is absolutely chilling. May God help us.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:48, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

== Kenya ==
Now that he have absolute proof that Obama was born in Kenya, can we change his place of birth ot Kenya? An image of the REAL Kenyan certificate was posted on the mainpage! Thanks!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 13:42, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

*No. A news report, of such a certificate submitted to the U.S. District Court, is just that, a report, not a fact. Some of the other information, in the Main Page News section, about Obama's failure to disclose other information, if not already there, will be added. If and when the purported birth certificate is authenticated, we certainly will add that in! As for now, the article reads, ''as it always has, factually...his actual place of birth is open to question.'' --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:00, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

== George Obama article for upcoming content of CP Obama article ==

George Obama article for upcoming content of CP Obama article: http://www.zimbio.com/George+Hussein+Onyango+Obama/articles/3/George+Obama+Barack+Obama+Brother+Fights+Life [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:42, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

:Excellent work. And long overdue. Much of this material is available, it just need to consolidate in one place. ty [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

== Praise! ==
I applaud the men and women who have edited this article since the start of August! I cannot believe how much this evil man has done and tried to do in less than a month! Great job on revealing the lies and evil that surround this crook!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 09:32, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

==Soetoro citation flaws==

The reference in the article's introduction to Obama's former/current(?) name of "Barry Soetoro" is sourced only to a short article on Pravda (RU). The first issue I take with this is the fact that the article itself does not concern Obama's/"Soetoro"'s true name, and doesn't seem to draw on any evidence regarding such, either. While, yes, the articles title is "Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama vs World Leaders", the only mention within the article is that "no one knows his real name" - yet the article's title seems to assert that Pravda (possibly as part of a larger movement) does, in fact, know just that.

Secondly, the article's overall professionalism and coherence is in doubt. Note the claim that America is "a Nation under the control of mob rule." (Be aware of the false capitalization, also - a classic sign of non-intellect, mind you). Now, Conservapedia defines [[Mobocracy|mob rule]] as "the rule by a group of people unrestrained by any meaningful principles". Now, this seems an odd thing for Conservapedia to grant audience to, as this Obama article makes it quite clear that Obama/"Soetoro" ''has'' principles, immoral and anti-American has they may be, they remain principles (much as one may say atrocious actions make the perpetrator inhuman, but this allegation does not affect their biological status as a human).

So the point must be made that either Obama/"Soetoro" is a dictator (the homepage often makes that viewpoint quite clear) or America is under the rule of the people. It can not be both, without delving into figurative speaking.

So I ask, given all these flaws in logic, argument, sentiment, and general intelligence on the subject, why is this article given what amounts to top-billing on this prominent Conservative site, when it does little, if anything, to back-up the point? I imagine other editors out there have brought this up before, and I'm curious what consensus or reasoning, if any, was reached on the issue. Thank you for your time. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 07:29, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
:Not only does ''Pravda'' state no one knows his real name, it also states no one knows where he's from. Then it raises the issue, if he is indeed barred from holding office of president, do foreign agreements and treaties he signs have the force of law? While this issue is being discussed elsewhere in the world, it hasn't been considered in the United States at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

::Perhaps I wasn't very clear there. I'm aware of the related cover-up regarding Obama/Soetoro's origin, but the problem lies with the citation itself (however, if you wish to improve the page by elaborating on the "origin" controversy as well, be my guest). I found it odd that such a scatter-shot, incoherent source article (from ''Pravda'') was used to make this point.

::'''Basically, if the ''Pravda'' article states that ''no one knows his real name'', why is it used as a citation for the name of "Barry Soetoro"? Surely there is a source out there which details the methods by which the "Barry Soetoro" name was discovered in the first place. The only mention of it within the ''Pravda'' article is in the title.'''

[[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 23:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Interesting point. Can you suggest any other sources?

:::Oh, and this recalls the old Soviet era joke about censorship in the two soviet communist official daily publications, "there is no ''Pravda'' in ''Izvestia'' and no ''Izvestia'' in ''Pravda''" (there is no ''Truth'' in the ''News'' and no ''News'' in the ''Truth''). But that was when both were openly commie rags. Let's give Glasnost a chance. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:18, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Well, that's the problem. The only sources I can find are blogs - but even the '''most''' detailed ones only go so far as to say (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Barry Soetoro was Barack Obama's name in Indonesia", but again, these don't provide any documentation/interviews/quotes whatsoever. I'm afraid I tend to focus more on the man's policy than the controversies surrounding him - and I am, for the most part, willing to accept whatever good or bad comes along with such tunnel vision. So it's quite appalling that debates so rancorous turn out to be so hollow (perhaps the noise is product of the echo). Besides, if this "Soetoro" thing is true, I'd like to think that their was more discourse about how and why to include it in a biographical encyclopedia entry on BHO than someone doing a Google search and picking the first article with "Soetoro" in the title. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 11:00, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::''Pravda'' is not a blog, in fact, ''Pravda'' has quite a long history and reputation as a mouth piece abnd critic of the United States. We are simply reporting what traditional critics of U.S. political system, society, and culture are saying. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:24, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::I wasn't referring to ''Pravda'' when I mentioned blogs. I was referring to the sources I was able to find which ''did'' deal with the Soetoro name in the actual text of the article, which, as I said, even then were merely mentions of it rather than proof. If you can provide a source which '''''proves''''' the name, rather than mentioning it, you will have made a happy editor out of me. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 08:56, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, I see your reasoning now. If you can cite a source that ''proves'' George W. Bush lied about WMD rather than just mentioning it, you'd make a happy camper of me. too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:27, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Oh, come on. I'm not trying to disprove the claim, and I know you're smart enough to have figured that out. I just want CP readers to have direct, streamlined access to the facts. And I wouldn't claim that Bush lied, anyway. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 21:39, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

==His Excellency the President of the United States and Her Majesty the Queen==

I will propose that you revist this statement: "At the G20 summit in April 2009, Obama bowed deeply to Saudi King Abdullah, a Muslim who is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.[135] Never before in the history of the U.S. has a president displayed such shocking deference to a foreign official and Obama has not bowed to any other royal leaders. Obama later stated, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect."[136] Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah."[137] However, in video of the incident, Obama's left hand can clearly be seen staying at his side until after he had finished his bow.[138] Additionally, Obama also met with Queen Elizabeth, who is much shorter than King Abdullah, but he did not bow when he shook her hand and neither he nor the queen appeared to have any difficulty." and view this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71N34K9EVLU. Here, you will see that His Excellency the Honourable Barack Obama bow twice to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom, and once to His Royal Highness the Prince Phillip.

== Funds from undisclosed sources? ==

Near the very beginning of the article, it states that Obama's campaign spent $700 million dollars, most of which was came from undisclosed donors. This information is cited. The source that this information came from actually shows that most of his funds ''did'' come from disclosed donors. I corrected this error, but it was reverted, and the reverter says the edit and sources should be discussed. Can we agree that the source (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638) shows that over half of his money came from disclosed donors so that this bit of misinformation can be corrected? [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 00:47, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

:Your cite does not support your claim. If you have a cite that provides disclosure for the identity of most of Obama's contributions, then post a link to it. You haven't done that, so the entry stays as is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

::Check the above link again. My citation (which I got from the article, so it is Conservapedia's citation as well) very clearly shows that most of Obama's funds came from disclosed sources. Scroll down to where it says "How complete are this candidate's campaign finance reports?" to see that he gave full disclosure on $378,216,383 of funds, which amounts to 90.2% of funds from sources on which data is collected -- those that contribute $200 or more. Again, I got this source from Obama's article here on Conservapedia. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 16:17, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I checked your cite again, and my conclusion remains the same. "Full disclosure" presumably means all that the law requires, which often is not the identity of the donor. The opinion that you rely on is unsupported. Conservapedia did not cite that source for the point you raise.

:::Nevertheless, in response to your point, I've improved the statement in the entry and added a quotation and citation to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Description of full disclosure from the website: "FULL DISCLOSURE: Includes full name and occupation / employer." This would be a statistic that is objective, observable, recordable, making it a fact. If the source is valid for some facts but not others that seems like some pretty strict cherry picking. Even in the source you provide there isn't even evidence that "much" of the funds came from undisclosed or fraudulent sources: the few examples provided would constitute an incredibly small portion of Obama's funds. I would guess most presidential candidates, with or without knowing it, have recieved money from sources that gave false names or addresses. While the statement in the article now still doesn't seem appropriately relevant or supported, it is an improvement over the blatant falsehood previously used. Others should investigate this to bring this article up to trustworthy standards. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 21:05, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

== Liberals and Uncharitableness, Liberal Politicians and Uncharitableness sections ==

There are two sections in the Obama's article about Liberals and Uncharitableness and Liberal Politicians and Uncharitableness. While this information is worth reading, these two sections are not really about Obama at all, and don't seem appropriate to include in the article in this manner. Both of these sections are summaries of articles on the given topics here on Conservapedia, and link to those articles. The sections themselves do not refer to Obama at all (only liberals -- or liberal politicians -- in general), and shouldn't be included in Obama's article unless we plan on adding the same sections to every page about liberals. It seems the best way to include this would be as links to those articles at the end of the section about Obama's uncharitableness -- as in "See also: Liberals and Uncharitableness, Liberal Politicians and Uncharitableness" sentence at the end of the descriptions of Obama's uncharitableness. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 14:13, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize ==

Maybe Obama being one of the few presidents to win the Nobel Peace Prize should be noted in the introduction of the article.--[[User:AFM|AFM]] 18:25, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-10-14T22:25:09Z

AFM: /* Nobel Peace Prize */ new section