Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Vance Packard

2011-06-13T23:58:48Z

AddisonDM:

'''Vance Oakley Packard''' (1914-1996) was a journalist, author, and social critic born in 1914 in Granville Summit, [[Pennsylvania]]. He earned his undergraduate degree in English in 1936 at Penn State, and earned his master's degree in [[journalism]] 1937 at [[Columbia University]].<ref>http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Packard__Vance_Oakley.html</ref> As a journalist, Packard worked for the ''Center Daily Times'', the ''Boston Daily Record'', the ''American Magazine'', and ''Collier's''.<ref>http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/pqrst/packard_vance.html</ref>

In 1957, Packard launched his career as an author and public speaker with his publication of the bestseller on [[advertising]], ''The Hidden Persuaders''. Among other aspects of advertising, the book discussed so-called "motivational research" or "depth psychology" advertising, attempts by advertisers to influence consumers on a subconscious level.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/vance-packard</ref> After the success of ''The Hidden Persuaders'' Packard went on to publish several other books, almost all of them dealing with sociological issues or social criticism.

Packard died at the age of 82 in the hospital at Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/13/arts/vance-packard-82-challenger-of-consumerism-dies.html?src=pm</ref>

==Relevance Today==
Packard's books are still read today, and his first book, ''The Hidden Persuaders'', is currently in print again for its 50 year anniversary.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Persuaders-Vance-Packard/dp/097884310X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299119679&sr=8-1</ref> Though there is a certain datedness in some of Packard's writing (not surprising considering its age) some of it appears remarkably prescient.

His 1960 book ''The Waste Makers'' is particularly so. It is overall a critique of [[consumerism]] and [[planned obsolescence]]. In it, he discusses how products are designed cheaply in order to prompt consumers to buy replacements; how the lifetime of major products such as appliances and electronics was already declining, compared to the early 1950s; how people were going into debt in order to buy; and how excessive [[consumerism]] threatened the American character. He also suggested that we might one day mine [[landfill]]s to recover scare resources; though first implemented even earlier than 1960, landfill mining has only recently actually been attempted and discussed on a large scale.

Some of Packard's other books, such as ''The Sexual Wilderness'' dealing with the upheaval in relationships due to the [[Sexual revolution]], address issues that are still discussed and debated today.

In 1994, David Horowitz published a biography of Vance Packard entitled ''Vance Packard and American Social Criticism'', suggesting Packard's continuing relevance.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/13/arts/vance-packard-82-challenger-of-consumerism-dies.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm</ref>

==Politics and Religion==
Packard stated or implied several times throughout his writings that he was a practicing Christian. In ''The Hidden Persuaders'' and ''The Waste Makers'' he occasionally refers to sermons he heard at church, and how they relate to the issues at hand. In ''The Hidden Persuaders'', he even names his pastor (Loring Chase) and his church (Congregation Church in New Canaan, Connecticut).

Packard's politics would appear slightly liberal. In ''The Waste Makers'', he addresses two controversial issues, resource depletion and population control, in much more reasonable terms than some of his liberal contemporaries (e.g. [[Paul Ehrlich]]). He suggested that [[abortion]] was a viable means of population control, but he also cited [[Catholic]] [[Ireland]]'s non-abortion solution to the population problem as a good idea: they simply married at a later age.<ref>It is notable that this implied a very small number of teen pregnancies or pregnancies out of wedlock.</ref> While discussing resource depletion, Packard notes that while major sources of ore may be running out, there is a virtually infinite supply of metals such as copper in everyday rocks, which could conceivably be processed for ore recovery.

==Bibliography==
*''The Hidden Persuaders'' (1957; overview and critique of advertising)
*''The Status Seekers'' (1959; discussion of class and class division in America)
*''The Waste Makers'' (1960; critique of consumerism and planned obsolescence)
*''The Pyramid Climbers'' (1962; on the conformity among corporate executives, among other related topics)
*''The Naked Society'' (1964; on modern threats to privacy)
*''The Sexual Wilderness: The Contemporary Upheaval in Male-Female Relationships'' (1968; discusses the changes in relationships due to the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s)
*''A Nation of Strangers'' (1972; on the damage to community caused by constant transfers of corporate executives)
*''The People Shapers'' (1977; psychological testing, etc., and its effect on controlling people)
*''Our Endangered Children'' (1983; how the current American society is damaging to children and their futures)
*''The Ultra Rich: How Much is too Much?'' (1989)

==See Also==
*[[Consumerism]]
*[[Planned obsolescence]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Packard, Vance}}

User talk:DMorris

2011-06-13T19:57:22Z

AddisonDM:

== typo ==
the charish on you page should be cherish.

== [[United Nations]] ==

Could you provide a cite for your statement that the U.N. supports mainly socialist, liberal ideas? It's not that I'm disagreeing, but statements like that typically need citations (unless things have changed in the past 3 months). -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:39, 6 February 2010 (EST)
:Thought it to be pretty much common sense, but I'll find a citation and add it. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:40, 6 February 2010 (EST)
:I found three references and added them. I realize we usually don't reference Wikipedia, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to throw that one in there with the other references. When even Wikipedia says they're socialist... [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)
::Ehh, it basically is common knowledge. The Wikipedia reference actually helps the argument in this case, methinks. I found another citation that I'll add right now. I appreciate the quick response! -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:00, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Sissy punks==
Those crybabies don't need additional attention, removed example of bias talk.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:42, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

:It is never appropriate to reference non-notable vandal sources, either in articles or talk pages. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:55, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
::Okay. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:00, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

== Thanks! ==

Not exactly the same sock, but most certainly the sock of other user names! Thanks for noticing. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:43, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

== Anti-matter ==

Pretty snide. I think Roger Schlafly rises above ED, don't you? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:48, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
:Absolutely. I think you took that the wrong way; I was arguing that the topic couldn't possibly be considered encyclopedic if ED and Uncyclopedia is. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:08, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
::Gotcha. Thanks. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:10, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Public Schools....."Much Less Impressive" ? ==

And your contributions to society would be? Palin directly enriched the citizens of her state by tens of thousands of dollars each, by changing the royalty structure that the oil and gas companies have to pay...that, in and of itself, ranks pretty high in the over-all accomplishments of any elected official, ever. And you should not have forgotten that she is also an evangelical Christian. What were you thinking? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:39, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
:I don't consider Sarah Palin "much less impressive," but she did attend public school. I did read the "much less impressive" part, but didn't quite understand that the list was ''only'' to consist of "less impressive" members of society since [[Medal of Honor]] recipents were also listed. I took the ''much less impressive'' to mean that the list was much less impressive, despite that list being longer (at the time) than the list of Before 1962 graduates. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 15:48, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

== Please consider creating these articles ==

=== Please consider Creating a feminism and obesity article ===

Please consider creating a [[Feminism and obesity]] article at Conservapedia and cite this material: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html

In addition, have the web page list some overweight and/or obese feminists with some pictures of some overweight feminists. You can also have the article link to Conservapedia's [[atheism and obesity]] article and then have the [[Atheism and obesity]] article link to the [[Feminism and obesity]] article.

Also, you could also cite a thin Conservative woman (with her picture also featured) criticizing feminism! :)

You could then incorporate the [[Feminism and obesity]] content into the [[Feminism]] article.

I am going to take my 90 day vacation from Conservapedia so I won't be creating this article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:06, 5 February 2011 (EST)

=== Please consider creating a chub (gay culture) article ===

Please create a [[Chub (gay culture)]] article. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girth_and_mirth Then have that article link the [[Atheism and obesity]] article plus we can have the [[Atheism and obesity]] article link to the [[Chub (gay culture)]] article. See if you can find [[Chuck Norris]] saying something negative about homosexuality and then feature his pic on the web page. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

*I will get on these first thing tomorrow. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:08, 5 February 2011 (EST)

:Here is an article by Chuck Norris on homosexuality: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59697 and here is another: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=81195 [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:35, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for your edit to the worst movies list! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:08, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
:You're welcome. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 00:29, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks again! ==

Thanks for fixing up my blundered article on Ada Lovelace. If you're wondering what was going on, I couldn't get through from my home computer, so I had to use a proxy. The proxy was horribly broken, wouldn't let me get through the captcha so I couldn't do the external link, and it also kept breaking the picture link. Then it stopped even letting me see Conservapedia at all. And by then the damage was done and I couldn't undo it. :-( Even a reboot of my machine didn't help. So I contacted Andy by email; he fixed it so I could access CP from my computer, but then the connection went down again. Another round of email; things seem to be OK now. If I were superstitious I would knock on wood, as they say. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:36, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

== What? ==

What were you trying to do [[Block 7afaf.html|here]]?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:17, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
:There's a form at http://www.bugmenot.com/ that wanted me to make a specific URL come to life to verify my authority at Conservapedia.com to block people from posting their login credentials for CP on there, so I did that. Maybe I should have gotten Andy or somebody to do it, but I doubt they'll mind that I did it. Saw a scandal where somebody did that on another website, looked up Conservapedia.com just for giggles, and it turns out there's several vandal accounts listed there. But there won't be for long. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:24, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
::Ahh okay - I thought you might be trying to block websites, and I was just gonna say that's not the way at alllll. haha, but good luck in your user blocking!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:41, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
:::[http://www.bugmenot.com/view/conservapedia.com Mission accomplished] [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:44, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

==Pithy==
Let's not drag this into the realm of ad hominem insults. If I must change my name, then I will, but I assure you, this "Whiny Little Atheist" has a stack of facts and logic to back up his claims. Short and sweet, I don't want to cause problems with anyone, but you're free to call me whatever you like. Just know that any harsh words you levy will be met with equal recourse.
:You must really want to be blocked. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

Why would I want to be blocked? As far as I can tell, I've done and said nothing contrary to the Conservapedia Commandments. Last I checked, the realm was open to opposing views (Not talk page debates, which is where this seems to be headed rather quickly). Let's not forget that you cast the first stone into the realm of personal attacks, and I had levied no complaints against any users. I only had an issue with the way atheists were unfairly represented, and with the lack of reasonable evidence to support the claims made in the thread.

But again, to be clear, I will not mince words. I do not want to cause problems, like I've already said; however, if you do choose to insult me in the future, I will not refrain from rebuttal. Let us hope we can both be civil about this and move past Religious differences. [[User:KiloByter|KiloByter]] 22:08, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:You just need to familiarize yourself with our rules here at Conservapedia, and I recommend you refrain from religious debate. We are a drama free wiki, and we don't have time to endlessly debate about religion. By the way, you can sign your posts using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. I'm not trying to attack you personally, just trying to point you in the right direction. Otherwise I would have just blocked you. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:16, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

==[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills]]==
Hi, I just found this essay that you wrote. I was wondering if you based it off of my [[Essay: Real Environmentalism]], since it makes most of the same points.Thanks. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:55, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

User:AddisonDM

2011-06-13T19:03:36Z

AddisonDM:

Hello, welcome to my user page! I have been an editor at [[Conservapedia]] since 2008 and an administrator since 2009. I've worked mainly on articles relating to [[Christianity]], [[environmentalism]], and [[politics]]. Check out some of my articles or essays!

{{User Sysop}}

==Articles I have edited:==

*[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]] (added Governmental Structure section)
*[[NASCAR]] (added new names of racing series)
*[[Indulgences]]
*[[Anthem]] (Completely revamped: added Major Plot Events and Society and Government)
*[[Steel]] (Added Andrew Carnegie's name)
*[[Selena Gomez]] (Added link to [[purity ring]] and specified that Selena wears one)
*[[Vegetarianism]] (Instigated the inclusion of citations where they were needed)
*[[Recycling]] (mentioned "reduce, reuse, recycle" slogan, made specification)
*[[Goth (subculture)]] (Fixed up grammar)
*[[Transubstantiation]] (Fixed up existing text, added new section)
*[[Nashville]] (Added new section)
*[[Essay:Greatest Church Hymns]]
*Improved [[Tyndale Bible]]
*[[Disputed Biblical Translations]] (added example of translating difference between Protestants and Catholics)
*Updated [[Al Franken]] (added latest news on the Senate race recount)
*[[Jeremiah Wright]] (Make redirects and fix citation error)
*[[List of 50 states]] (completely revamped with some help)
*[[Trans fat]] (Total rewrite)
*[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] (Added [[democide]], [[fellow traveller]], and design by committee)
*[[Speciation]] (New section, relation to evolution)
*[[Old Earth]]
*[[Black Friday]] (Complete rewrite)

==Articles I have created:==

*[[Pump 'Em Up]] (organization to conserve fuel by inflating tires)
*[[Taylor Swift]] (Country music star)
*[[Jonas Brothers]] (popular boy band)
*[[Purity ring]] (symbol of commitment to remain chaste till marriage)
*[[Christine Cloud]] (Christian missionary attacked by gay activist)
*[[The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History]] (popular history book)
*[[Catholic Answers]] (Catholic apologetics apostolate)
*[[Real presence]] (Different Christian beliefs on the Eucharist)
*[[Landfill]] (Waste disposal method)
*[[Goodsearch]] (Search engine donating money to charities of your choice)
*[[Tripartite Pact]] (Pact creating Axis Powers of WWII)
*[[Contemporary Christian Music]]
*[[Music Row]] (Nashville music/entertainment district)
*[[Holy God We Praise Thy Name]] (Traditional Catholic hymn)
*[[Political cartoon]]
*[[The Message]] (Bible translation)
*[[Cotton Patch Version]] (''Very'' interesting Bible translation!)
*[[Orans]] (Position of prayer)
*[[Bernard Madoff]]
*[[Lauda Sion Salvatorem]] ([[Corpus Christi]] hymn)
*[[Kwanzaa]] (African American holiday)
*[[The Night Before Christmas]]
*[[Menorah]] ([[Jewish]] symbol and [[Chanukah]] candleholder)
*[[Jack London]] (Writer and novelist)
*[[Creation]] (Overviewing differing views on creation and giving bios of famous creationists)
*[[The Iron Heel]] ([[Dystopian]] novel)
*[[Natural-born citizen]]
*[[Chesley Sullenberger]] (pilot of plane crashed in [[Hudson River]])
*[[Obama-isms]]
*[[Resin identification codes]] (Symbols to identify plastics for recycling)
*[[Megachurch]]
*'''[[Conservapedia]]''' ('''Content article about CP''')
*[[Open mind]]
*[[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]
*[[Stars and Stripes Forever]]
*[[Political Compass]]
*[[Pipe organ]] (stub, please expand)
*[[Mother of Divine Grace School]] ([[Homeschooling]] service)
*[[Composting]] (will expand)
*[[Know Homeschooling]] (A wiki about homeschooling)
*[[Nellie Gray]] (founder of [[March for Life]])
*[[The Teaching Company]]
*[[Seton Home Study School]]
*[[Ray Kroc]] (Entrepreneur behind [[McDonald's]])
*[[Wasabi]] ([[Japanese]] condiment)
*[[Generation Joshua]]
*[[Exodus Mandate]]
*[[Red Envelope Project]]
*[[Revelation (religion)]]
*[[Essay: Greatest political rivalries in American history|Greatest political rivalries in American history]]
*[[Anacyclosis]]
*[[Google Earth]]
*[[Apostles' Creed]]
*[[Foundation for a Better Life]]
*[[Freedom From Religion Foundation]]
*[[Larry Kudlow]]
*[[Interesterified fat]] (Type of processed oil)
*[[Melting pot]] (Cultural term)
*[[Priests for Life]]
*[[Randall Terry]]
*[[Tiktaalik roseae]] (Claimed transitional form between fish and amphibian tetrapods)
*[[Biogeography]]
*[[Polystrate fossil]]
*[[Darwinius masillae‎]] (new "missing link" fossil)
*[[Stasis (biology)]]
*[[Derived (evolution)]]
*[[Omphalos hypothesis]]
*[[Great Books Academy]] (homeschool curriculum)
*[[Calvert School]] (Private school and homeschool curriculum)
*[[List of homeschool curriculums]]
*[[Billy Mays]] (American advertiser)
*[[Philip D. Gingerich]] (Evolutionist, paleontologist)
*[[Closed communion]]
*[[Open communion]]
*[[Pakicetus]]
*[[Ambulocetus]]
*[[Vance Packard]]
*[[Planned obsolescence]]
*[[The Story of Stuff]]
*[[Pay as you throw]]

'''Essays:'''

*[[Essay: Deceptive Advertising]]
*[[Essay: Real Environmentalism]]
*[[Essay: Artificial Food]]
*'''[[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America|The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]]''' ('''Nominated and selected as Featured Article during Holy Week/Easter Week''')
*[[Essay:Justifying Justification by Faith and Works|Justifying Justification by Faith and Works]] (Essay supporting Catholic view of salvation)
*[[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"|Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]] (All the wonderful contributions made by vandals. If you know any, share them!)

'''Templates:'''

*[[Template:Bible Versions]]
*[[Template:Creation vs. evolution]]
*[[Template:Conservatism]]

'''Conservapedia Exclusives:'''
These are articles I've created which do not exist on Wikipedia:

*[[Pump 'Em Up]]
*[[Christine Cloud]]
*[[Holy God We Praise Thy Name]]
*[[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]
*[[Mother of Divine Grace School]]
*[[Know Homeschooling]]
*[[Nellie Gray]]

[[Category:Christian Conservapedians]][[Category:Catholic Conservapedians]]

User talk:DMorris

2011-06-13T14:55:59Z

AddisonDM:

== typo ==
the charish on you page should be cherish.

== [[United Nations]] ==

Could you provide a cite for your statement that the U.N. supports mainly socialist, liberal ideas? It's not that I'm disagreeing, but statements like that typically need citations (unless things have changed in the past 3 months). -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:39, 6 February 2010 (EST)
:Thought it to be pretty much common sense, but I'll find a citation and add it. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:40, 6 February 2010 (EST)
:I found three references and added them. I realize we usually don't reference Wikipedia, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to throw that one in there with the other references. When even Wikipedia says they're socialist... [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)
::Ehh, it basically is common knowledge. The Wikipedia reference actually helps the argument in this case, methinks. I found another citation that I'll add right now. I appreciate the quick response! -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:00, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Sissy punks==
Those crybabies don't need additional attention, removed example of bias talk.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:42, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

:It is never appropriate to reference non-notable vandal sources, either in articles or talk pages. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:55, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
::Okay. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:00, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

== Thanks! ==

Not exactly the same sock, but most certainly the sock of other user names! Thanks for noticing. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:43, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

== Anti-matter ==

Pretty snide. I think Roger Schlafly rises above ED, don't you? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:48, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
:Absolutely. I think you took that the wrong way; I was arguing that the topic couldn't possibly be considered encyclopedic if ED and Uncyclopedia is. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:08, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
::Gotcha. Thanks. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:10, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Public Schools....."Much Less Impressive" ? ==

And your contributions to society would be? Palin directly enriched the citizens of her state by tens of thousands of dollars each, by changing the royalty structure that the oil and gas companies have to pay...that, in and of itself, ranks pretty high in the over-all accomplishments of any elected official, ever. And you should not have forgotten that she is also an evangelical Christian. What were you thinking? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:39, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
:I don't consider Sarah Palin "much less impressive," but she did attend public school. I did read the "much less impressive" part, but didn't quite understand that the list was ''only'' to consist of "less impressive" members of society since [[Medal of Honor]] recipents were also listed. I took the ''much less impressive'' to mean that the list was much less impressive, despite that list being longer (at the time) than the list of Before 1962 graduates. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 15:48, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

== Please consider creating these articles ==

=== Please consider Creating a feminism and obesity article ===

Please consider creating a [[Feminism and obesity]] article at Conservapedia and cite this material: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html

In addition, have the web page list some overweight and/or obese feminists with some pictures of some overweight feminists. You can also have the article link to Conservapedia's [[atheism and obesity]] article and then have the [[Atheism and obesity]] article link to the [[Feminism and obesity]] article.

Also, you could also cite a thin Conservative woman (with her picture also featured) criticizing feminism! :)

You could then incorporate the [[Feminism and obesity]] content into the [[Feminism]] article.

I am going to take my 90 day vacation from Conservapedia so I won't be creating this article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:06, 5 February 2011 (EST)

=== Please consider creating a chub (gay culture) article ===

Please create a [[Chub (gay culture)]] article. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girth_and_mirth Then have that article link the [[Atheism and obesity]] article plus we can have the [[Atheism and obesity]] article link to the [[Chub (gay culture)]] article. See if you can find [[Chuck Norris]] saying something negative about homosexuality and then feature his pic on the web page. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

*I will get on these first thing tomorrow. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:08, 5 February 2011 (EST)

:Here is an article by Chuck Norris on homosexuality: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59697 and here is another: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=81195 [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:35, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for your edit to the worst movies list! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:08, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
:You're welcome. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 00:29, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks again! ==

Thanks for fixing up my blundered article on Ada Lovelace. If you're wondering what was going on, I couldn't get through from my home computer, so I had to use a proxy. The proxy was horribly broken, wouldn't let me get through the captcha so I couldn't do the external link, and it also kept breaking the picture link. Then it stopped even letting me see Conservapedia at all. And by then the damage was done and I couldn't undo it. :-( Even a reboot of my machine didn't help. So I contacted Andy by email; he fixed it so I could access CP from my computer, but then the connection went down again. Another round of email; things seem to be OK now. If I were superstitious I would knock on wood, as they say. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:36, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

== What? ==

What were you trying to do [[Block 7afaf.html|here]]?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:17, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
:There's a form at http://www.bugmenot.com/ that wanted me to make a specific URL come to life to verify my authority at Conservapedia.com to block people from posting their login credentials for CP on there, so I did that. Maybe I should have gotten Andy or somebody to do it, but I doubt they'll mind that I did it. Saw a scandal where somebody did that on another website, looked up Conservapedia.com just for giggles, and it turns out there's several vandal accounts listed there. But there won't be for long. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:24, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
::Ahh okay - I thought you might be trying to block websites, and I was just gonna say that's not the way at alllll. haha, but good luck in your user blocking!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:41, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
:::[http://www.bugmenot.com/view/conservapedia.com Mission accomplished] [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:44, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

==Pithy==
Let's not drag this into the realm of ad hominem insults. If I must change my name, then I will, but I assure you, this "Whiny Little Atheist" has a stack of facts and logic to back up his claims. Short and sweet, I don't want to cause problems with anyone, but you're free to call me whatever you like. Just know that any harsh words you levy will be met with equal recourse.
:You must really want to be blocked. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

Why would I want to be blocked? As far as I can tell, I've done and said nothing contrary to the Conservapedia Commandments. Last I checked, the realm was open to opposing views (Not talk page debates, which is where this seems to be headed rather quickly). Let's not forget that you cast the first stone into the realm of personal attacks, and I had levied no complaints against any users. I only had an issue with the way atheists were unfairly represented, and with the lack of reasonable evidence to support the claims made in the thread.

But again, to be clear, I will not mince words. I do not want to cause problems, like I've already said; however, if you do choose to insult me in the future, I will not refrain from rebuttal. Let us hope we can both be civil about this and move past Religious differences. [[User:KiloByter|KiloByter]] 22:08, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:You just need to familiarize yourself with our rules here at Conservapedia, and I recommend you refrain from religious debate. We are a drama free wiki, and we don't have time to endlessly debate about religion. By the way, you can sign your posts using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. I'm not trying to attack you personally, just trying to point you in the right direction. Otherwise I would have just blocked you. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:16, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

==[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills]]==
Hi, I just found this essay that you wrote. I was wondering if you based it off of my [[Essay: Real Environmentalism]], since it makes many of the same points. Since they're great points I don't mind if you used mine; I was just wondering. Thanks. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:55, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Essay: Real Environmentalism

2011-06-13T14:46:15Z

AddisonDM:

{{Essay By|AddisonDM}}

==Introduction==

When most of us hear terms like “eco-conscious” or “environmentalism,” what do we think of? [[Global warming]], compact fluorescent light bulbs, green (literally) reusable shopping bags? Unfortunately, these things have little bearing on real environmentalism.

So what is “real” [[environmentalism]]? It is, first of all, so different from the standard image of environmentalism that it should not even bear the same name; I suggest the term “environmental stewardship.” Environmental stewardship does not place nature above man. It does not center around tenuous science (man-made global warming) or over-the-top politically-motivated rhetoric (“We use energy to mix toxic chemicals in with the natural resources to make toxic contaminated products.”)<ref>This is a direct quote from the "sustainability" video "[[The Story of Stuff]]," which is unfortunately being shown to [[Public schools|school children]] across America.</ref> It is, simply, based on a desire to preserve, to conserve, the world that God gave us.

==In the Beginning==

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. What is important here is that He made the earth and everything in it. Each time God created something, He “saw that it was good.” Thus, there is a certain inherent value in nature from the beginning, because God made it.

God also made [[man]], and gave man dominion over the earth, commanding him to “fill…and subdue it.” The key point here is that this dominion is not unlimited. It is given to us to be good stewards of creation, much in the way that in the New Testament we are called to be stewards of the Kingdom. If what God made was good, it follows that is not our right to destroy it. We must, therefore, protect and preserve the world. This conviction is based on faith, not politics.

==What’s Wrong with Environmentalism?==

The most talked about environmental issue is probably man-made global warming. The focus on this issue is so pronounced that it has led to mocking comparisons of [[Al Gore]] to a prophet and the destruction of the [[earth]] by global warming to the Apocalypse.

The problem is that man-made global warming is simply not backed up by enough evidence to deserve its position as the foremost environmental issue. In the face of record cold temperatures in the last two or three winters, doubt has even been expressed that global warming is occurring at all, let alone as a result of primarily human activity. Since the science simply is not there for man-made global warming, it should take a back seat to more pressing and tangible environmental issues (these issues are noted in the following section).

Another serious problem with mainstream environmentalism is that it has become so politically charged that it is no longer dedicated to the issues alone. It seems that more time is spent arguing about global warming than actually doing anything about it (not that anything needs to be done about it). There is too much rhetoric and too much political opposition. This is partly because the environmentalists have for some reason made tenuous and controversial global warming their major issue. If the major issue were litter cleanup, no one could possibly disagree. But basic, important environmental activities such as litter cleanup are overlooked because of the political debates over controversial issues.

==Issues for Environmental Stewardship==

These are issues which may or may not be overlooked by mainstream environmentalism. In any case, they are, in my opinion, the most important environmental issues out there. Some of them also have a basis in Christianity, such as the waste/[[consumerism]] issue.

===Litter Cleanup===
This is a common, easy activity (who hasn't cleaned up litter at a local park?) but it is by no means unimportant. It is true that cleaning up litter can only go so far – as far as the discrete community in which it is done. But isn't that one less plastic bottle that will end up buried in the ground for centuries to come? And perhaps aggressive litter cleanup could actually have an effect outside the local community. The infamous “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” would undoubtedly be smaller if less litter were able to make its way to ocean-bound waterways.

===Conservation===
[[Conservation]] is an important environmental issue, and is perhaps most the most direct means of preserving God's creation. Conservation does ''not'' mean not using natural resources. What it means is using them in a responsible manner. It also means preventing serious damage to ecosystems, such as toxic waste dumped in rivers. Fortunately, many issues related to conservation have been dealt with in the last few decades.

===Waste Reduction / Excessive Consumerism===
Who hasn't driven through some wealthy town on garbage day and spotted a new-looking sofa, TV, lawn machine, piece of furniture? It looks like the stuff you buy, only it's being thrown out! And where does it go? Either in the ground, or to China<ref>Electronic waste is often shipped to China to be "recycled," i.e. crudely smashed, burned, or otherwise dangerously broken down by workers. One village in China has become known as an "e-waste village" because it is a major center of this primitive recycling business.</ref>. All of these perfectly good items end up useless, dumped in a landfill or scrapped for parts. And yet, they could be donated, even sold, to those in need. Thus, the issue of waste reduction is not only environmental (wasted resources) but social (reduces supply of cheap used items for the disadvantaged). There should be a powerful Christian motivation here to reduce consumerism, or at least to reduce the amount of waste that ends up in the landfill.

Another detailed point must be made under this heading. There is a lot of talk about recycling, and recycling is good. But when an item is reusable (e.g. an old TV) and there is someone who wants that item, it is wasteful even to recycle it. It is economically wasteful (because the market value of the item will almost certainly exceed its scrap value), environmentally wasteful (because it takes no resources to continue using an item, while it takes at least some resources to reprocess an item), and socially wasteful as explained in the above paragraph. In short, [[recycling]] should not take the place of re-use.

==="Capitalism" in Garbage Disposal===
Have you ever thought about how, if you live in a town, you pay the same amount in garbage disposal taxes whether you put out a houseful of trash or just a few bags? The common flat-tax system of garbage disposal is "socialistic," because it does not promote individual responsibility. In "capitalism," individual responsibility is the flip side of individual economic freedom.

In some municipalities, "capitalist" garbage disposal exists. Sometimes humorously referred to as "[[pay as you throw]]," a fee is placed on each unit of garbage put out for disposal. An individual pays for exactly as much garbage as he produces. Therefore, there is a strong motivation to throw out as little as possible, and to [[Composting|compost]], recycle, and [[Charity|donate]] as much as possible. Simply converting flat-tax systems to "pay as you throw" would greatly reduce waste, and reduce the strain on landfills. It would also make everyone personally responsible for the waste they produce.

===Composting===
Composting is not talked about a whole lot, even by environmentalists. Perhaps this is because few people enjoy spending time with their garbage (which is understandable). But composting is just as important as recycling, only it is "recycling" organic trash. Instead of TVs and plastic bottles, it is recycling lettuce scraps and moldy bread. Composting reduces the mass of garbage that will end up in the landfill, and it also keeps the organic matter in circulation. When organic trash goes to the landfill, it may take years or even decades for the matter to decompose and return to the earth. When composted, however, it is returned to the earth in matter of days.

===Energy Savings===
This issue is last because it is least important. The main reason we are told to save energy is to create less CO2, but since man-made global warming is by no means proven, CO2 emissions are not that big a deal. The other reason for saving energy is that fossil fuels are for the most part nonrenewable. We will almost certainly have discovered sustainable renewable energy sources by the time fossil fuels run out, however, so saving energy is good, but is far less important than the other issues outlined.

==The Real Environmentalist ==
The real environmentalist is not stereotypical hippie driving a Smart Car, eating vegan, and conscious of his personal carbon footprint. This image has little to do with true environmental stewardship. The real environmentalist is out "in the field," picking up litter, counting his bags of trash, and donating his used goods. And perhaps most importantly, he recognizes God as the Creator, and derives his respect for nature from the fact that it was made by the Creator, who saw that it was good.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]][[Category:Environmental Stewardship]]

Essay: Real Environmentalism

2011-06-13T14:45:57Z

AddisonDM:

{{Essay By|AddisonDM}}

==Introduction==

When most of us hear terms like “eco-conscious” or “environmentalism,” what do we think of? [[Global warming]], compact fluorescent light bulbs, green (literally) reusable shopping bags? Unfortunately, these things have little bearing on real environmentalism.

So what is “real” [[environmentalism]]? It is, first of all, so different from the standard image of environmentalism that it should not even bear the same name; I suggest the term “environmental stewardship.” Environmental stewardship does not place nature above man. It does not center around tenuous science (man-made global warming) or over-the-top politically-motivated rhetoric (“We use energy to mix toxic chemicals in with the natural resources to make toxic contaminated products.”)<ref>This is a direct quote from the "sustainability" video "[[The Story of Stuff]]," which is unfortunately being shown to [[Public schools|school children]] across America.</ref> It is, simply, based on a desire to preserve, to conserve, the world that God gave us.

==In the Beginning==

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. What is important here is that He made the earth and everything in it. Each time God created something, He “saw that it was good.” Thus, there is a certain inherent value in nature from the beginning, because God made it.

God also made [[man]], and gave man dominion over the earth, commanding him to “fill…and subdue it.” The key point here is that this dominion is not unlimited. It is given to us to be good stewards of creation, much in the way that in the New Testament we are called to be stewards of the Kingdom. If what God made was good, it follows that is not our right to destroy it. We must, therefore, protect and preserve the world. This conviction is based on faith, not politics.

==What’s Wrong with Environmentalism?==

The most talked about environmental issue is probably man-made global warming. The focus on this issue is so pronounced that it has led to mocking comparisons of [[Al Gore]] to a prophet and the destruction of the [[earth]] by global warming to the Apocalypse.

The problem is that man-made global warming is simply not backed up by enough evidence to deserve its position as the foremost environmental issue. In the face of record cold temperatures in the last two or three winters, doubt has even been expressed that global warming is occurring at all, let alone as a result of primarily human activity. Since the science simply is not there for man-made global warming, it should take a back seat to more pressing and tangible environmental issues (these issues are noted in the following section).

Another serious problem with mainstream environmentalism is that it has become so politically charged that it is no longer dedicated to the issues alone. It seems that more time is spent arguing about global warming than actually doing anything about it (not that anything needs to be done about it). There is too much rhetoric and too much political opposition. This is partly because the environmentalists have for some reason made tenuous and controversial global warming their major issue. If the major issue were litter cleanup, no one could possibly disagree. But basic, important environmental activities such as litter cleanup are overlooked because of the political debates over controversial issues.

==Issues for Environmental Stewardship==

These are issues which may or may not be overlooked by mainstream environmentalism. In any case, they are, in my opinion, the most important environmental issues out there. Some of them also have a basis in Christianity, such as the waste/[[consumerism]] issue.

===Litter Cleanup===
This is a common, easy activity (who hasn't cleaned up litter at a local park?) but it is by no means unimportant. It is true that cleaning up litter can only go so far – as far as the discrete community in which it is done. But isn't that one less plastic bottle that will end up buried in the ground for centuries to come? And perhaps aggressive litter cleanup could actually have an effect outside the local community. The infamous “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” would undoubtedly be smaller if less litter were able to make its way to ocean-bound waterways.

===Conservation===
[[Conservation]] is an important environmental issue, and is perhaps most the most direct means of preserving God's creation. Conservation does ''not'' mean not using natural resources. What it means is using them in a responsible manner. It also means preventing serious damage to ecosystems, such as toxic waste dumped in rivers. Fortunately, many issues related to conservation have been dealt with in the last few decades.

===Waste Reduction / Excessive Consumerism===
Who hasn't driven through some wealthy town on garbage day and spotted a new-looking sofa, TV, lawn machine, piece of furniture? It looks like the stuff you buy, only it's being thrown out! And where does it go? Either in the ground, or to China<ref>Electronic waste is often shipped to China to be "recycled," i.e. crudely smashed, burned, or otherwise dangerously broken down by workers. One village in China has become known as an "e-waste village" because it is a major center of this primitive recycling business.</ref>. All of these perfectly good items end up useless, dumped in a landfill or scrapped for parts. And yet, they could be donated, even sold, to those in need. Thus, the issue of waste reduction is not only environmental (wasted resources) but social (reduces supply of cheap used items for the disadvantaged). There should be a powerful Christian motivation here to reduce consumerism, or at least to reduce the amount of waste that ends up in the landfill.

Another detailed point must be made under this heading. There is a lot of talk about recycling, and recycling is good. But when an item is reusable (e.g. an old TV) and there is someone who wants that item, it is wasteful even to recycle it. It is economically wasteful (because the market value of the item will almost certainly exceed its scrap value), environmentally wasteful (because it takes no resources to continue using an item, while it takes at least some resources to reprocess an item), and socially wasteful as explained in the above paragraph. In short, [[recycling]] should not take the place of re-use.

==="Capitalism" in Garbage Disposal===
Have you ever thought about how, if you live in a town, you pay the same amount in garbage disposal taxes whether you put out a houseful of trash or just a few bags? The common flat-tax system of garbage disposal is "socialistic," because it does not promote individual responsibility. In "capitalism," individual responsibility is the flip side of individual economic freedom.

In some municipalities, "capitalist" garbage disposal exists. Sometimes humorously referred to as "[[pay as you throw]]," a fee is placed on each unit of garbage put out for disposal. An individual pays for exactly as much garbage as he produces. Therefore, there is a strong motivation to throw out as little as possible, and to [[Composting|compost]], recycle, and [[Charity|donate]] as much as possible. Simply converting flat-tax systems to "pay as you throw" would greatly reduce waste, and reduce the strain on landfills. It would also make everyone personally responsible for the waste they produce.

===Composting===
Composting is not talked about a whole lot, even by environmentalists. Perhaps this is because few people enjoy spending time with their garbage (which is understandable). But composting is just as important as recycling, only it is "recycling" organic trash. Instead of TVs and plastic bottles, it is recycling lettuce scraps and moldy bread. Composting reduces the mass of garbage that will end up in the landfill, and it also keeps the organic matter in circulation. When organic trash goes to the landfill, it may take years or even decades for the matter to decompose and return to the earth. When composted, however, it is returned to the earth in matter of days.

==Energy Savings==
This issue is last because it is least important. The main reason we are told to save energy is to create less CO2, but since man-made global warming is by no means proven, CO2 emissions are not that big a deal. The other reason for saving energy is that fossil fuels are for the most part nonrenewable. We will almost certainly have discovered sustainable renewable energy sources by the time fossil fuels run out, however, so saving energy is good, but is far less important than the other issues outlined.

==The Real Environmentalist ==
The real environmentalist is not stereotypical hippie driving a Smart Car, eating vegan, and conscious of his personal carbon footprint. This image has little to do with true environmental stewardship. The real environmentalist is out "in the field," picking up litter, counting his bags of trash, and donating his used goods. And perhaps most importantly, he recognizes God as the Creator, and derives his respect for nature from the fact that it was made by the Creator, who saw that it was good.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]][[Category:Environmental Stewardship]]

Essay: Real Environmentalism

2011-06-13T14:44:22Z

AddisonDM:

{{Essay By|AddisonDM}}

==Introduction==

When most of us hear terms like “eco-conscious” or “environmentalism,” what do we think of? [[Global warming]], compact fluorescent light bulbs, green (literally) reusable shopping bags? Unfortunately, these things have little bearing on real environmentalism.

So what is “real” [[environmentalism]]? It is, first of all, so different from the standard image of environmentalism that it should not even bear the same name; I suggest the term “environmental stewardship.” Environmental stewardship does not place nature above man. It does not center around tenuous science (man-made global warming) or over-the-top politically-motivated rhetoric (“We use energy to mix toxic chemicals in with the natural resources to make toxic contaminated products.”)<ref>This is a direct quote from the "sustainability" video "[[The Story of Stuff]]," which is unfortunately being shown to [[Public schools|school children]] across America.</ref> It is, simply, based on a desire to preserve, to conserve, the world that God gave us.

==In the Beginning==

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. What is important here is that He made the earth and everything in it. Each time God created something, He “saw that it was good.” Thus, there is a certain inherent value in nature from the beginning, because God made it.

God also made [[man]], and gave man dominion over the earth, commanding him to “fill…and subdue it.” The key point here is that this dominion is not unlimited. It is given to us to be good stewards of creation, much in the way that in the New Testament we are called to be stewards of the Kingdom. If what God made was good, it follows that is not our right to destroy it. We must, therefore, protect and preserve the world. This conviction is based on faith, not politics.

==What’s Wrong with Environmentalism?==

The most talked about environmental issue is probably man-made global warming. The focus on this issue is so pronounced that it has led to mocking comparisons of [[Al Gore]] to a prophet and the destruction of the [[earth]] by global warming to the Apocalypse.

The problem is that man-made global warming is simply not backed up by enough evidence to deserve its position as the foremost environmental issue. In the face of record cold temperatures in the last two or three winters, doubt has even been expressed that global warming is occurring at all, let alone as a result of primarily human activity. Since the science simply is not there for man-made global warming, it should take a back seat to more pressing and tangible environmental issues (these issues are noted in the following section).

Another serious problem with mainstream environmentalism is that it has become so politically charged that it is no longer dedicated to the issues alone. It seems that more time is spent arguing about global warming than actually doing anything about it (not that anything needs to be done about it). There is too much rhetoric and too much political opposition. This is partly because the environmentalists have for some reason made tenuous and controversial global warming their major issue. If the major issue were litter cleanup, no one could possibly disagree. But basic, important environmental activities such as litter cleanup are overlooked because of the political debates over controversial issues.

==Issues for Environmental Stewardship==

These are issues which may or may not be overlooked by mainstream environmentalism. In any case, they are, in my opinion, the most important environmental issues out there. Some of them also have a basis in Christianity, such as the waste/[[consumerism]] issue.

===Litter Cleanup===
This is a common, easy activity (who hasn't cleaned up litter at a local park?) but it is by no means unimportant. It is true that cleaning up litter can only go so far – as far as the discrete community in which it is done. But isn't that one less plastic bottle that will end up buried in the ground for centuries to come? And perhaps aggressive litter cleanup could actually have an effect outside the local community. The infamous “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” would undoubtedly be smaller if less litter were able to make its way to ocean-bound waterways.

===Conservation===
[[Conservation]] is an important environmental issue, and is perhaps most the most direct means of preserving God's creation. Conservation does ''not'' mean not using natural resources. What it means is using them in a responsible manner. It also means preventing serious damage to ecosystems, such as toxic waste dumped in rivers. Fortunately, many issues related to conservation have been dealt with in the last few decades.

===Waste Reduction / Excessive Consumerism===
Who hasn't driven through some wealthy town on garbage day and spotted a new-looking sofa, TV, lawn machine, piece of furniture? It looks like the stuff you buy, only it's being thrown out! And where does it go? Either in the ground, or to China<ref>Electronic waste is often shipped to China to be "recycled," i.e. crudely smashed, burned, or otherwise dangerously broken down by workers. One village in China has become known as an "e-waste village" because it is a major center of this primitive recycling business.</ref>. All of these perfectly good items end up useless, dumped in a landfill or scrapped for parts. And yet, they could be donated, even sold, to those in need. Thus, the issue of waste reduction is not only environmental (wasted resources) but social (reduces supply of cheap used items for the disadvantaged). There should be a powerful Christian motivation here to reduce consumerism, or at least to reduce the amount of waste that ends up in the landfill.

Another detailed point must be made under this heading. There is a lot of talk about recycling, and recycling is good. But when an item is reusable (e.g. an old TV) and there is someone who wants that item, it is wasteful even to recycle it. It is economically wasteful (because the market value of the item will almost certainly exceed its scrap value), environmentally wasteful (because it takes no resources to continue using an item, while it takes at least some resources to reprocess an item), and socially wasteful as explained in the above paragraph. In short, [[recycling]] should not take the place of re-use.

==="Capitalism" in Garbage Disposal===
Have you ever thought about how, if you live in a town, you pay the same amount in garbage disposal taxes whether you put out a houseful of trash or just a few bags? The common flat-tax system of garbage disposal is "socialistic," because it does not promote individual responsibility. In "capitalism," individual responsibility is the flip side of individual economic freedom.

In some municipalities, "capitalist" garbage disposal exists. Sometimes humorously referred to as "[[pay as you throw]]," a fee is placed on each unit of garbage put out for disposal. An individual pays for exactly as much garbage as he produces. Therefore, there is a strong motivation to throw out as little as possible, and to [[Composting|compost]], recycle, and [[Charity|donate]] as much as possible. Simply converting flat-tax systems to "pay as you throw" would greatly reduce waste, and reduce the strain on landfills.

===Composting===
Composting is not talked about a whole lot, even by environmentalists. Perhaps this is because few people enjoy spending time with their garbage (which is understandable). But composting is just as important as recycling, only it is "recycling" organic trash. Instead of TVs and plastic bottles, it is recycling lettuce scraps and moldy bread. Composting reduces the mass of garbage that will end up in the landfill, and it also keeps the organic matter in circulation. When organic trash goes to the landfill, it may take years or even decades for the matter to decompose and return to the earth. When composted, however, it is returned to the earth in matter of days.

==Energy Savings==
This issue is last because it is least important. The main reason we are told to save energy is to create less CO2, but since man-made global warming is by no means proven, CO2 emissions are not that big a deal. The other reason for saving energy is that fossil fuels are for the most part nonrenewable. We will almost certainly have discovered sustainable renewable energy sources by the time fossil fuels run out, however, so saving energy is good, but is far less important than the other issues outlined.

==The Real Environmentalist ==
The real environmentalist is not stereotypical hippie driving a Smart Car, eating vegan, and conscious of his personal carbon footprint. This image has little to do with true environmental stewardship. The real environmentalist is out "in the field," picking up litter, counting his bags of trash, and donating his used goods. And perhaps most importantly, he recognizes God as the Creator, and derives his respect for nature from the fact that it was made by the Creator, who saw that it was good.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]][[Category:Environmental Stewardship]]

Essay: Real Environmentalism

2011-06-13T14:42:17Z

AddisonDM:

{{Essay By|AddisonDM}}

==Introduction==

When most of us hear terms like “eco-conscious” or “environmentalism,” what do we think of? [[Global warming]], compact fluorescent light bulbs, green (literally) reusable shopping bags? Unfortunately, these things have little bearing on real environmentalism.

So what is “real” [[environmentalism]]? It is, first of all, so different from the standard image of environmentalism that it should not even bear the same name; I suggest the term “environmental stewardship.” Environmental stewardship does not place nature above man. It does not center around tenuous science (man-made global warming) or over-the-top politically-motivated rhetoric (“We use energy to mix toxic chemicals in with the natural resources to make toxic contaminated products.”)<ref>This is a direct quote from the "sustainability" video "[[The Story of Stuff]]," which is unfortunately being shown to [[Public schools|school children]] across America.</ref> It is, simply, based on a desire to preserve, to conserve, the world that God gave us.

==In the Beginning==

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. What is important here is that He made the earth and everything in it. Each time God created something, He “saw that it was good.” Thus, there is a certain inherent value in nature from the beginning, because God made it.

God also made [[man]], and gave man dominion over the earth, commanding him to “fill…and subdue it.” The key point here is that this dominion is not unlimited. It is given to us to be good stewards of creation, much in the way that in the New Testament we are called to be stewards of the Kingdom. If what God made was good, it follows that is not our right to destroy it. We must, therefore, protect and preserve the world. This conviction is based on faith, not politics.

==What’s Wrong with Environmentalism?==

The most talked about environmental issue is probably man-made global warming. The focus on this issue is so pronounced that it has led to mocking comparisons of [[Al Gore]] to a prophet and the destruction of the [[earth]] by global warming to the Apocalypse.

The problem is that man-made global warming is simply not backed up by enough evidence to deserve its position as the foremost environmental issue. In the face of record cold temperatures in the last two or three winters, doubt has even been expressed that global warming is occurring at all, let alone as a result of primarily human activity. Since the science simply is not there for man-made global warming, it should take a back seat to more pressing and tangible environmental issues (these issues are noted in the following section).

Another serious problem with mainstream environmentalism is that it has become so politically charged that it is no longer dedicated to the issues alone. It seems that more time is spent arguing about global warming than actually doing anything about it (not that anything needs to be done about it). There is too much rhetoric and too much political opposition. This is partly because the environmentalists have for some reason made tenuous and controversial global warming their major issue. If the major issue were litter cleanup, no one could possibly disagree. But basic, important environmental activities such as litter cleanup are overlooked because of the political debates over controversial issues.

==Issues for Environmental Stewardship==

These are issues which may or may not be overlooked by mainstream environmentalism. In any case, they are, in my opinion, the most important environmental issues out there. Some of them also have a basis in Christianity, such as the waste/[[consumerism]] issue.

===Litter Cleanup===
This is a common, easy activity (who hasn't cleaned up litter at a local park?) but it is by no means unimportant. It is true that cleaning up litter can only go so far – as far as the discrete community in which it is done. But isn't that one less plastic bottle that will end up buried in the ground for centuries to come? And perhaps aggressive litter cleanup could actually have an effect outside the local community. The infamous “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” would undoubtedly be smaller if less litter were able to make its way to ocean-bound waterways.

===Conservation===
[[Conservation]] is an important environmental issue, and is perhaps most the most direct means of preserving God's creation. Conservation does ''not'' mean not using natural resources. What it means is using them in a responsible manner. It also means preventing serious damage to ecosystems, such as toxic waste dumped in rivers. Fortunately, many issues related to conservation have been dealt with in the last few decades.

===Waste Reduction / Excessive Consumerism===
Who hasn't driven through some wealthy town on garbage day and spotted a new-looking sofa, TV, lawn machine, piece of furniture? It looks like the stuff you buy, only it's being thrown out! And where does it go? Either in the ground, or to China<ref>Electronic waste is often shipped to China to be "recycled," i.e. crudely smashed, burned, or otherwise dangerously broken down by workers. One village in China has become known as an "e-waste village" because it is a major center of this primitive recycling business.</ref>. All of these perfectly good items end up useless, dumped in a landfill or scrapped for parts. And yet, they could be donated, even sold, to those in need. Thus, the issue of waste reduction is not only environmental (wasted resources) but social (reduces supply of cheap used items for the disadvantaged). There should be a powerful Christian motivation here to reduce consumerism, or at least to reduce the amount of waste that ends up in the landfill.

Another detailed point must be made under this heading. There is a lot of talk about recycling, and recycling is good. But when an item is reusable (e.g. an old TV) and there is someone who wants that item, it is wasteful even to recycle it. It is economically wasteful (because the market value of the item will almost certainly exceed its scrap value), environmentally wasteful (because it takes no resources to continue using an item, while it takes at least some resources to reprocess an item), and socially wasteful as explained in an earlier paragraph. In short, [[recycling]] should not take the place of re-use.

==="Capitalism" in Garbage Disposal===
Have you ever thought about how, if you live in a town, you pay the same amount in garbage disposal taxes whether you put out a houseful of trash or just a few bags? The common flat-tax system of garbage disposal is "socialistic," because it does not promote individual responsibility. In "capitalism," individual responsibility is the flip side of individual economic freedom.

In some municipalities, "capitalist" garbage disposal exists. Sometimes humorously referred to as "[[pay as you throw]]," a fee is placed on each unit of garbage put out for disposal. An individual pays for exactly as much garbage as he produces. Therefore, there is a strong motivation to throw out as little as possible, and to [[Composting|compost]], recycle, and [[Charity|donate]] as much as possible. Simply converting flat-tax systems to "pay as you throw" would greatly reduce waste, and reduce the strain on landfills.

===Composting===
Composting is not talked about a whole lot, even by environmentalists. Perhaps this is because few people enjoy spending time with their garbage (which is understandable). But composting is just as important as recycling, only it is "recycling" organic trash. Instead of TVs and plastic bottles, it is recycling lettuce scraps and moldy bread. Composting reduces the mass of garbage that will end up in the landfill, and it also keeps the organic matter in circulation. When organic trash goes to the landfill, it may take years or even decades for the matter to decompose and return to the earth. When composted, however, it is returned to the earth in matter of days.

==Energy Savings==
This issue is last because it is least important. The main reason we are told to save energy is to create less CO2, but since man-made global warming is by no means proven, CO2 emissions are not that big a deal. The other reason for saving energy is that fossil fuels are for the most part nonrenewable. We will almost certainly have discovered sustainable renewable energy sources by the time fossil fuels run out, however, so saving energy is good, but is far less important than the other issues outlined.

==The Real Environmentalist ==
The real environmentalist is not stereotypical hippie driving a Smart Car, eating vegan, and conscious of his personal carbon footprint. This image has little to do with true environmental stewardship. The real environmentalist is out "in the field," picking up litter, counting his bags of trash, and donating his used goods. And perhaps most importantly, he recognizes God as the Creator, and derives his respect for nature from the fact that it was made by the Creator, who saw that it was good.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]][[Category:Environmental Stewardship]]

Essay: Real Environmentalism

2011-06-13T14:40:45Z

AddisonDM:

{{Essay By|AddisonDM}}

==Introduction==

When most of us hear terms like “eco-conscious” or “environmentalism,” what do we think of? [[Global warming]], compact fluorescent light bulbs, green (literally) reusable shopping bags? Unfortunately, these things have little bearing on real environmentalism.

So what is “real” [[environmentalism]]? It is, first of all, so different from the standard image of environmentalism that it should not even bear the same name; I suggest the term “environmental stewardship.” Environmental stewardship does not place nature above man. It does not center around tenuous science (man-made global warming) or over-the-top politically-motivated rhetoric (“We use energy to mix toxic chemicals in with the natural resources to make toxic contaminated products.”)<ref>This is a direct quote from the "sustainability" video "[[The Story of Stuff]]," which is unfortunately being shown to [[Public schools|school children]] across America.</ref> It is, simply, based on a desire to preserve, to conserve, the world that God gave us.

==In the Beginning==

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. What is important here is that He made the earth and everything in it. Each time God created something, He “saw that it was good.” Thus, there is a certain inherent value in nature from the beginning, because God made it.

God also made [[man]], and gave man dominion over the earth, commanding him to “fill…and subdue it.” The key point here is that this dominion is not unlimited. It is given to us to be good stewards of creation, much in the way that in the New Testament we are called to be stewards of the Kingdom. If what God made was good, it follows that is not our right to destroy it. We must, therefore, protect and preserve the world. This conviction is based on faith, not politics.

==What’s Wrong with Environmentalism?==

The most talked about environmental issue is probably man-made global warming. The focus on this issue is so pronounced that it has led to mocking comparisons of [[Al Gore]] to a prophet and the destruction of the [[earth]] by global warming to the Apocalypse.

The problem is that man-made global warming is simply not backed up by enough evidence to deserve its position as the foremost environmental issue. In the face of record cold temperatures in the last two or three winters, doubt has even been expressed that global warming is occurring at all, let alone as a result of primarily human activity. Since the science simply is not there for man-made global warming, it should take a back seat to more pressing and tangible environmental issues (these issues are noted in the following section).

Another serious problem with mainstream environmentalism is that it has become so politically charged that it is no longer dedicated to the issues alone. It seems that more time is spent arguing about global warming than actually doing anything about it (not that anything needs to be done about it). There is too much rhetoric and too much political opposition. This is partly because the environmentalists have for some reason made tenuous and controversial global warming their major issue. If the major issue were litter cleanup, no one could possibly disagree. But basic, important environmental activities such as litter cleanup are overlooked because of the political debates over controversial issues.

==Issues for Environmental Stewardship==

These are issues which may or may not be overlooked by mainstream environmentalism. In any case, they are, in my opinion, the most important environmental issues out there. In some cases they have multiple [[Christian]] bases (e.g. the waste/[[consumerism]] issue).

===Litter Cleanup===
This is a common, easy activity (who hasn't cleaned up litter at a local park?) but it is by no means unimportant. It is true that cleaning up litter can only go so far – as far as the discrete community in which it is done. But isn't that one less plastic bottle that will end up buried in the ground for centuries to come? And perhaps aggressive litter cleanup could actually have an effect outside the local community. The infamous “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” would undoubtedly be smaller if less litter were able to make its way to ocean-bound waterways.

===Conservation===
[[Conservation]] is an important environmental issue, and is perhaps most the most direct means of preserving God's creation. Conservation does ''not'' mean not using natural resources. What it means is using them in a responsible manner. It also means preventing serious damage to ecosystems, such as toxic waste dumped in rivers. Fortunately, many issues related to conservation have been dealt with in the last few decades.

===Waste Reduction / Excessive Consumerism===
Who hasn't driven through some wealthy town on garbage day and spotted a new-looking sofa, TV, lawn machine, piece of furniture? It looks like the stuff you buy, only it's being thrown out! And where does it go? Either in the ground, or to China<ref>Electronic waste is often shipped to China to be "recycled," i.e. crudely smashed, burned, or otherwise dangerously broken down by workers. One village in China has become known as an "e-waste village" because it is a major center of this primitive recycling business.</ref>. All of these perfectly good items end up useless, dumped in a landfill or scrapped for parts. And yet, they could be donated, even sold, to those in need. Thus, the issue of waste reduction is not only environmental (wasted resources) but social (reduces supply of cheap used items for the disadvantaged). There should be a powerful Christian motivation here to reduce consumerism, or at least to reduce the amount of waste that ends up in the landfill.

Another detailed point must be made under this heading. There is a lot of talk about recycling, and recycling is good. But when an item is reusable (e.g. an old TV) and there is someone who wants that item, it is wasteful even to recycle it. It is economically wasteful (because the market value of the item will almost certainly exceed its scrap value), environmentally wasteful (because it takes no resources to continue using an item, while it takes at least some resources to reprocess an item), and socially wasteful as explained in an earlier paragraph. In short, [[recycling]] should not take the place of re-use.

==="Capitalism" in Garbage Disposal===
Have you ever thought about how, if you live in a town, you pay the same amount in garbage disposal taxes whether you put out a houseful of trash or just a few bags? The common flat-tax system of garbage disposal is "socialistic," because it does not promote individual responsibility. In "capitalism," individual responsibility is the flip side of individual economic freedom.

In some municipalities, "capitalist" garbage disposal exists. Sometimes humorously referred to as "[[pay as you throw]]," a fee is placed on each unit of garbage put out for disposal. An individual pays for exactly as much garbage as he produces. Therefore, there is a strong motivation to throw out as little as possible, and to [[Composting|compost]], recycle, and [[Charity|donate]] as much as possible. Simply converting flat-tax systems to "pay as you throw" would greatly reduce waste, and reduce the strain on landfills.

===Composting===
Composting is not talked about a whole lot, even by environmentalists. Perhaps this is because few people enjoy spending time with their garbage (which is understandable). But composting is just as important as recycling, only it is "recycling" organic trash. Instead of TVs and plastic bottles, it is recycling lettuce scraps and moldy bread. Composting reduces the mass of garbage that will end up in the landfill, and it also keeps the organic matter in circulation. When organic trash goes to the landfill, it may take years or even decades for the matter to decompose and return to the earth. When composted, however, it is returned to the earth in matter of days.

==Energy Savings==
This issue is last because it is least important. The main reason we are told to save energy is to create less CO2, but since man-made global warming is by no means proven, CO2 emissions are not that big a deal. The other reason for saving energy is that fossil fuels are for the most part nonrenewable. We will almost certainly have discovered sustainable renewable energy sources by the time fossil fuels run out, however, so saving energy is good, but is far less important than the other issues outlined.

==The Real Environmentalist ==
The real environmentalist is not stereotypical hippie driving a Smart Car, eating vegan, and conscious of his personal carbon footprint. This image has little to do with true environmental stewardship. The real environmentalist is out "in the field," picking up litter, counting his bags of trash, and donating his used goods. And perhaps most importantly, he recognizes God as the Creator, and derives his respect for nature from the fact that it was made by the Creator, who saw that it was good.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]][[Category:Environmental Stewardship]]

Planned obsolescence

2011-06-13T14:34:31Z

AddisonDM:

'''Planned obsolescence''' refers to manufacturing or marketing techniques generally designed to artificially shorten the life of a product, either by making it actually useless, or appear useless before it would naturally. There are several similar but subtly different types of planned obsolescence.

It should be noted that most of these types of obsolescence can and do occur naturally, without any intent to create the obsolescence. Obsolescence may be the result of true progress in developing industries, such as the computer industry in the 1980s and 1990s.

==Types of Planned Obsolescence==

*''Obsolescence of function'': This refers to when an item is produced to break down or otherwise become non-functional in an abnormally short period of time. It may also refer to cases where an item is rendered non-functional but where the item itself still works: e.g. the creation of a new cell phone network that is incompatible with earlier cell phones. Obsolescence of function is sometimes simply shoddy workmanship (though not all poor workmanship is an attempt at planned obsolescence).

*''Obsolescence of style'': This refers to the the obsolescence of items such as clothing, fashion accessories, and home decorating products due to changes in style. For example, if the fashion trend is for high skirts, low skirts will be rendered stylistically obsolete. In some cases, style changes are so great that old styles would look out of place or ridiculous. The clothing industry actually prided itself in creating obsolescence of style, as it was beneficial for sales (in [[Vance Packard]]'s book ''The Waste Makers'', several quotes from fashion industry admen and executives are cited supporting the creation of obsolescence).

*''Technical obsolescence'': This refers to the obsolescence of an older item caused by the creation of a newer item performing the same function, e.g. a digital camera that takes higher quality photos. While the older item still performs the function in question, it is comparatively inferior to the newer item.

==Other Examples==
One of the most egregious examples of planned obsolescence is the rechargeable batteries commonly contained in small electronic devices such as MP3 players, PDAs, and some cell phones (such as the iPhone). The batteries are often soldered into the unit, making replacement almost impossible for the average user (some companies such as Apple do offer battery replacement for a considerable fee). Some of these batteries also contain circuits that regulate and limit the number of charging cycles the battery will take before it fails to charge, limiting the useful life of the battery, and consequently the unit itself. This strategy is even readily admitted by the product developers themselves; a product development firm states, "Cell phones have proprietary lithium batteries that can be charged and discharged for a limited number of times. After the battery stops retaining charge it has to be replaced. The cost of replacing the proprietary battery is often about the same as replacing the cell phone."<ref>http://www.fast-product-development.com/obsolescence-management.html</ref>

Another example of planned obsolescence is items that warn the user when it is time to replace them, such as the fading colored strips on razors or the low ink warnings for ink jet cartridges. Generally printers will display low ink warnings even when a considerable amount of ink remains, and many printers actually stop printing once the low ink warning has appeared, regardless of how much ink is actually left. Some cartridges still contain than 40% of their ink when they display a low ink warning.<ref>http://www.pcworld.com/article/152953/how_much_ink_is_left_in_that_dead_cartridge.html</ref>

One kind of planned obsolescence has the same effect as technical obsolescence, but it is slightly different; sometimes a company will incrementally introduce features into a product even if it would not cost much more for all of the features to be in a product. For example, a new feature might be added to a GPS every new model, making the new one slightly better than the old one.

Often, batteries for cordless power tools will change such that batteries for working but older tools can no longer be acquired at reasonable prices. This forces the consumer to buy a new tool set when in reality only a new battery is required.

==Arguments==
Planned obsolescence is commonly criticized by social critics as a wasteful attempt simply to sell more items. However, marketers, if they admit to using planned obsolescence, generally describe it as a means of making newer, better products affordable and available. For example, if a company designed its MP3 player to last 10 years, then a) it would cost more, and b), consumers would not update it with a better unit because they paid more for it.

==Value Engineering==
Some product design strategies that are indistinguishable from planned obsolescence are actually meant to provide a more affordable product to the consumer. These strategies are known as "value engineering", the purpose of which is to create the most suitable product at the lowest possible cost.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/value-engineering</ref> Value engineering may be considered a form of planned obsolescence, but it does necessarily carry the same negative connotation.

An example of value engineering would be building a computer to last only a few years, since by then it would be superseded by better technology anyway. If the old computer were built to last 20 years, it would presumably cost more, which would be wasteful since the computer would be technically obsolete in only about four years (of course, this is negative for anyone who would intend to keep their computer appreciably longer than four years).

==See Also==
*[[Vance Packard]]
*[[Consumerism]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Economics]]

Planned obsolescence

2011-06-13T14:31:56Z

AddisonDM:

'''Planned obsolescence''' refers to manufacturing or marketing techniques generally designed to artificially shorten the life of a product, either by making it actually useless, or appear useless before it would naturally. There are several similar but subtly different types of planned obsolescence.

It should be noted that most of these types of obsolescence can and do occur naturally, without any intent to create the obsolescence. Obsolescence may be the result of true progress in developing industries, such as the computer industry in the 1980s and 1990s.

==Types of Planned Obsolescence==

*''Obsolescence of function'': This refers to when an item is produced to break down or otherwise become non-functional in an abnormally short period of time. It may also refer to cases where an item is rendered non-functional but where the item itself still works: e.g. the creation of a new cell phone network that is incompatible with earlier cell phones. Obsolescence of function is sometimes simply shoddy workmanship (though not all poor workmanship is an attempt at planned obsolescence).

*''Obsolescence of style'': This refers to the the obsolescence of items such as clothing, fashion accessories, and home decorating products due to changes in style. For example, if the fashion trend is for high skirts, low skirts will be rendered stylistically obsolete. In some cases, style changes are so great that old styles would look out of place or ridiculous.

*''Technical obsolescence'': This refers to the obsolescence of an older item caused by the creation of a newer item performing the same function, e.g. a digital camera that takes higher quality photos. While the older item still performs the function in question, it is comparatively inferior to the newer item.

==Other Examples==
One of the most egregious examples of planned obsolescence is the rechargeable batteries commonly contained in small electronic devices such as MP3 players, PDAs, and some cell phones (such as the iPhone). The batteries are often soldered into the unit, making replacement almost impossible for the average user (some companies such as Apple do offer battery replacement for a considerable fee). Some of these batteries also contain circuits that regulate and limit the number of charging cycles the battery will take before it fails to charge, limiting the useful life of the battery, and consequently the unit itself. This strategy is even readily admitted by the product developers themselves; a product development firm states, "Cell phones have proprietary lithium batteries that can be charged and discharged for a limited number of times. After the battery stops retaining charge it has to be replaced. The cost of replacing the proprietary battery is often about the same as replacing the cell phone."<ref>http://www.fast-product-development.com/obsolescence-management.html</ref>

Another example of planned obsolescence is items that warn the user when it is time to replace them, such as the fading colored strips on razors or the low ink warnings for ink jet cartridges. Generally printers will display low ink warnings even when a considerable amount of ink remains, and many printers actually stop printing once the low ink warning has appeared, regardless of how much ink is actually left. Some cartridges still contain than 40% of their ink when they display a low ink warning.<ref>http://www.pcworld.com/article/152953/how_much_ink_is_left_in_that_dead_cartridge.html</ref>

One kind of planned obsolescence has the same effect as technical obsolescence, but it is slightly different; sometimes a company will incrementally introduce features into a product even if it would not cost much more for all of the features to be in a product. For example, a new feature might be added to a GPS every new model, making the new one slightly better than the old one.

Often, batteries for cordless power tools will change such that batteries for working but older tools can no longer be acquired at reasonable prices. This forces the consumer to buy a new tool set when in reality only a new battery is required.

==Arguments==
Planned obsolescence is commonly criticized by social critics as a wasteful attempt simply to sell more items. However, marketers, if they admit to using planned obsolescence, generally describe it as a means of making newer, better products affordable and available. For example, if a company designed its MP3 player to last 10 years, then a) it would cost more, and b), consumers would not update it with a better unit because they paid more for it.

==Value Engineering==
Some product design strategies that are indistinguishable from planned obsolescence are actually meant to provide a more affordable product to the consumer. These strategies are known as "value engineering", the purpose of which is to create the most suitable product at the lowest possible cost.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/value-engineering</ref> Value engineering may be considered a form of planned obsolescence, but it does necessarily carry the same negative connotation.

An example of value engineering would be building a computer to last only a few years, since by then it would be superseded by better technology anyway. If the old computer were built to last 20 years, it would presumably cost more, which would be wasteful since the computer would be technically obsolete in only about four years (of course, this is negative for anyone who would intend to keep their computer appreciably longer than four years).

==See Also==
*[[Vance Packard]]
*[[Consumerism]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Economics]]

User:AddisonDM

2011-06-13T14:24:31Z

AddisonDM:

Hello, welcome to my user page! I have been an editor at [[Conservapedia]] since 2008 and an administrator since 2009. I've worked mainly on articles relating to [[Christianity]], [[environmentalism]], and [[politics]]. Check out some of my articles or essays!

{{User Sysop}}

==Articles I have edited:==

*[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]] (added Governmental Structure section)
*[[NASCAR]] (added new names of racing series)
*[[Indulgences]]
*[[Anthem]] (Completely revamped: added Major Plot Events and Society and Government)
*[[Steel]] (Added Andrew Carnegie's name)
*[[Selena Gomez]] (Added link to [[purity ring]] and specified that Selena wears one)
*[[Vegetarianism]] (Instigated the inclusion of citations where they were needed)
*[[Recycling]] (mentioned "reduce, reuse, recycle" slogan, made specification)
*[[Goth (subculture)]] (Fixed up grammar)
*[[Transubstantiation]] (Fixed up existing text, added new section)
*[[Nashville]] (Added new section)
*[[Essay:Greatest Church Hymns]]
*Improved [[Tyndale Bible]]
*[[Disputed Biblical Translations]] (added example of translating difference between Protestants and Catholics)
*Updated [[Al Franken]] (added latest news on the Senate race recount)
*[[Jeremiah Wright]] (Make redirects and fix citation error)
*[[List of 50 states]] (completely revamped with some help)
*[[Trans fat]] (Total rewrite)
*[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] (Added [[democide]], [[fellow traveller]], and design by committee)
*[[Speciation]] (New section, relation to evolution)
*[[Old Earth]]
*[[Black Friday]] (Complete rewrite)

==Articles I have created:==

*[[Pump 'Em Up]] (organization to conserve fuel by inflating tires)
*[[Taylor Swift]] (Country music star)
*[[Jonas Brothers]] (popular boy band)
*[[Purity ring]] (symbol of commitment to remain chaste till marriage)
*[[Christine Cloud]] (Christian missionary attacked by gay activist)
*[[The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History]] (popular history book)
*[[Catholic Answers]] (Catholic apologetics apostolate)
*[[Real presence]] (Different Christian beliefs on the Eucharist)
*[[Landfill]] (Waste disposal method)
*[[Goodsearch]] (Search engine donating money to charities of your choice)
*[[Tripartite Pact]] (Pact creating Axis Powers of WWII)
*[[Contemporary Christian Music]]
*[[Music Row]] (Nashville music/entertainment district)
*[[Holy God We Praise Thy Name]] (Traditional Catholic hymn)
*[[Political cartoon]]
*[[The Message]] (Bible translation)
*[[Cotton Patch Version]] (''Very'' interesting Bible translation!)
*[[Orans]] (Position of prayer)
*[[Bernard Madoff]]
*[[Lauda Sion Salvatorem]] ([[Corpus Christi]] hymn)
*[[Kwanzaa]] (African American holiday)
*[[The Night Before Christmas]]
*[[Menorah]] ([[Jewish]] symbol and [[Chanukah]] candleholder)
*[[Jack London]] (Writer and novelist)
*[[Creation]] (Overviewing differing views on creation and giving bios of famous creationists)
*[[The Iron Heel]] ([[Dystopian]] novel)
*[[Natural-born citizen]]
*[[Chesley Sullenberger]] (pilot of plane crashed in [[Hudson River]])
*[[Obama-isms]]
*[[Resin identification codes]] (Symbols to identify plastics for recycling)
*[[Megachurch]]
*'''[[Conservapedia]]''' ('''Content article about CP''')
*[[Open mind]]
*[[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]
*[[Stars and Stripes Forever]]
*[[Political Compass]]
*[[Pipe organ]] (stub, please expand)
*[[Mother of Divine Grace School]] ([[Homeschooling]] service)
*[[Composting]] (will expand)
*[[Know Homeschooling]] (A wiki about homeschooling)
*[[Nellie Gray]] (founder of [[March for Life]])
*[[The Teaching Company]]
*[[Seton Home Study School]]
*[[Ray Kroc]] (Entrepreneur behind [[McDonald's]])
*[[Wasabi]] ([[Japanese]] condiment)
*[[Generation Joshua]]
*[[Exodus Mandate]]
*[[Red Envelope Project]]
*[[Revelation (religion)]]
*[[Essay: Greatest political rivalries in American history|Greatest political rivalries in American history]]
*[[Anacyclosis]]
*[[Google Earth]]
*[[Apostles' Creed]]
*[[Foundation for a Better Life]]
*[[Freedom From Religion Foundation]]
*[[Larry Kudlow]]
*[[Interesterified fat]] (Type of processed oil)
*[[Melting pot]] (Cultural term)
*[[Priests for Life]]
*[[Randall Terry]]
*[[Tiktaalik roseae]] (Claimed transitional form between fish and amphibian tetrapods)
*[[Biogeography]]
*[[Polystrate fossil]]
*[[Darwinius masillae‎]] (new "missing link" fossil)
*[[Stasis (biology)]]
*[[Derived (evolution)]]
*[[Omphalos hypothesis]]
*[[Great Books Academy]] (homeschool curriculum)
*[[Calvert School]] (Private school and homeschool curriculum)
*[[List of homeschool curriculums]]
*[[Billy Mays]] (American advertiser)
*[[Philip D. Gingerich]] (Evolutionist, paleontologist)
*[[Closed communion]]
*[[Open communion]]
*[[Pakicetus]]
*[[Ambulocetus]]
*[[Vance Packard]]
*[[Planned obsolescence]]
*[[The Story of Stuff]]
*[[Pay as you throw]]

'''Essays:'''

*[[Essay: Deceptive Advertising]]
*[[Essay: Real Environmentalism]]
*[[Essay: Artificial Food]]
*'''[[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America|The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]]''' ('''Nominated and selected as Featured Article during Holy Week/Easter Week''')
*[[Essay:Justifying Justification by Faith and Works|Justifying Justification by Faith and Works]] (Essay supporting Catholic view of salvation)
*[[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"|Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]] (All the wonderful contributions made by vandals. If you know any, share them!)

'''Templates:'''

*[[Template:Bible Versions]]
*[[Template:Creation vs. evolution]]
*[[Template:Conservatism]]

'''Conservapedia Exclusives:'''
These are articles I've created which do not exist on Wikipedia:

*[[Pump 'Em Up]]
*[[Christine Cloud]]
*[[Holy God We Praise Thy Name]]
*[[Obama-isms]]
*[[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]
*[[Mother of Divine Grace School]]
*[[Know Homeschooling]]
*[[Nellie Gray]]

[[Category:Christian Conservapedians]][[Category:Catholic Conservapedians]]

Black Friday

2011-06-13T14:23:17Z

AddisonDM:

'''Black Friday''' is the name popularly given to the day after [[Thanksgiving]], which is always a [[Friday]] and is a [[holiday]]. The name "Black Friday" comes from the fact that historically it has been the day when stores break into profitability for the full year, so that they are "in the black" rather than "in the red." In recent years, the day has become the most popular day of the year to go shopping and [[retailer]]s have reported record [[profit]]s. Many people take advantage of this holiday as an opportunity to do all their [[Christmas]] shopping early. Black Friday is commonly criticized as being an inordinate display of [[consumerism]], though it is often celebrated in the media with previews and discussions on upcoming sales.

==Black Friday, 2008==

In 2008, Black Friday reached a fever pitch when a Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death and a pregnant woman was injured by a mob of shoppers breaking through the doors shortly before opening time. According to witnesses, the mob actually broke the doors off their hinges, and continued to trample in, even stepping on officers giving CPR to the trampled man. One witness said, "When they were saying they had to leave, that an employee got killed, people were yelling, 'I've been on line since Friday morning!'...They kept shopping."<ref>http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-11-28/local/17910475_1_wal-mart-worker-long-island-wal-mart-jdimytai-damour/2</ref> A Wal-Mart employee later said, "I look at these people's faces and I keep thinking one of them could have stepped on him. How could you take a man's life to save $20 on a TV?"<ref>http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-11-28/local/17910475_1_wal-mart-worker-long-island-wal-mart-jdimytai-damour/2</ref>

On the same day, two men at a Toys R Us were killed in a shooting. Though initial reports suggested the shooting erupted over a shopping altercation, this was apparently not the case.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27957714</ref> The exact cause of the shooting is not clearly known.

Following the outrage sparked over the Wal-Mart incident, Black Friday has slightly declined in popularity, and the term has even been disfavored over other terms that do not have any negative connotation. (Despite some decline in Black Friday shopping, some retailers such as Old Navy recently started offering Thanksgiving ''Day'' sales similar to Black Friday sales.)

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Christmas]]
[[Category:Retail]]

Homework Ten Answers - Student Eighteen

2011-04-29T22:41:54Z

AddisonDM: Created page with "~~~~ 1. I only missed two so that makes this question harder! Both of them were facts that I either did not know or had forgotten, so simply searching my memory would not have h..."

[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 18:41, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

1. I only missed two so that makes this question harder! Both of them were facts that I either did not know or had forgotten, so simply searching my memory would not have helped. However, I might have been able to get the one about the order that colonies were established. <have to find question to finish my answer>

2. World War I is interesting because it feels part modern and part old fashioned. It was the first major war to involve tanks, poison gas, and some other modern weaponry, but it was fought in age where Europe was still very nationalistic and not very united at all as it is today. In today’s world it is hard to imagine so many individual countries on the same continent fighting each other. This aspect of WWI makes it similar to older wars.

3. The Scopes Trial seems fascinating because it was about such a big issue even though the actual legal context was rather insignificant. It was one of the few trials in American history that transcended its narrow subject matter. Legally, it was only about John Scopes teaching an illegal evolutionist textbook in a small school. Socially, however, it was about the impact of Darwinism (and particularly its unfortunate distortion, Social Darwinism) on society.

4. This is rather obvious, but President Teddy Roosevelt probably was. In terms of his actions, he was perhaps not the most influential, but certainly in terms of his legacy. He was perhaps the first president since Jackson to transcend the institutional aspect of the presidency and use his office as a platform for social betterment. Teddy Roosevelt’s legacy is the National Park system, the FDA, and in general the idea that the federal government can intervene in society to (try to) make it better.

5. Debate: Was it discriminatory not to include girls and women in this draft?
To put it simply, it was discriminatory. The real question though is whether or not it was a “good” kind of discrimination. In my view it almost certainly was. First, since men were conditioned to work and women were conditioned to be housewives, men were probably better prepared for the difficulties of military service. Second, perhaps I am only influenced by “outdated stereotypes,” but there seems something improper about sending young women to die in filthy trenches of poison gas. War seems more like “men’s work.” Third, an interesting thought comes to mind: when the men were off in war, someone had to take over all of the American jobs formerly held by the men. Many more women than usual therefore had a chance to work. Excluding women from the draft may actually have helped empower them domestically.

'''Honors'''

1. I don’t think the free speech decisions were in keeping with the First Amendment. Of course, treason was never covered under free speech, but is speaking out against the draft really treasonous? It comes dangerously close to using the cover of “national interest” to silence political critics (like Adams’ ridiculous Alien and Sedition Acts!) Even if speaking against the draft and the other “treasonous” offenses were truly treasonous, the free speech cases still set a dangerous precedent. What if George Bush thought it was “subversive” to oppose his war in Iraq? What if President Obama thought it was “against the national interest” to oppose his health reform plan? Clearly, the law should not allow dissent to be punished as treason.

3. Roosevelt and Wilson were both progressives, but Roosevelt was imperialistic while Wilson sought global democracy. Roosevelt was interested in enriching society by such measures as making national parks and improving food standards, while Wilson was more interested in political work like starting the Federal Reserve and advocating for the League of Nations. Roosevelt was probably more successful because many Americans did not like Wilson’s globalist ideas. Taft was President too during this period, but almost nothing is ever said about him (except that he was rather oversized!) As a more conservative president, he did not believe in as much government action and so he did much less that we can talk about today (maybe it is better that he did much less).

5. It seems likely that Social Darwinism contributed to the cruelty of WWI. Of course, people often are violent first and seek a justification later. In the same way that religion often provided a justification for war (it’s okay to kill heathens) Social Darwinism provided a justification for war by appearing to give it a scientific basis (it is good for the species to eliminate the weak). But in addition to providing an excuse, Darwinism may well have influenced people to be even more savage in war than they otherwise would have – or it at least helped them to exaggerate their violent tendencies.

Homework Nine Answers - Student Four

2011-04-14T16:06:02Z

AddisonDM:

[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:59, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

'''1. What is you view of antitrust laws - necessary, or something that makes a problem worse?''' My view on antitrust laws is based on my view of monopolies. I think monopolies are an imposition on the free market, they are like a ‘dictator’ interrupting the ‘democracy’ of the free market. Consumers should have a choice of who they want to ‘vote’ for with their business, but a monopoly prevents this. The free market may be able to handle monopolies, but antitrust laws do too, and they send a message that anti-competitive business practices are not okay.

'''2. Imperialism by a charitable Christian people: a good or bad thing?''' It depends on what the purpose of the imperialism is. If it is merely to exert more political control, or to make more money, it is not really that good. In that case, it hardly matters if the imperialist force is Christian or not. If the purpose to spread (though not force) Christian values to the new land, (and perhaps to also gain some political benefits) that seems okay. It is like missionaries on a grand scale. There should not, however, be any coercion involved.

'''3. Your thoughts on the progressive movement, please.''' Though many big-government liberals today like to call themselves progressives, they are not progressives in the same sense as the Progressive Movement. That movement mobilized the common people to advocate for a better, fairer society, without imposing too much government regulation. Most of the progressive reforms, such as direct democracy and information and safety laws like the food and drug laws, did in fact contribute to a better society. Others, like the graduated income tax, may not have been so good, and certainly were abused in the future (such as attempts to have near-100% top bracket income taxes.) But separating later abuses from initial policies, I think the Progressive Movement was mostly good for America.

'''4. Please explain the cartoon in the Minnesota Tribune, having the caption at top, "WHAT WILL HE DO!" and the caption at the bottom, "The eyes of the world are upon him." Include your description of the point of view of the cartoonist.'''The cartoon depicts the world (literally) watching a mean looking McKinley about to throw a native (either a Filipino or a Cuban, probably a Filipino) off a cliff to “Spain.” The cartoon is probably from a Republican and definitely an imperialist, who is supporting the American takeover of the native’s country in order to protect the natives from Spanish rule (and of course to make money or gain political benefits).

'''5. The "Cross of Gold" speech: lots of meaning, or meaningless? Explain, including who gave the speech and under what circumstances.''' The Cross of Gold speech is hardly ‘meaningless.’ It simply puts forth a political position, albeit in rather dramatic terms. Given by William Jennings Bryan in his speech at the 1896 Democratic Convention, it argued for bimetallism rather than a pure gold standard, because a gold standard tended to cause deflation, which hurt the “masses” (particularly the farmers, but all borrowers). Of course, inflation could hurt the banks and the creditors, so there’s no free lunch. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Cross of Gold speech is that it described, in much the same way as today, the so-called “trickle-down” approach to the economy, as opposed to legislation for the masses.

'''6. What would be an example today of "yellow journalism"?''' An excellent example of yellow journalism today is a good deal of popular science articles. For example, in May of 2009 a new fossil was released and hailed in the popular press as a new “missing link” in evolution. In October of that same year, several reliable scientists concluded that the fossil was in fact no such missing link at all. Most articles about “alien life” or “new life form” are usually over-hyped, and are meant to generate discussion and controversy, not to inform. Often, the scientists themselves do not make such bold claims as the popular press does.

'''Honors'''

'''H1. Do you agree with how the United States finally ended the fighting in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War?''' Considering how much trouble the Filipino insurgents were giving us, I don’t really think killing them was overly harsh. However, what were we doing there in the first place? The post-Spanish battles in the Philippines seem to be an unfortunate precedent that would later get us stuck in wars like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Perhaps the only “justification” for fighting was that we could gain by imperializing the islands. But if that was our goal all along, why did it take three years of guerilla warfare to finally kill the insurgents? Overall, I don’t blame us for killing them but I don’t agree with it.

'''H2. Debate: do you support "caveat emptor," or do you prefer government regulation of monopolies and robber barons?''' I don’t think you can support either “caveat emptor” or “regulation of monopolies and robber barons.” Caveat emptor means “buyer beware,” that only makes sense within a free market, where the consumer has many choices and must be able to wisely choose the right product (and avoid bad ones). Under the monopolies and robber barons, there was no free market to navigate, and “buyer beware” becomes meaningless. If it applies to the monopolies, where else does the consumer go? You are telling him to beware of the only choice on the market! Of course, educated consumers could perhaps prevent a monopoly from forming in the first place, but once it has formed, how is “buyer beware” going to help? So, I support both ‘caveat emptor” and regulation of monopolies and robber barons.

'''H5. What is your view of John D. Rockefeller?''' John D. Rockefeller, first of all, was not the worst of the robber barons. Unlike Carnegie, who specifically disavowed Christianity in favor of Social Darwinism, Rockefeller thanked God for his success and made his motto “Gain all you can, save all you can, and give all you can,” a phrase from the Methodist Wesley. Rockefeller thus viewed his enterprise through a Christian lens, reminiscent of the parable of the talents. However, Rockefeller’s business practices had an unmistakable influence of “survival of the fittest,” or Social Darwinism. He also supported eugenics and population control, which are, from a Christian perspective, dubious at best. Overall, however, Rockefeller seems to have been a sincere and good man, and, for what it’s worth, an excellent monopolist!

Homework Nine Answers - Student Four

2011-04-14T16:02:23Z

AddisonDM:

[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:59, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

'''1. What is you view of antitrust laws - necessary, or something that makes a problem worse?''' My view on antitrust laws is based on my view of monopolies. I think monopolies are an imposition on the free market, they are like a ‘dictator’ interrupting the ‘democracy’ of the free market. Consumers should have a choice of who they want to ‘vote’ for with their business, but a monopoly prevents this. The free market may be able to handle monopolies, but antitrust laws do too, and they send a message that anti-competitive business practices are not okay.

'''2. Imperialism by a charitable Christian people: a good or bad thing?''' It depends on what the purpose of the imperialism is. If it is merely to exert more political control, or to make more money, it is not really that good. In that case, it hardly matters if the imperialist force is Christian or not. If the purpose to spread (though not force) Christian values to the new land, (and perhaps to also gain some political benefits) that seems okay. It is like missionaries on a grand scale. There should not, however, be any coercion involved.

'''3. Your thoughts on the progressive movement, please.''' Though many big-government liberals today like to call themselves progressives, they are not progressives in the same sense as the Progressive Movement. That movement mobilized the common people to advocate for a better, fairer society, without imposing too much government regulation. Most of the progressive reforms, such as direct democracy and information and safety laws like the food and drug laws, did in fact contribute to a better society. Others, like the graduated income tax, may not have been so good, and certainly were abused in the future (such as attempts to have near-100% top bracket income taxes.) But separating later abuses from initial policies, I think the Progressive Movement was mostly good for America.

'''4. Please explain the cartoon in the Minnesota Tribune, having the caption at top, "WHAT WILL HE DO!" and the caption at the bottom, "The eyes of the world are upon him." Include your description of the point of view of the cartoonist.'''The cartoon depicts the world (literally) watching a mean looking McKinley about to throw a native (either a Filipino or a Cuban, probably a Filipino) off a cliff to “Spain.” The cartoon is probably from a Republican and definitely an imperialist, who is supporting the American takeover of the native’s country in order to protect the natives from Spanish rule (and of course to make money or gain political benefits).

'''5. The "Cross of Gold" speech: lots of meaning, or meaningless? Explain, including who gave the speech and under what circumstances.''' The Cross of Gold speech is hardly ‘meaningless.’ It simply puts forth a political position, albeit in rather dramatic terms. Given by William Jennings Bryan in his speech at the 1896 Democratic Convention, it argued for bimetallism rather than a pure gold standard, because a gold standard tended to cause deflation, which hurt the “masses” (particularly the farmers, but all borrowers). Of course, inflation could hurt the banks and the creditors, so there’s no free lunch. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Cross of Gold speech is that it described, in much the same way as today, the so-called “trickle-down” approach to the economy, as opposed to legislation for the masses.

'''6. What would be an example today of "yellow journalism"?''' An excellent example of yellow journalism today is a good deal of popular science articles. For example, in May of 2009 a new fossil was released and hailed in the popular press as a new “missing link” in evolution. In October of that same year, several reliable scientists concluded that the fossil was in fact no such missing link at all. Most articles about “alien life” or “new life form” are usually over-hyped, and are meant to generate discussion and controversy, not to inform. Often, the scientists themselves do not make such bold claims as the popular press does.

'''Honors'''

'''H1. Do you agree with how the United States finally ended the fighting in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War?''' Considering how much trouble the Filipino insurgents were giving us, I don’t really think killing them was overly harsh. However, what were we doing there in the first place? The post-Spanish battles in the Philippines seem to be an unfortunate precedent that would later get us stuck in wars like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Perhaps the only “justification” for fighting was that we could gain by imperializing the islands. But if that was our goal all along, why did it take three years of guerilla warfare to finally kill the insurgents? Overall, I don’t blame us for killing them but I don’t agree with it.

'''H2. Debate: do you support "caveat emptor," or do you prefer government regulation of monopolies and robber barons?''' I don’t think you can support either “caveat emptor” or “regulation of monopolies and robber barons.” Caveat emptor means “buyer beware,” that only makes sense within a free market, where the consumer has many choices and must be able to wisely choose the right product (and avoid bad ones). Under the monopolies and robber barons, there was no free market to navigate, and “buyer beware” becomes meaningless. If it applies to the monopolies, where else does the consumer beware? You are telling him to beware of the only choice on the market! Of course, educated consumers could perhaps prevent a monopoly from forming in the first place, but once it has formed, how is “buyer beware” going to help? So, I support both ‘caveat emptor” and regulation of monopolies and robber barons.

'''H5. What is your view of John D. Rockefeller?''' John D. Rockefeller, first of all, was not the worst of the robber barons. Unlike Carnegie, who specifically disavowed Christianity in favor of Social Darwinism, Rockefeller thanked God for his success and made his motto “Gain all you can, save all you can, and give all you can.” Rockefeller thus viewed his enterprise through a Christian lens, reminiscent of the parable of the talents. However, Rockefeller’s business practices had an unmistakable influence of “survival of the fittest,” or Social Darwinism. He also supported eugenics and population control, which are, from a Christian perspective, dubious at best. Overall, however, Rockefeller seems to have been a sincere and good man, and, for what it’s worth, an excellent monopolist!

Homework Nine Answers - Student Four

2011-04-14T15:59:38Z

AddisonDM: Created page with "~~~~"

[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:59, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

Planned obsolescence

2011-03-23T19:38:45Z

AddisonDM:

'''Planned obsolescence''' refers to manufacturing or marketing techniques generally designed to artificially shorten the life of a product, either by making it actually useless, or appear useless before it would naturally. There are several similar but subtly different types of planned obsolescence.

It should be noted that most of these types of obsolescence can and do occur naturally, without any intent to create the obsolescence. Obsolescence may be the result of true progress in developing industries such as the computer industry.

==Types of Planned Obsolescence==

*''Obsolescence of function'': This refers to when an item is produced to break down or otherwise become non-functional in an abnormally short period of time. It may also refer to cases where an item is rendered non-functional but where the item itself still works: e.g. the creation of a new cell phone network that is incompatible with earlier cell phones. Obsolescence of function is sometimes simply shoddy workmanship (though not all poor workmanship is an attempt at planned obsolescence).

*''Obsolescence of style'': This refers to the the obsolescence of items such as clothing, fashion accessories, and home decorating products due to changes in style. For example, if the fashion trend is for high skirts, low skirts will be rendered stylistically obsolete. In some cases, style changes are so great that old styles would look out of place or ridiculous.

*''Technical obsolescence'': This refers to the obsolescence of an older item caused by the creation of a newer item performing the same function, e.g. a digital camera that takes higher quality photos. While the older item still performs the function in question, it is comparatively inferior to the newer item.

==Other Examples==
One of the most egregious examples of planned obsolescence is the rechargeable batteries commonly contained in small electronic devices such as MP3 players, PDAs, and some cell phones (such as the iPhone). The batteries are often soldered into the unit, making replacement almost impossible for the average user (some companies such as Apple do offer battery replacement for a considerable fee). Some of these batteries also contain circuits that regulate and limit the number of charging cycles the battery will take before it fails to charge, limiting the useful life of the battery, and consequently the unit itself. This strategy is even readily admitted by the product developers themselves; a product development firm states, "Cell phones have proprietary lithium batteries that can be charged and discharged for a limited number of times. After the battery stops retaining charge it has to be replaced. The cost of replacing the proprietary battery is often about the same as replacing the cell phone."<ref>http://www.fast-product-development.com/obsolescence-management.html</ref>

Another example of planned obsolescence is items that warn the user when it is time to replace them, such as the fading colored strips on razors or the low ink warnings for ink jet cartridges. Generally printers will display low ink warnings even when a considerable amount of ink remains, and many printers actually stop printing once the low ink warning has appeared, regardless of how much ink is actually left. Some cartridges still contain than 40% of their ink when they display a low ink warning.<ref>http://www.pcworld.com/article/152953/how_much_ink_is_left_in_that_dead_cartridge.html</ref>

One kind of planned obsolescence has the same effect as technical obsolescence, but it is slightly different; sometimes a company will incrementally introduce features into a product even if it would not cost much more for all of the features to be in a product. For example, a new feature might be added to a GPS every new model, making the new one slightly better than the old one.

Often, batteries for cordless power tools will change such that batteries for working but older tools can no longer be acquired at reasonable prices. This forces the consumer to buy a new tool set when in reality only a new battery is required.

==Arguments==
Planned obsolescence is commonly criticized by social critics as a wasteful attempt simply to sell more items. However, marketers, if they admit to using planned obsolescence, generally describe it as a means of making newer, better products affordable and available. For example, if a company designed its MP3 player to last 10 years, then a) it would cost more, and b), consumers would not update it with a better unit because they paid more for it.

==Value Engineering==
Some product design strategies that are indistinguishable from planned obsolescence are actually meant to provide a more affordable product to the consumer. These strategies are known as "value engineering", the purpose of which is to create the most suitable product at the lowest possible cost.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/value-engineering</ref> Value engineering may be considered a form of planned obsolescence, but it does necessarily carry the same negative connotation.

An example of value engineering would be building a computer to last only a few years, since by then it would be superseded by better technology anyway. If the old computer were built to last 20 years, it would presumably cost more, which would be wasteful since the computer would be technically obsolete in only about four years (of course, this is negative for anyone who would intend to keep their computer appreciably longer than four years).

==See Also==
*[[Vance Packard]]
*[[Consumerism]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Liberal denial

2011-03-21T20:26:25Z

AddisonDM:

Editing is disabled on this page. Why? I want to contribute content. That's the whole point of a wiki. If you don't want people contributing content without your permission then this is nothing more than a blog.

Hi there. I read this article and, while I don't deny every item on the list, I do deny the majority of them. I think this confirms my liberal bias. But, it doesn't tell me if a liberal bias is a good thing (i.e. is grounded in reality). However, there is one liberal denial that is clearly testable: English will cease to be the official language of America in 20 years unless it is protected. I do deny that and in 20 short years I will know if that denial is correct or erroneous. I am willing to bet any "conservative" that this statement is wrong. Any takers?

Some people have been wondering where all the citations are for these. Well one is easy enough to find. #8 a woman significantly reduces her risk of breast cancer by having children rather than abortions. You can easily go to the American Cancer Society and see the following "Induced abortion: Several studies have provided very strong data that neither induced abortions nor spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) have an overall effect on the risk of breast cancer." Oh wait, I guess that kinda disproves/blows that argument out of the water.

One might say there's a such thing as conservative denial as well. One just might. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:13, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:Surely the collapse of the Soviet Bloc due to its utter inability to manage a moder economy had a bigger impact that Reagan's words? Come on, this is facile at best. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: See? You help illustrate our point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

::: Uh? What he's saying sounds far more logical. With the Soviet Union in pieces, there was no reason for them to be controlling half of Germany. Thus, Germany was reunited,and the wall dismantled. Claiming it was simply Reagen's command that did it is... Well, bloody stupid at best. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:14, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Um, Reagan called on Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down in 1987. The Wall fell in November 1989. When George HW Bush was President. And when the Soviet Union had realised that its hold on Eastern Europe was no longer possible, due to its economic collapse. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Really??? You mean that the Wall didn't fall the very next day after Reagan's speech??? Thanks for demonstrating how this point is an example of [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: ... Either you never learned proper English, or you really need to crack open a textbook, man. I strongly advise rewriting that so it doesn't look like you're accusing him of denying the Berlin Wall (I assume that's what you meant, and not the Pink Floyd movie) fell the day after Reagan's speech, as if that was what happened. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: Quite correct, the wall did not fall the next day - or the next week, or the next month. It fell almost two and a half years later. You might as well credit President Kennedy for its fall by objecting to it in 1963 with his "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I know this seems a silly, liberal question to ask...but where is all the reference material for these points? I thought this was an informative encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The truth shall set you free, after all.[[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 07:56 13 February 2008 (CST)

:Yes, the second Conservapedia commandment says "Always cite and give credit to your sources" - yet in this article there is hardly any source given for any of the asssertions. I find the examples in the article very informative, but I'd sure like to see some sources. I'd be very interested, for example, to see evidence of a liberal denial of the foundation of democracy in Protestant Christianity. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, this entry really gets under the skin of [[liberal]]s, doesn't it? Citations are easy to find for each point and will be filled in. Instead of complaining with talk, talk, talk, how about filling in some citations yourself?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:05, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::OK - sorry - good point - will do! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Not Fair! ==

Come on people, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a summary of an [[Ann Coulter]] book [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:Oh come on, we all know democracy had nothing to do with the Greeks or the Iroquois. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Aside from that, the entire concept is a catch-22: Anyone who denies any of those things is automatically a liberal, and if they deny that, well, that's only further proof they're liberals. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Barikada, how do the Greeks fit here?
[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

::The first democractic system resembling current democracy was implemented by the Greeks, if evil public schooling hasn't lied to me. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:30, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Abortions and breast cancer ==

Is it ''plainly true'' that abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer?

My understanding is that such a claim is not supported by the medical literature. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Your understanding is from [[liberal denial]]s. Yes, it is "plainly true" and undeniable, just as no one denies that childbirth reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Don't be fooled by liberal denials - the truth shall set you free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::See? Catch-22. Do you have a reputable medical source for this, Mr. Schlafly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::I was thinking of this: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage for example (although I note that it is a few years old). It concludes that there is no increase in risk. It seems to me that if the National Cancer Institute says there is no increase in the risk then it is a bit of a stretch to say that it is ''plainly true'' that the risk increase exists. Surely you can't really call something plainly true when it goes against wht the experts are saying. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::So, should we remove the abortion/breast cancer comment from the article? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 20:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Folks, go somewhere else to engage in [[liberal denial]]s. Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::::: "Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer." This logic is plainly faulty. A woman has a certain percentage chance of having breast cancer. Having a child lowers that percentage. You are arguing that ''not'' having a child increases that risk. This is wrong. Not having a child leaves the risk unchanged. Its possible that having an abortion, in and of itself, increases the risk, but that is not what you've claimed, and is not, to my knowledge, supported by any evidence.

:::::"Nobody honest denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and thus having an abortion must increase the relative risk of the mother for breast cancer." --Aschlafly Andy, that's like saying that eating too much sodium is bad for you (Something no honest person disagrees with), so therefore, eating absolutely no sodium is good for you(Something which would prove fatal). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 21:53, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: You statement has no logic. Nothing in my statement had anything to do with quantity or frequency, and your analogy has no basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::My statement has as much logic as your's. This is good, therefore, this is bad (Or vice-versa). [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Your analogy is nonsensical, and I'm not going to allow [[last wordism]] for such nonsense. No one sincerely and knowingly denies that childbirth reduces the risk of breast cancer, and of course the inverse is also true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Last wordism? Really? That's the best you can do? [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 22:14, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::You refuse to allow last wordism? Doesn't that mean that you're demanding the last word? And isn't that a trait of liberals, according to you? Doesn't that make you a closet liberal, Andy? Don't you see how the accusation of last wordism is in and of itself last wordism? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 11:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)

If childbirth decreases the risk of [[breast cancer]], than conversely [[abstinence]] increases the risk of breast cancer. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:46, 2 February 2008 (EST)

: Curses! That's exactly what I was going to say. Aschlafly's argument is utterly misguided. The woman concerned has the same cancer risk as if she was never pregnant. Is that an increased risk??? Do we now go and edit the [[abstinence]] page to say that abstinence increases the risk of cancer? [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 17:20, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:: Nice try folks, but you just continue to prove the point about [[liberal denial]]. Abortion does plainly increase the risk of breast cancer. The more abortions now, the more cases of breast cancer in the future. Continue to deny it and thereby continue to demonstrate liberal denial. As to abstinence, for the unmarried it is the best way to avoid cervical and breast cancer and far better than cancer-causing birth control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 2 February 2008 (EST)

:::I'm sorry Andy. That was rude of me, and I apologize. But I am genuinely confused at this point. How is abstinence the "best way to avoid cervival and breast cancer"??? With respect to [[breast cancer]] risk, what is the difference between [[abortion|aborting]] several babies or simply remaining [[abstinence|abstinent]] throughout the same time period? Actually I do think that there is a reason here and I've missed it, at least it certainly seems like that. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:25, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Feebasfactor, thanks for your apology. The decision that a pregnant mother faces is whether to allow childbirth or have an abortion. Abstinence is irrelevant to that decision. Having the abortion increases her risk of breast cancer. There's no denying it, much as [[liberal]]s try. Study our [[abortion]] entry if you really want further explanation. There's no need for me to repeat that entry here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::: I have been watching this discussion with increasing dismay. Perhaps it would be easier, Andy, if I put it in story form for you.

::::: Let’s contemplate a story of two young women. We shall call one Mary and the other Jezebel. Now Mary has evil atheist parents and has been brought up in the absence of the Ten Commandments and without clear moral guidelines. Jezebel, on the other hand, is the daughter of committed Christians and knows right from wrong. In particular she practices abstinence and, accordingly is saving herself for her future husband. Mary, however, is wanton and, with no moral guidance, becomes pregnant to her slacker boyfriend Cory. Upon learning the news Cory immediately decamps for Canada. Due to her total lack of knowledge of God’s wishes, Mary has an abortion.

::::: Which of the two young women has a greater risk of getting breast cancer?

::::: P.S. Could you please unlock the Conservative Denial page. I’ve just had an idea about what to put in it. .--[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 16:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: Not able to respond? Doesn't surprise me. The answer is neither.

:::::: Which leads me to an observation. See in the article how you accuse liberals of concealing, denying or censoring the way in which their ideology is pushed on unsuspecting others, particularly youngsters?

:::::: In light of this discussion I guess that's what you might call ironic, isn't it? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 00:04, 8 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: Your hypothetical has no bearing with respect to a woman choosing between having an abortion or carrying the pregnancy to birth. Factually, by the way, the woman who has the abortion has greater risk of breast cancer. As to "conservative denial," just suggest it here. No need for a special page for just one not-yet-made suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 8 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: On the contrary, my hypothetical was exactly on point. All you have been saying is, in effect, that child birth protects you against breast cancer. It was pointed out to you that the logical result of that was that abstinence causes breast cancer in the same way that abortion causes breast cancer (i.e. both prevent one from having a child). You seem determined to just ignore the logic. Fine. No doubt those reading this page will have no difficulty seeing that for what it is.

:::::::: You now appear to be making a new claim to the effect that the woman having the abortion has a higher risk than the abstinent woman.

:::::::: Do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for that claim? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 18:17, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Caroline, the woman who chooses abortion over childbirth thereby increases her risk of breast cancer. She should be told that before taking that risk. Yes, our entry on [[abortion]] has many citations for this. It is not even seriously disputed, except to advance the pro-abortion agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 10 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: OK then. Let's recap.

:::::::::: 1. You agree (although you seem utterly incapable of actually typing it) that in my example both Mary and Jezebel have the same breast cancer risk at the conclusion of the story.

:::::::::: 2. Any increased risk that you are claiming is related to whether or not a woman has a child rather than whether or not a woman has an abortion. A woman could, for example, have an abortion at the age of 20 and a child at the age of 21 and enjoy the very same risk level that she would have had if she had never had the abortion.

:::::::::: 3. Presumably you are of the view that any woman who is contemplating a life of abstinence should be warned of the breast cancer risk associated with that lifestyle.

:::::::::: I'm glad we seem to have sorted all of that out. --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 20:29, 10 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: The only thing you've "sorted" out is your clinging to [[liberal denial]]. [[Abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer for more than one reason, and abstinence is irrelevant to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:03, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::: This is the second time recently that you have resorted to an ad hominem attack. I usually take it as a sign that my interlocutor has a weak argument. That certainly appears to be the case here.

:::::::::::: You have stated that, in your view, "abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ''for more than one reason''". Our discussion to date was largely premised on your somewhat bizzare interpretation of a connection between childbirth and breast cancer. You now seem to be changing that by referring to "more than one reason". What does that mean? Could you please identify those reasons. And, I ask again, do you have a '''reputable''' medical citation for your claims. I posted the URL of the National Cancer Institute on the subject. That page states, in part:

::::::::::::: ''"In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer".''

:::::::::::: Do you have some higher or better authority? --[[User:CarolineMilton|CarolineMilton]] 17:07, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Wow, 100 [[liberals]] denied how abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Yes, there is better authority, like the vast majority of scientific studies on the topic. Read [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: I'm sure Caroline thanks you for that detailed response. Unfortunately she has been blocked for 5 years as a troll.

:::::::::::::: I must say, however, I am curious to know how you determined that "...over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk" actually meant "100 liberals".

:::::::::::::: Is that what they call ex post facto reasoning? Or do you know the politics of each individual involved? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 19:02, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::: Read [[abortion]] and its explanation of the breast cancer link. If you still deny the link, then take your denials elsewhere. We recognize that you have free will and that liberals will deny certain truths regardless of the evidence. We're not going to allow [[last wordism]] for chanting a [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::: Thanks, that's what I thought. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 19:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::: It is a good article and it cites a [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf solid study] in its references. However, there is something I've noticed about many controversial issues: for every study strongly asserting one thing, there'll be another asserting just the [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280 opposite]. Perhaps one is a legitimate study and the other is merely [[junk science]] [[propaganda]] - but if I assume as much, what am I to base that conclusion on? Other studies of the same nature? My personal [[ideology]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:58, 13 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: Feebasfactor, you seem to be saying there is no such thing as truth. Well, there is truth and studies and logic can find it. In the case of abortion increasing breast cancer, both studies and logic support it. Only [[liberal denial]] stands in the way of everyone recognizing the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:49, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::Hmm, I'm sorry, that's not quite what I wanted to say. I agree there's truth, I suppose I just think it's hard to find sometimes, like when some studies actually point the other way. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:10, 14 February 2008 (EST)

<---undent
It really is a question on the nature of scientific knowledge. Given that humans are imperfect, we must interpret our environment imperfectly. The tools of science, mathematics, and statistics help us describe that reality, and religion helps us give it meaning and purpose. What happens when our scientific knowledge collides with our moral understanding of the world? Do we change our morals? Of course not. Do we change scientific fact? No, certainly not. The only choice is to take those facts, and use our morals to understand them better. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the critic above is right, and that breast cancer and abortion are unrelated (hypothetically!) That doesn't make abortion morally right. It doesn't affect the morality of abortion in the least. Abortion is wrong either way. It seems silly to hang onto an idea in order to support a moral reality---we already know what is moral, we don't need to twist science to support it. Science has a different role. [[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 23:24, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Nice try in expressing [[liberal denial]] in an attractive way. It's still [[liberal denial]]. Would you also deny that 2+2=4? The increase in breast cancer caused by abortion is no less logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:: Doesn't 2+2=10? [[User:Eris|Eris]] 18:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::Sir, I never denied your assertion about breast cancer and abortion. I was making a more general point about the nature of knowledge and morality, and the fact that knowledge changes, while morality is timeless/permanent and cannot be altered by scientific fact, one way or the other. I must say, your ad hominem attack was quite unjustified.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 23:41, 13 February 2008 (EST)
::: Your general point is quite correct. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::: I reread your posting, RobertK, and it does implicitly deny that abortion causes breast cancer. I don't know why you deny that now. The clear theme of your posting is that abortion does not cause breast cancer, but can be immoral anyway. Abortion does increase the risk of breast cancer regardless of its immorality, and let's not pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::With all respect, Mr S, I think you misread my posting. PJR apparently read ''all'' the words. I set up a ''hypothetical'' situation in which the two things, abortion and breast cancer, are not linked. Hypothetical means, basically, let's pretend. I used a hypothetical to show that it can be dangerous to look for moral teachings in science, since morality is a permanent, unchanging quality of the Divine, whereas science is the imperfect human approach to understanding the natural world. To base moral decisions on science is a fool's errand. Abortion is either moral or immoral, and whether or not it is related to breast cancer is a matter of science, not of morality. If this issue is too complex as stated, I can try to make it simpler for you, but it is important...it goes to the heart of how to approach moral decision making.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 22:14, 14 February 2008 (EST)
:::::I think it was just a misunderstanding... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:27, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::: A few comments: First, rereading your (RobertK's) post, whilst I am not changing my comment that your general point is quite correct, the second-last sentence ("It seems silly ...") does appear as though it was written from the perspective that the scientific argument in this case is wrong. Personally, and because this is not explicit and not clear and may not be so, I don't believe that it's grounds for criticism, but perhaps that's what Andy was referring to. Regarding your latest post, whilst I don't ''really'' disagree with anything you said, I would qualify/clarify it by saying that if something is immoral, it will have consequences, so one should expect to be able to find those consequences, and science might be very useful for this. There is therefore nothing wrong with citing scientific evidence, even though, as you say, the scientific evidence should not be the ''basis'' of the moral argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

: can i just say that it seems to me that the only logical link between abortion and breast cancer, is that woman who has a child is able to breastfeed said child, thus clearing the breast of impurities etc, and that a woman who has an abortion is NOT able to breastfeed. Would someone be able to clarify this for me??? --[[User:Johnb|Johnb]] 21:50, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

:: [[Abortion]] interrupts the natural process of breast development. Abortion leaves the breast with more cells that can become cancerous. Third trimester hormones (in the absence of abortion) changes these pre-cancerous cells into cancer-resistant, milk-producing tissue. Now, do you think the abortion industry and their political allies are ever going to admit that? How long did it take for tobacco companies to admit that smoking causes cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

::: two things: 1) I am a sixteen year old male from Australia, and i try to take a completly neutral stance on everything (the examiners from the Board of Studies like it if you present only the facts without the politics) 2) Andy, i'm still slightly confused. Although I agree that Abortion may be one of the causes of breast cancer (or at least increase the risk of it), I still don't understand how abortion creates more cells in the breast (you said "leaves the breast with '''more''' cells") Thank you so much if you can clarify this (again) for me --[[User:Johnb|Johnb]] 07:24, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Hello, andy, are you there??? Feel free to reply any day now... --[[User:Johnb|Johnb]] 08:45, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

===Sources in the Abortion Article===

The sources got brought up earlier in this discussion, so I thought I'd quickly skim through them

* [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf JPands] states that giving birth decreases the risk of breast cancer, not that an abortion will actually increase it relative to having not gotten pregnant
* [http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm The BCP Institute] states that abortion will increase the risk of breast cancer relative to carrying out the pregnancy, however does not state that abortion will increase the risk relative to having not gotten pregnant
* [http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/032801.htm The Abortion Breast Cancer page] states that women who give birth will have a lower risk of breast cancer than those who abort, however does not state that abortion increases the risk relative to having not gotten pregnant.

My understanding from the reading of these is that although a person who got pregnant and had an abortion will be at a heightened risk of cancer compared to if they had gone ahead with the childbirth, a person who got pregnant and had an abortion will '''not''' be at any increased risk relative to a person who did not get pregnant in the first place. Therefore it is more correct to say that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth offers, rather than saying that it actually increase the risk of abortion.

Having said that, I haven't had time to review the sources not available on the internet, or properly read through all of the ones provided. That said, if they follow the general theme which permeates both the neutral and conservative views then the answer to CarolineMilton's original anecdote is that the person who got pregnant and had an abortion will be at the same risk of breast cancer as the abstinent virgin who never got pregnant in the first place.

Feel free to refute me if my reading was in error. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 05:50, 14 February 2008 (EST)

: Your summary of a sample of the articles is a distortion. Abortion does increase a pregnant woman's risk of breast cancer and she should be told that. The increase in risk is not merely due to a lack of childbirth, but even if it were, that is still an increase in risk and the woman should still be told that. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I will neither agree nor disagree at this time, because I have not had sufficient time to properly read through the sources. Perhaps you could assist me by providing the specific section of a source which states that abortion increases the risk independently of child birth.

::That said I do believe that a medical patient should be given all available information, it forms the basis of consent in medicine. That said, the information needs to be delivered properly, if my original summary was correct then it would be wrong to say that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, rather it fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth brings. I'll have a closer look through the sources when I get home, expect an answer then, although if you point to the specific section which states that abortion increases the risk without considering childbirth that would be a great help. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 17:01, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::: TheGuy, you're still fighting the truth. A pregnant woman considering [[abortion]] makes a choice: increase her risk of breast cancer by having the abortion, or not. The doctor should tell her that the procedure increases her risk of having breast cancer. Agreed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::: TheGuy, here are a few sources asserting links between abortion and breast cancer independant of the cancer-risk reducing effect of childbirth.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf] [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf] There are others quoted in the [[abortion]] arcticle. Read them through and consider. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:20, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::::I apologise, I don't have time at the moment to conduct extensive research on the topics. Although I will concede that the articles do mention that abortion can increase risk independent of childbirth, the overwhelming number of studies seem to show that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth offers, rather than being an independent risk factor, a view echoed in both the sources provided. Again, I cannot properly comment until I have adequately reviewed the studies.

:::::Andy, I have already stated that I believe that medical patients should be informed of all the risks surrounding their electives. However, care must be taken in order to ensure that this information is accurate. If it is shown that the risk of breast cancer is increased independent of childbirth then by all means the woman should be informed that abortion will elevate her chances of getting breast cancer. However, if a majority of studies show that abortion only increases risk relative to a person who carries out the childbirth then the woman should be informed that abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that giving birth provides, a correct statement which does not unduly incite fear or distort the facts. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 18:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: TheGuy, you would have made a good apologist for the tobacco industry. It denied increasing the risk of lung cancer for decades. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Your attempt at obfuscation by restating that as "abortion fails to provide the decrease in risk that giving birth provides" is as confusing as it is nonsensical. "Fails to provide the decrease" is a compound negative, and an example of [[liberal obfuscation]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)

No I would not make a good apologist for the tobacco industry, because smoking does increase the risk of lung cancer independently of any other factors. The issue at hand is whether abortion increases the risk of breast cancer independently to the decease in risk offered by birth.

Assuming that my position is correct, then it would be wrongful to state that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Consider the following scenario:

''Person A gets pregnant and has an abortion''

''Person B does not get pregnant''

My understanding is that both of these would have the same risk of getting breast cancer, therefore it would be wrong to state that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Instead, if we add a third person:

''Person A gets pregnant and has an abortion''

''Person B does not get pregnant''

''Person C gets pregnant and gives birth''

In this case, person C would be at a lower risk of breast cancer to person A or B, therefore it is not that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, instead it fails to provide the decrease in risk that childbirth brings.

If we do insist on stating that abortion leads to an increase in the risk of breast cancer then we might as well say abstinance does the same thing, as it prevents a person getting pregnant, which in turn prevents them from giving birth which in turn prevents them from getting a decrease in risk of breast cancer.

And yes I am aware of the studies that abortion independently leads to breast cancer, however I have not had time to research them properly, and do not like commenting on things I know nothing about. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 19:42, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::Nice effort, but there's not much point in trying to educate those who either are incapable or unwilling to understand statistics. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:46, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::Exactly what is the purpose of this Wiki? It seems that one conservative here has been out-argued by many, many more conservatives; therefore, if the purpose of this Wiki is to broadcast the generally conservative viewpoint, then the page should be duly edited. Otherwise, we might have to accuse the wiki manager of fascism, which is a liberal philosophy.

::::The purpose of this wiki is to learn and explain. That requires an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]]. Give it a try, and your only regret will be that you didn't open your mind sooner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:11, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

==Suggestion for Item 11==
That denying any above is intrinsic proof of this list's accuracy, unquestionability, and the need not to offer proof for anything. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:52, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==#9 Reversion?==
So, I'm wondering why my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_denial&diff=385690&oldid=385544 change] to #9 was reverted. Seems to me that liberals don't deny that the media is biased, they just deny that it is biased in ''their'' favor. I don't have a huge problem with the difference, I'm just wondering as to the rationale.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:16, 9 February 2008 (EST)

: It's a close call, but I agree with the reversion though I didn't do it. Liberals generally do deny media bias, period. They only make arguments of conservative bias in response to observations of liberal bias.

: Moreover, "liberal media bias" is a bit redundant, as virtually all of the media has a liberal bias, It's intrinsic to that profession, with the media's reliance on deception (to exaggerate and sell the news), constant travel (which is the antithesis of family life), dependence on obscenity and allusions to obscenity, its political correctness, and its obsession with racial imagery.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 9 February 2008 (EST)
::Fair enough...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:27, 10 February 2008 (EST)

== 'Hollywood Values' ==

The part about Wikipedia 'not having an entry on Hollywood Values', should really be removed, for the very simple reason that this phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. As such, I would not be too surprised if the reason Wikipedia doesn't have an entry is simply because it is far too difficult to accurately define.
Oh, and, yes, I will also make this point on the talk page of the 'Hollywood Values' article. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:44, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Wikipedia has entries about terms have more than one meaning all the time. In fact, that simply argues ''in favor of'' having an entry. But put up an entry on "Hollywood Values" on Wikipedia and watch how quickly a liberal insists that it be deleted (censored).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 13 February 2008 (EST)
::That is true, WP wouldn't have a page called '''Hollywood Values''' because in posting one it would be (quickly) recognized as "original research", something the WP guidelines consider ''verbotten.'' [[User:JoeManga|JoeManga]] 16:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:: Wikipedia has terms with more than one meaning, yes, but those have a relatively small number of known meanings. 'Hollywood Values', conversely, has been used to mean a very large number of things already, and seems to be changed to mean just about anything depending on who uses it and in what context. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:24, 13 February 2008 (EST)

On a related note - should this article perhaps contain a section on the [[Hollywood Blacklist]]? Or can that not really be considered a part of Hollywood Values...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 February 2008 (EST)

: Liberals denying there were communists in high-level government positions? Yes, that is old news but perhaps worth adding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::(Sorry if that seemed like a bit of a non-sequitur, I actually posted that in the wrong article talk page) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Fall of communism in Europe ==
Shouldn't some credit also be given to [[Margaret Thatcher]]? Our article on her partially addresses this, but it is because of her that free market capitalism's successes were demonstrated to Europe. While Reagan may have helped end communism in Europe, Thatcher definitely made the alternative more appealing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:22, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopaedia... ==
But this page reads more like a tabloid article than anything. "Top ten instances of liberal denial"? According to who, exactly? It's no wonder that this website is so widely regarded as a joke when you have pages like this one dedicated to ignorant generalisations about so called 'liberals'. Maybe if you dedicated more time toward writing articles on things like history, and less time making bigoted assumptions about everyone, people would start taking this website seriously. Unlikely, though.
--[[User:Gladstone|Gladstone]]

:You thought way wrong, as you have obviously discovered. Here you shall learn that denial is the hallmark of every liberal. In fact, liberals often shockingly deny that they are liberals! However, they are easily detected by their frequent use of mockery and sighs. Speaking of which, I suspect you are a liberal. I would ask you to explain your positions on a number of issues, including gun control, censorship of school prayer, abortion, and intelligent design, but I am already 95% certain of those positions. Gladstone, indeed. [[User:AodhMor|AodhMor]] 12:37, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

== Justifying statement 3 ==

On line 3, it states that "the intellectual justification for Hitler's attempt to build a master Aryan race was the theory of evolution". I see no proof in this. Can someone please provide a source for such information?

: Did you look yourself? It took me less than one minute to find a source: [http://www.christiantreasury.com/Apologetics/Apologetic_Atheism.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Your source, Aschlafly, clearly has an agenda. Can you find a neutral source?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:11, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
: So the strength of their argument doesn't count, only your opinion that they have an agenda? I don't know what makes you think that they have an agenda, but I reckon by the same logic that ''you'' have an agenda in asking, so should we dismiss your question just as readily? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: Excellent point, Philip. AdenJ, ''everyone'' has an "agenda" and it is absurd to pretend otherwise. You're not fooling anyone, AdenJ, to the extent you may pretend not to have an agenda. This site exists in part because we reject the falsehoods of other sites (such as Wikipedia) that pretend to be neutral when, of course, they really aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:35, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

And I was so sure I had fooled you! Darn it!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 10:25, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

On the second list, item number 3: What belief? Just curious. And how is murder the logical conclusion of atheism? As far as I know, the atheist population has a lower crime rate and much lower murder rate than the rest of the population, in the US at least.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 18:14, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Evolution and Hitler ==

This article says Liberals deny that "the intellectual justification for Hitler's attempt to build a master Aryan race was the theory of evolution." That's actually inaccurate. Hitler applied the concept of "survival of the fittest," as proposed in ''The Descent of Man''. Survival of the fittest and evolution are different concepts. "Evolution" refers to the cumulative changes in a species over time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection. More details here: [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html]
:More evidence on that note: [http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/beyond-darwin-eugenics-social-darwinism-and-the-social-theory-of-the-natural-selection-of-humans/ Kara Rogers's article], [http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/SocDarw.htm a few paragraphs from the College of DuPage] Cheers, —[[User talk:Trustworthiness|Trustworthiness]]

==Nobel Prize to just "Liberals" ==

At the top of the list, as number one, there is the statement: "liberals deny the Nobel Prize is an award given by liberals to other liberals, sometimes granted in an awkward manner designed to punish a critic of liberal falsehoods " Didn't Mother Teresa win the Nobel Peace prize in 1979? Lech Walesa won it in 1983? You consider them "liberals"? --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 10:21, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

== Bible ==
would it be ok to add ,"Liberals deny that the Biblical canon was fully revealed and complete a century after the Lord's death" as opposed to the general lie that the Bible is a mish mash of competing gnostic and late Roman pegan-theist beleifs..? - Glenn.

:I find this suggestion -- your only edit -- to be unusual. Matthew and John were probably writing parts of their Gospels before the Resurrection. And, by there was the Resurrection, not "the Lord's death" and nothing more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 2 January 2010 (EST)

: I'm sorry Mr.Schlafly, I think you mistook me, I meant , that it seems to me that liberals deny that the Bible was written soon after the life of Christ on earth. Liberals tend towards that Davinci code trollop about gnostic mystics and secret revisions. The foundation of any conservative is a strong belief in our scripture, wouldn't you agree?. - Glenn

== Global Cooling ==

Denial #5 appears to violate the 2nd Conservapedia commandment.
:And that statement violates the 5th commandment, giving a liberal opinion instead of actually questioning whether it is the liberal science institution spreading fear and lies. [[User:RichardKerry|RichardKerry]] 17:14, 19 April 2010 (EDT)

== Question about this page ==

Does this refer to US liberals mainly? I ask because the liberal party of Australia is closer to the Republican party of the US. I am not very "up with the play" when it comes to US politics. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:45, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, it refers to US liberals mainly (who generally belong to the Democratic Party). More generally it refers to the philosophy or ideology of [[liberalism]]. See that article for what we mean by "liberalism".

Conservative Judaism

2011-03-21T19:41:48Z

AddisonDM:

'''Conservative Judaism''' (also known as '''Masorti Judaism''' outside of America) is a denomination of [[Judaism]] that arose out of intellectual currents in [[Germany]] in the mid-19th century and took institutional form in the [[United States]] in the early 1900s.
[[category:Judaism]]
Conservative Judaism has its roots in the school of thought known as Positive-Historical Judaism, developed in 1850s [[Germany]] as a reaction to the more liberal religious positions taken by [[Reform Judaism]]. The term ''conservative'' was meant to signify that Jews should attempt to ''conserve'' Jewish tradition, rather than reform or abandon it, and not the movement's adherents are politically [[conservative]].
The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is the central authority on halakha within Conservative Judaism. It is one of the most active and widely known committees in the Conservative movement's Rabbinical Assembly.
Sadly, today the Comitte is corrupted by [[liberal]] Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff. He and his followers have allowed sodomites to be ordained as Rabbis.
==Israel==
The first Masorti communities in the [[State of Israel]] were founded in 1979 by North American olim. The movement now has some 50 congregations in Israel, with a membership of approximately 50,000,[http://web.archive.org/web/20070522000543/http://www.masorti.org/about/about.html] and its progams reach some 125,000 each year. In addition to its kehillot and chavurot maintains a [[kibbutz]] (Kibbutz Hanaton), a [[moshav]] (Moshav Shorashim), Native Israelis and olim from non-English speaking countries now make up about 60% of the Israeli Masorti population, the remaining 40% are North American olim.[http://web.archive.org/web/20070519072540/http://www.masorti.org/about/faqs.html] The movement is supported by the Masorti Foundation for Conservative Judaism in Israel, an American organization which provides funding to Masorti programs.
==References==
* [http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/rl/jcu-index.html]
* [http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/02-03.html An intro to Conservative Judaism]
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20080408210854/http://uscj.org/Revised_Congregation5973.html Standards for Congregational Practice]
* [http://www.jtsa.edu/Conservative_Judaism/CJ_Folder/The_Sacred_Cluster.xml The Core Principles of Conservative Judaism]
*[http://www.masorti.org.il/en/page.php?pageId=109 Conservative Jews in Israel]
* [http://www.uscj.org/Formulating_Jewish_L5454.html Formulating Jewish Law For Our Time]
* [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=Dstt4jyJGqwC&dq=%22guide+to+jewish+religious+practice%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=HIBak_JI44&sig=H8-RrIBkBLn-CRv85mqhg98Oe14 A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice – Official work on Jewish law]

Scott Walker

2011-03-21T01:13:56Z

AddisonDM: Reverted edits by SvenL (talk) to last revision by MaxFletcher

{{Officeholder
|name=Scott Walker
|image=Scott walker.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Tonette Walker
|religion=Evangelical Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Wisconsin
|terms=January 3, 2011 - Present
|preceded=Jim Doyle
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
}}

'''Scott Kevin Walker''' (born November 2, 1967 in Colorado Springs, Colorado) currently serves as Governor of [[Wisconsin]], and is a member of the [[Republican Party]]. Previously he was Executive of Milwaukee County and a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly.

Scott Walker became a leader of [[conservatives]] nationwide when he supported and then signed into law a repeal of the collective bargaining rights of most government workers. Walker took this historic step to prevent the state from continuing on a path of financial ruin.

==Budget Deficit==
Wisconsin has a budget deficit of more than $3 billion. Instead of raising taxes, the governor has set out on a mission to reduce costs across the board and to make Wisconsin a business-friendly state. The state's labor union are in an uproar and are protesting Walker's decision to end union collective bargaining and force employees to fund part of their pensions, as well as contribute to their own health and life insurance.
==External Links==
*[http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/ Governor of Wisconsin Official Site]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Wisconsin Governors]]

User talk:AddisonDM

2011-03-19T19:15:54Z

AddisonDM:

<s> </s>[[File:A Merry Christmas neon.jpg|center|300px]]
----

{{Welcome}}
Hey!! Welcome to Conservapedia. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 13:40, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

'''[[User talk:AddisonDM/archive1|Archive #1]]'''

== Idiots ==

Sorry, didn't see you had posted to the user, will unblock him, let you decide. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:53, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:17, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

== Galatians question ==
Sorry if this sounds sarcastic or something, but what about the accounts of "hermaphrodites" or "androgynous people"? Do those count towards "male" or "female"? Just wondering, since I'm not too well versed in the Bible anymore. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]] 12:54, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

:What verses is that in? Biologically, I really don't know how you would class those people. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:28, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
::It's the quote on your user page. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]] 13:57, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Oh haha. I don't know. I guess it depends on how you define gender, which could be by appearance, by genetics (maybe) or something. The point of the verse though is just to illustrate that every kind of person can be united in Christ. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:59, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

==Moving==
Thanks for cleaning all that up, now to work on those German football pages again! Yay, more tedious copying and pasting! :) [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:51, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
::Actually that was my assignment for me. Sorry for any offense caused or any misunderstanding that may have occurred. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:55, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

:::No I know that, I mean thanks for "cleaning all that up"! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:57, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

== Please block Dodger ==

Vandal/parodist. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 13:23, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

== Sorry... ==

I forgot to do what I promised you I would....but noticed you at least finally put them back. Sorry for my lack of mental acuity, Addison. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:10, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

:lol that's okay! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:57, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

== Vandals ==

Good work! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:10, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks! It's getting to be almost boring! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:14, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

== Featured articles ==

Your help is needed. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:48, 1 August 2009 (EDT) --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:53, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
: Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 22:46, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:09, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

== [[Talk:Assassin's Creed]] ==

There was a dispute as to fact over [[Assassin's Creed]]. I rolled it back to as you left it, and locked it to prevent further edit warring. If you are of a mind, please take a look at it, and do what you feel is best, unlock, leave locked, revert my revert, etc. Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:52, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

== Hello & Merry Christmas! ==

Nice to see you around, Addison! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:10, 6 December 2010 (EST)

==Patrolling==

Thanks for today's reverts. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:23, 15 February 2011 (EST)

== Page delete review request ==

Hey Addison, could you take a look at [[Conservapedia:Platform]]? It was created by [[User:Keepscases]]; I placed a delete tag on the page because the Conservapedia namespace is, to my knowledge, reserved for guidelines - which new users shouldn't be creating. Thanks! --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:21, 6 March 2011 (EST)
:Thanks again! Could you also delete [[Conservapedia:AFD Platform]] - where the user debated the articles merits with myself? Thanks.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:57, 6 March 2011 (EST)

==Template unlock request==
Hey! I made a very stupid spelling error on a template I made - spelling "Louis Brandeis" without the "o". Would you mind unlocking [[Template:Supreme Court]] so I could fix it, and then re-locking it (with cascading turned on) once I'm done? It shouldn't take more than a minute - just have to make two edits.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:13, 7 March 2011 (EST)
:Oop you left! Taken a deserved break, I see. In that case ignore this request! OR you could do me a huge favor and just change the typos on [[Template:Supreme Court/White]] (where it appears once) and [[Template:Supreme Court/Taft]] (four times) yourself - but if you're not comfortable doing that I can just have Andy unprotect the pages for me when we're next on at the same time. Once again thanks for the shout out tonight! And awesome work--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:37, 7 March 2011 (EST)

:I did them myself. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)
::ahh brilliant - thanks so much!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:38, 7 March 2011 (EST)

== Request ==
Hello AddisonDM, could you please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? I really appreciate it! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 00:34, 8 March 2011 (EST)
:I also was wondering if you could please correct [[Template:User Indian|this template]] so that the following category might be associated with the userbox: [[:Category:Indian Conservapedians]]. Thanks in advance. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 01:44, 8 March 2011 (EST)

::Hi Anupam, both done! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:11, 8 March 2011 (EST)
:::Hello AddisonDM, thanks for your kind help! I really appreciate it. I will try to create fewer newer categories here as you requested; I was a little unsure of how the language templates worked here so I assumed they worked like they do on Wikipedia. In regards to the [[Atheism and the suppression of science|article I created]], it now appears as the [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=atheism+and+suppression+of+science number one article] when searched in Google with the keywords "atheism," "suppression," and "science." Furthermore, when using the keywords "suppression," "of," "science," and "christian," Google yields the article as the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=suppression+of+science+christian&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq= third one in the search]. When the keywords "suppression," "of," "science," and "catholic" are searched, Google yields the article as the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=suppression+of+science+catholic&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq= eighth choice]. The first search results are exciting to hear but the second and third search results are equally as important as well. This is because if secular individuals are trying to research the idea that the Church has persecuted science, they will find an article that talks about the suppression of science by atheists and can learn something new in that regard. Despite the fact that I only recently created this article, it has been featured in Google very quickly. In light of this fact, I am wondering if you, as an administrator, know if it can be featured on the main page of Conservapedia and if it can, could you please place the request for that or make the appropriate actions? I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 16:56, 8 March 2011 (EST)

::::Thanks about the categories. As to that article, it is a good article but I think it could use a little more work before we would feature it on the home page. Generally, articles should have been worked on a little and more been viewed more times before we link to them from the home page. But since it is an important topic, why don't we try and improve it and then maybe put it on the home page! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:37, 8 March 2011 (EST)
:::::Thanks for your reply AddisionDM. As far as improvements, what are some of your suggestions? As of now, the article contains sixty-seven references. I look forward to your response. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 18:29, 8 March 2011 (EST)

::::::I thought the references were good, but it needs editing. Particularly the section about the Big Bang was a little unclear. Is your point that atheists rejected the Big Bang because it was invented by a Catholic (Christian) priest? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:58, 8 March 2011 (EST)
:::::::There is much information in that article. The reason they rejected the big bang is because it carried with it theological implications of ''creation ex nihilo'', a religious concept. The article states: "In light of the theistic implications of the Big Bang, Fred Hoyle, an atheist scientist did not accept the Big Bang,[36] preferring a model that did not have a single epoch of creation which would eliminate the need for a creator.[37] As a result, Fred Holyle, Thomas Gold, and Hermann Bondi developed the steady state theory, which appealed to atheist cosmologists because it avoided a creation event and the religious implications associated with one." I hope this helps. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 20:35, 8 March 2011 (EST)

::::::::Ok, that is true. I just thought it was a bit unclearly written. Do you mind if I do some minor edits on the article just to improve the flow of it (not to change any content) and then I'll see if Mr. Schlafly would like it on the home page? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:40, 9 March 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Sure that would be fine. I'll take a look at your revisions after you're done with it then! However, as of now, the article is neutral in that its content is supported by reliable references. When you speak with Mr. Schlafly, please let him know about its popularity on Google. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 15:01, 10 March 2011 (EST)
::::::::::Addison DM, I also created a new article today on [[Atheism 3.0]]. Could you please add it to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? Thanks in advance! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:09, 10 March 2011 (EST)
:::::::::::Addison DM, could you also please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] in a [[Template:Further|further tag]] to [[Atheism#Atheism_and_the_foundation_of_modern_science|this section]]? I would really appreciate it! Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 17:09, 11 March 2011 (EST)

== Request for assistance ==

Hi Addison, I blocked and have been reverting the edits made by a user to the "Bias at Wikipedia" page but my computer keeps crashing when trying to revert this [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&curid=2896&diff=857585&oldid=856870 one last edit]. Can you assist? Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:48, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

:Done! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:56, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks muchly! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:01, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

== Status on Requests ==

Hello Addison DM, I hope you enjoyed Saint Patrick's Day yesterday. I was wondering about the status of these requests I submitted above. Would you mind letting me know when you can get around to them? I would really appreciate it! Also, do you know if their is a way that one can check the number of page views for a particular article as one can in Wikipedia? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

:Hi, I added Atheism 3.0 to the template but I couldn't do the second thing- one of the pages wouldn't load. and the page view count is just at the very bottom of every page here. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 15:15, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Template:Nb Atheism

2011-03-19T19:13:07Z

AddisonDM:

{{Navbox
|name=Nb Atheism
|basestyle=font-size: 95%; background-color:Blue;
|title=[[Atheism| Atheism ]]

|liststyle=font-size: 85%; background-color:WhiteSmoke;
|list1=[[Atheism]] • [[Academic atheism|Academics]] • [[Atheism Quotes|Quotes]] • [[Atheism and Christianity|Christianity]] • [[Atheism and Debate|Debate]] • [[Atheism and Evolution|Evolution]] • [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] • [[Atheism 3.0]] • [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Mass Murder]] • [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|Mental and Physical Health]] • [[Atheism and Miracles|Miracles]] • [[Atheism and Morality|Morality]] • [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|Uncharitableness]] • [[Atheism and agnosticism|Agnosticism]] • [[Atheism and deception|Deception]] • [[Atheism and the Bible|The Bible]] • [[Atheism and the Problem of Evil|The Problem of Evil]] • [[Atheist Agenda|Agenda]] • [[Atheist Population|Population]] • [[Brights Movement]] • [[Causes of Atheism|Causes]] • [[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic|Definitions]] • [[Evangelical atheist]] • [[Ex-atheists]] • [[Faith Freedom International]] • [[Godless: The Church of Liberalism‎]] • [[Godless liberal]] • [[His Dark Materials]] • [[History of Atheism|History]] • [[Internet Infidels]] • [[Liberalism and atheism|Liberalism]] • [[Militant atheism|Militancy]] • [[New Atheism]] • [[Atheism videos|Videos]] • [[Skepdic]] • [[Skeptics Annotated Bible]] • [[Strong atheism]] • [[The God Delusion]] • [[There Are No Atheists In Foxholes]] • [[Weak atheism]] 
}}<includeonly>[[Category:Atheism]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Navigation box|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{TemplateDoc|pages=Pages dealing with [[Atheism]]|purpose=Bottom navigation box|cat=Atheism}}
{{Parms|
}}
</noinclude>

Essay: Deceptive Advertising

2011-03-18T14:18:41Z

AddisonDM:

Examples of deceptive or misleading advertising:

* ''"Zero grams trans fat."'' Legally, if the content of a nutrient is less than half a gram, it does not have to counted as a gram in the nutrition facts table. Thus, products with "zero grams trans fat" may actually contain any amount less than half a gram of [[trans fat]] per serving.

* ''Hormone free chicken.'' Federal regulations ban the addition of any hormones to chicken. Therefore the chicken company is advertising something that is true of ''all'' chicken sold in stores. Tyson Chicken actually pulled its hormone free ads because of this.

* ''Item untested.'' This is a common trick on [[eBay]] used to sell probably broken items. By deliberately not testing an item, a seller makes the item appear better than if it they tested it and found it to be broken.

* ''Rare item.'' This is another common eBay trick. The implication, of course, is that the item is collectible or otherwise valuable because it is rare. However, thousands of items are "rare" but have no particular value.

*''"X percent off" signs.'' Often, a company will place signs out proclaiming a sale, when sale price is reflected in the current labels. That is, there is no "sale", the sign is just telling you the the item was marked down at some time in the past. Occasionally, these signs will not even note that the sale price is already factored into the current labels.

* ''"Collectors' edition."'' Items marked "collectors' edition" are not worth anything more than non-collectors' edition. Many collectible items are valued for an obscure feature or for cultural significance, not because they were specifically made for collecting. In fact, items made for collecting may never accrue much value exactly because they are labeled as such.

* ''"Everything must go" sales.'' This phrase is used to imply low prices, since it states that all merchandise must be sold. However, it is often the case that all merchandise does ''not'' need to be sold. It may, for example, be shipped to another location.

[[Category:Essays]]

User talk:AddisonDM

2011-03-18T02:56:30Z

AddisonDM:

[[File:A Merry Christmas neon.jpg|center|300px]]
----

{{Welcome}}
Hey!! Welcome to Conservapedia. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 13:40, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

'''[[User talk:AddisonDM/archive1|Archive #1]]'''

== Idiots ==

Sorry, didn't see you had posted to the user, will unblock him, let you decide. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:53, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:17, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

== Galatians question ==
Sorry if this sounds sarcastic or something, but what about the accounts of "hermaphrodites" or "androgynous people"? Do those count towards "male" or "female"? Just wondering, since I'm not too well versed in the Bible anymore. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]] 12:54, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

:What verses is that in? Biologically, I really don't know how you would class those people. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:28, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
::It's the quote on your user page. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]] 13:57, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Oh haha. I don't know. I guess it depends on how you define gender, which could be by appearance, by genetics (maybe) or something. The point of the verse though is just to illustrate that every kind of person can be united in Christ. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:59, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

==Moving==
Thanks for cleaning all that up, now to work on those German football pages again! Yay, more tedious copying and pasting! :) [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:51, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
::Actually that was my assignment for me. Sorry for any offense caused or any misunderstanding that may have occurred. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:55, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

:::No I know that, I mean thanks for "cleaning all that up"! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:57, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

== Please block Dodger ==

Vandal/parodist. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 13:23, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

== Sorry... ==

I forgot to do what I promised you I would....but noticed you at least finally put them back. Sorry for my lack of mental acuity, Addison. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:10, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

:lol that's okay! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:57, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

== Vandals ==

Good work! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:10, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks! It's getting to be almost boring! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:14, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

== Featured articles ==

Your help is needed. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:48, 1 August 2009 (EDT) --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:53, 19 September 2009 (EDT)
: Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 22:46, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:09, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

== [[Talk:Assassin's Creed]] ==

There was a dispute as to fact over [[Assassin's Creed]]. I rolled it back to as you left it, and locked it to prevent further edit warring. If you are of a mind, please take a look at it, and do what you feel is best, unlock, leave locked, revert my revert, etc. Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:52, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

== Hello & Merry Christmas! ==

Nice to see you around, Addison! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:10, 6 December 2010 (EST)

==Patrolling==

Thanks for today's reverts. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:23, 15 February 2011 (EST)

== Page delete review request ==

Hey Addison, could you take a look at [[Conservapedia:Platform]]? It was created by [[User:Keepscases]]; I placed a delete tag on the page because the Conservapedia namespace is, to my knowledge, reserved for guidelines - which new users shouldn't be creating. Thanks! --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:21, 6 March 2011 (EST)
:Thanks again! Could you also delete [[Conservapedia:AFD Platform]] - where the user debated the articles merits with myself? Thanks.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:57, 6 March 2011 (EST)

==Template unlock request==
Hey! I made a very stupid spelling error on a template I made - spelling "Louis Brandeis" without the "o". Would you mind unlocking [[Template:Supreme Court]] so I could fix it, and then re-locking it (with cascading turned on) once I'm done? It shouldn't take more than a minute - just have to make two edits.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:13, 7 March 2011 (EST)
:Oop you left! Taken a deserved break, I see. In that case ignore this request! OR you could do me a huge favor and just change the typos on [[Template:Supreme Court/White]] (where it appears once) and [[Template:Supreme Court/Taft]] (four times) yourself - but if you're not comfortable doing that I can just have Andy unprotect the pages for me when we're next on at the same time. Once again thanks for the shout out tonight! And awesome work--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:37, 7 March 2011 (EST)

:I did them myself. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)
::ahh brilliant - thanks so much!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:38, 7 March 2011 (EST)

== Request ==
Hello AddisonDM, could you please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? I really appreciate it! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 00:34, 8 March 2011 (EST)
:I also was wondering if you could please correct [[Template:User Indian|this template]] so that the following category might be associated with the userbox: [[:Category:Indian Conservapedians]]. Thanks in advance. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 01:44, 8 March 2011 (EST)

::Hi Anupam, both done! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:11, 8 March 2011 (EST)
:::Hello AddisonDM, thanks for your kind help! I really appreciate it. I will try to create fewer newer categories here as you requested; I was a little unsure of how the language templates worked here so I assumed they worked like they do on Wikipedia. In regards to the [[Atheism and the suppression of science|article I created]], it now appears as the [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=atheism+and+suppression+of+science number one article] when searched in Google with the keywords "atheism," "suppression," and "science." Furthermore, when using the keywords "suppression," "of," "science," and "christian," Google yields the article as the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=suppression+of+science+christian&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq= third one in the search]. When the keywords "suppression," "of," "science," and "catholic" are searched, Google yields the article as the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=suppression+of+science+catholic&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq= eighth choice]. The first search results are exciting to hear but the second and third search results are equally as important as well. This is because if secular individuals are trying to research the idea that the Church has persecuted science, they will find an article that talks about the suppression of science by atheists and can learn something new in that regard. Despite the fact that I only recently created this article, it has been featured in Google very quickly. In light of this fact, I am wondering if you, as an administrator, know if it can be featured on the main page of Conservapedia and if it can, could you please place the request for that or make the appropriate actions? I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 16:56, 8 March 2011 (EST)

::::Thanks about the categories. As to that article, it is a good article but I think it could use a little more work before we would feature it on the home page. Generally, articles should have been worked on a little and more been viewed more times before we link to them from the home page. But since it is an important topic, why don't we try and improve it and then maybe put it on the home page! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:37, 8 March 2011 (EST)
:::::Thanks for your reply AddisionDM. As far as improvements, what are some of your suggestions? As of now, the article contains sixty-seven references. I look forward to your response. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 18:29, 8 March 2011 (EST)

::::::I thought the references were good, but it needs editing. Particularly the section about the Big Bang was a little unclear. Is your point that atheists rejected the Big Bang because it was invented by a Catholic (Christian) priest? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:58, 8 March 2011 (EST)
:::::::There is much information in that article. The reason they rejected the big bang is because it carried with it theological implications of ''creation ex nihilo'', a religious concept. The article states: "In light of the theistic implications of the Big Bang, Fred Hoyle, an atheist scientist did not accept the Big Bang,[36] preferring a model that did not have a single epoch of creation which would eliminate the need for a creator.[37] As a result, Fred Holyle, Thomas Gold, and Hermann Bondi developed the steady state theory, which appealed to atheist cosmologists because it avoided a creation event and the religious implications associated with one." I hope this helps. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 20:35, 8 March 2011 (EST)

::::::::Ok, that is true. I just thought it was a bit unclearly written. Do you mind if I do some minor edits on the article just to improve the flow of it (not to change any content) and then I'll see if Mr. Schlafly would like it on the home page? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:40, 9 March 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Sure that would be fine. I'll take a look at your revisions after you're done with it then! However, as of now, the article is neutral in that its content is supported by reliable references. When you speak with Mr. Schlafly, please let him know about its popularity on Google. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 15:01, 10 March 2011 (EST)
::::::::::Addison DM, I also created a new article today on [[Atheism 3.0]]. Could you please add it to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? Thanks in advance! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:09, 10 March 2011 (EST)
:::::::::::Addison DM, could you also please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] in a [[Template:Further|further tag]] to [[Atheism#Atheism_and_the_foundation_of_modern_science|this section]]? I would really appreciate it! Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 17:09, 11 March 2011 (EST)

== Request for assistance ==

Hi Addison, I blocked and have been reverting the edits made by a user to the "Bias at Wikipedia" page but my computer keeps crashing when trying to revert this [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&curid=2896&diff=857585&oldid=856870 one last edit]. Can you assist? Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:48, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

:Done! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:56, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2011-03-18T02:55:23Z

AddisonDM: Undo revision 857585 by Boriskrinkle (talk)

Below is a growing list of examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]]. The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was a lead founder of Wikipedia. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>

==Examples of Bias ==
<blockquote>
=== General/Uncategorized ===

# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
# Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a [[liberal]] politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for [[Obamacare]], but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal [[Gordon Brown]] is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
# Wikipedia uses trivia to push its [[liberal]] icons on readers. In its first 200 words about [[conservative]] Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Wikipedia used to include the meaningless trivia that he was born on the same day as (liberal) [[Jimmy Carter]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist</ref> Yet nowhere in Carter's entry does it say he was born on the same day as Rehnquist.
# When someone goes to Wikipedia's "Constitutional Convention" page, users are taken to a general page about Constitutional conventions, instead of being taken right to the United States Constitutional Convention page. Since 2005, they have named the US page as the unheard of "Philadelphia Convention",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philadelphia_Convention&diff=31214002&oldid=31213911] diluting its significance. They have not even renamed it "U.S. Constitutional Convention" and Google mostly matches "Philadelphia Convention ''Center''" as a building. The US Convention is over 100-200 years older than the other conventions listed, and an Internet search confirms that "Constitutional Convention" is used more than ten times as often as "Philadelphia Convention," but the liberal and anti-American Wikipedia editors have insisted on redirecting visitors to the obscure term, for over 5 years.
#Wikipedia's article on engineering<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering</ref> features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient [[liberal]] boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the [[United States]] because they are not competitive.
#[[Wikipedia]] bias against [[movement conservative]]s is intense. [[Michele Bachmann]] won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily [[Democratic]], but instead of crediting her [[conservative]] positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democratic opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#cite_ref-33</ref>
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[evolution]] article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position]] despite the [[evolution|evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it]].
#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> Kirk's wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from Tony Rezko <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790</ref>, but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article</ref> Rezko donation. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979</ref> Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568</ref>
#Wikipedia smears [[conservative]] groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy</ref> usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters [[liberal]] groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances</ref>
#Wikipedia's entry on the [[Scopes trial]] downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury '''only''' to have them come to a guilty verdict."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)</ref><ref>Thanks much to a student in our [[American_History_Lectures|American History course]] for pointing this out.</ref>
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref>
#The articles on both [[Saul Alinsky]] and his book, ''Rules for Radicals'' make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry on [[baraminology]] (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it is based on the Holy Bible.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</reF>
# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the [[liberal]] John Edwards,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the [[liberal]] New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[cold fusion]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion</ref> presents it as a continuing controversy. [[Liberals]] hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited <ref>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127</ref> Hydrino theory <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills</ref> as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
# [[Liberals]] loathe self-defense, and [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the national self-defense system of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref> Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed [[John Kerry]] for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref> But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[censorship]] omits any reference to [[liberal]] censorship of [[classroom prayer]], [[pro-life]] advertisements, [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</ref>
#Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, [[Jimbo Wales]], is an [[atheism|atheist]], it is not particularly surprising that [[Wikipedia]] is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach [[Marcus Borden]]'s attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. [[Wikipedia]]'s biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States</ref> It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite [[John Lott]], the leading expert whose studies support guns.
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the Christian terrorism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."'' <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an extensive entry on "[[Creation]] myth".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth</ref> Describing [[Creationism]] as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage [[Christian]]s, and although the [[Evolution]] satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</reF>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a [[liberal]] advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term [[liberal]] in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>
# On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref> The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref> After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1]</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claimed that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>.
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[intelligent design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a strong bias against the [[Discovery Institute]], a prominent proponent of [[intelligent design]]. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism</ref> and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism</ref>) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
# [[Wikipedia]] displays a similar bias against the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the [[ICR Graduate School]], first in [[California]] and now in [[Texas]], relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research Institute for Creation Research] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref><ref name="tes>Schafersman," Steven. "[http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm The Institute for Creation Research and It's (''sic'') Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education]." ''Texas Citizens for Science'', December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref><ref name="rae>Bergman," Jerry. "[http://www.rae.org/ICRcase.html The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College]." ''Revolution Against Evolution'', May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy allowing edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
# In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attribution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other [[liberals]] in reliance on Wikipedia.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President [[George W. Bush]], then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings</ref> but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL Student Successes Defy Urban Trends]" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref>
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors who are agnostic or atheistic outnumber Christian editors 2:1.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion</ref> This make them nearly 8 times as atheistic as America (in a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know). Also, a Wikimedia page surveying the religions of Wikipedia editors, showed a greater number of atheists using pages to ridicule Christianity.<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Edits to include facts against [[Evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#: The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref>. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref>
#Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:
## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref>
## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# For a period of time (January 4, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544</ref> - April 5, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436</ref>), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
# Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244</ref> and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
# Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush</ref>, but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.<ref>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</ref>)
# In the article for flood geology<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology</ref>, the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood</ref> while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood</ref> Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808</ref> and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331</ref> Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740</ref>
#The Carrie Prejean article on Wikipedia is carefully crafted however, major points tend to end with a liberals last word. 'Photograph controversy' last line quotes "go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate, and do not benefit Prejean's status." The section 'Crown retention', last line says- "she no longer believes in the organization," referring to a pageant official. The page is locked from mentioning other contestants who also had photos questionable under pageant rules. The last line of 'Miss USA 2009 controversy', plug the candidate for governor of Ca. and same-sex advocate SF mayor Gavin Newsom beliefs, supports Prejean. Wikipedia's non family-friendly presentation is complete with text of Hilton's foul-mouthed tirade.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff=] Wikipedia- Carrie Prejean</ref>
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>
#The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=nigger&limit=500&offset=0]
#[[Wikipedia]] deleted [[9/12 Candidate]] page (twice) due to lack of notability<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/12_Candidate</ref>. Creator blocked because his real name does not meet username policy<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacob_F._Roecker</ref> and editor (me) blocked<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WashingtonIsBroke#User:WashingtonIsBroke</ref> for spam/advertising and "conflict of interest, which is introducing a severe bias to your edits".
#[[VoteVets.org]] is a partisan political organization that seeks to elect Democrats and to replace Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia's erroneous entry labels the liberal group a "non-partisan" political action committee. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VoteVets.org&diff=293037611&oldid=293035975 VoteVets.org</ref>
#Just like the liberal-aligned [[MSM]], Wikipedia is consistent when hiding unflattering information about their fellow [[liberal]]s. Wikipedia purposely buried an important statement from Judge Sonia [[Sotomayor]], the now-infamous "Wise Latina" remark. One has to scroll through 49,600 characters of a 54,000 character page to find the statement. Also, Wikipedia does not mention her membership in La Raza, a group that has promoted the distribution of driver's licenses to illegal aliens, amnesty programs for illegal aliens, and the non-enforcement of immigration laws <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Sotomayor&diff=302177838&oldid=302177614</ref>
#Wikipedia feels that the [[Barack Obama]] article should omit any mention of [[William Ayers]] and the [[Weather Underground]]. Wikipedia's mobocracy has decided that you, the public, have no need to learn about Obama's past relationships that made national headlines. No mention of Obama's ties to [[ACORN]] either. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=302499449&oldid=302497807</ref>
#Wikipedia's Template:Infobox and elsewhere still maintains the fiction that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] was a "Professor of Constitutional Law," whereas [[White House]] Press Secretary [[Robert Gibbs]] has flatly denied Obama ever taught constitutional law. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4-14-09/]
#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama Blocking the Path to 9/11 [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a [[liberal]] anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the [[Communist]] North Vietnam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&oldid=310708048] [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=325]
#One of Wikipedia's barnstars—given nominally for World War II writing contributions—is in fact an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WWFlagsBarnstar.JPG American flag] desecrated with Nazi and Soviet Union graffiti.
#Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nidal_Malik_Hasan&oldid=325179780]
# In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&oldid=334150190] That is a key point that [[liberal]]s want to hide from the public. [http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Terror-Reviews-Avoid-Word/2010/02/12/id/349732] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item ''Failed bomb aboard Delta flight'' article. [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Failed_bomb_aboard_Delta_flight&oldid=928144]
# Wikipedia's Communism article omits to mention that millions of people have perished as a result of the Marxist ideology. Near the very end of the article they mention ''"alleged by some scholars to be responsible for famines, purges and warfare resulting in deaths."'' The article states "classes are abolished" "oppression-free society" and policies made "democratically" without mentioning those positions are really just propaganda. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&oldid=337705210]
# Wikipedia's article on Martin Luther King Jr. is extensive. There is little doubt that King was known for civil rights. However, Wikipedia fails to recognize King's main 'Influence', Jesus Christ. King's life was Jesus from day one, his entire life was Christ inspired. As Dr. King Jr said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.&oldid=338783450]
# Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with [[John Edwards]]. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article ''"Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied."'' Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228323043#2008_Presidential_campaign] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
#Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history</ref>
#Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling [[Londonderry]] by it's unofficial slang name "derry"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry</ref> and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232</ref>. Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
# The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the [[Tea Party Nation]] by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_Nation&oldid=370977207]
#Wikipedia reveals in its article "''CIA activities in Iran''" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles--the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran</ref> Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
#Wikipedia also claims that the war cost 1.5 to 2 million Cambodian and Laotian lives; in reality, Wikipedia later admits to a mere 600,000 dead in Cambodia, and 30-50,000 in Laos.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_civil_war</ref> The 600,000 figure may have been invented by Pol Pot himself and is 2 to 3 times the real number of war-related deaths.<ref>Marek Sliwinski, Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique (L’Harmattan, 1995).</ref><ref>Heuveline, Patrick (2001). "The Demographic Analysis of Mortality in Cambodia." In Forced Migration and Mortality, eds. Holly E. Reed and Charles B. Keely. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.</ref><ref>Banister, Judith, and Paige Johnson (1993). "After the Nightmare: The Population of Cambodia." In Genocide and Democracy in Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge, the United Nations and the International Community, ed. Ben Kiernan. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies.</ref> NOTE: Wikipedia may have moderated its fabricated statistics at the present time.
#It adds, on Cambodia, that "after five years of savage fighting that brought about massive casualties, the destruction of the economy, the starvation of the population, and grievous atrocities, the Republican government was defeated on 17 April 1975 when the victorious Khmer Rouge proclaimed the establishment of Democratic Kampuchea."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_civil_war</ref> As noted, their casualty figures are extreme fabrications based on Khmer Rouge propaganda; Cambodia, far from facing starvation, exported food every year prior to the Communist take-over and had plenty left to spare besides.
#The same article adds: "thus, it has been argued, that the US intervention in Cambodia contributed to the eventual seizure of power by the Khmer Rouge." Declassified documents from the Soviet archives reveal that the North Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1970 was launched at the explicit request of the Khmer Rouge and negotiated by Pol Pot's second-in-command, Nuon Chea.<ref>Dmitry Mosyakov, “The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists: A History of Their Relations as Told in the Soviet Archives,” in Susan E. Cook, ed., Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda (Yale Genocide Studies Program Monograph Series No. 1, 2004), p54ff. Availible online at: http://128.36.236.77/workpaper/pdfs/GS20.pdf "In April-May 1970, many North Vietnamese forces entered Cambodia in response to the call for help addressed to Vietnam not by Pol Pot, but by his deputy Nuon Chea. Nguyen Co Thach recalls: “Nuon Chea has asked for help and we have liberated five provinces of Cambodia in ten days.”"</ref> The Communists had the American equivalent of 4 million armed and organized troops overrun two-thirds of the country prior to any American bombing. Vietnam later admitted that it "played a decisive role" in bringing to power the Pathet Lao in Laos and Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.<ref>The Economist, February 26, 1983; Washington Post, April 23, 1985.</ref>
#Wikipedia's "''Fall of Saigon''" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath</ref> According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.<ref>Orange County Register (29 April 2001)</ref>
#Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;<ref>Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.</ref> several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.<ref>Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press,
1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).</ref>
#Wikipedia's "''Communism in Vietnam''" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam</ref> In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.<ref>Rummel, Rudolph, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM Statistics of Vietnamese Democide], in his ''Statistics of Democide.''</ref>
#Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia</ref> The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;<ref>The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.</ref> the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.<ref>The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.</ref>
#Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in [[Guatemala]] being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day</ref> Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.<ref>“Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.</ref>
#Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990</ref> However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> even though they killed exponentially more people.<ref>Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.</ref>
#Wikipedia refers to an apparently fabricated interview claiming that the US armed the Afghan rebels prior to the Soviet invasion as a reliable source;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history</ref> in fact, there is no reference to it in the American edition of the magazine in which it allegedly appeared and the only source available for it online is an obscure left-wing blog;<ref>The interview has been republished by Alexander Cockburn's neo-Nazi CounterPunch website, but was first posted online here: http://www.proxsa.org/resources/9-11/Brzezinski-980115-interview.htm</ref> declassified government documents reveal that the aid was purely humanitarian in nature and that it specifically excluded weaponry;<ref>They can be seen here: http://www.activistmagazine.com/images/stories/government/carter_79-1581.jpg and http://www.activistmagazine.com/images/stories/government/carter_79-1579.jpg</ref> and Carter officials reacted with shock to the accusation.<ref>The Nation, November 12, 2001.</ref>
#Although the Free Republic is (correctly) not allowed as a source on Wikipedia; the Srbrenica massacre denying<ref>Kamm, Oliver, [http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomskys_outlet.html| Chomsky's Outlet's]</ref> hate site ZNet is regularly used as a source--as is the neo-Nazi blog<ref>Harry's Place, "CounterPunch," http://hurryupharry.org/2005/02/27/counterpunch/</ref> ''CounterPunch.''
#On July 28, 2010, the United States was listed as a "belligerent" fighting on the side of Iraq in Wikipedia's "Iran-Iraq War" article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War&diff=375898707&oldid=375895692</ref> On July 15, 2010, [[Ronald Reagan]] was listed under "commanders and leaders" as a commander of Iraqi forces, alongside Saddam Hussein and his thugs.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War&diff=368133799&oldid=368122576</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[George W. Bush]] article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy</ref> In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> The American army in Iraq has taken ''three times'' as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.<ref>http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp</ref> Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer</ref><ref>http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019</ref> or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).<ref>New York Times, February 1, 2002.</ref>
#A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"--is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey</ref> He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose</ref>
#"Radical Right Wing" derogatory labels 

<blockquote>Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned. Now take a look at the article for Code Pink. (considered by many as "radical left wing"). Any attempts there to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs.

So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink 

The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] 19:33, 31 December 2010 (EST)</blockquote>

=== Abortion ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]

=== Anti-Christianity ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity]]

=== Conservapedia smears ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears]]

=== Conservative personalities and politicians ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities]]

=== Global warming ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming]]

=== Homosexuality ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality]]

=== Liberal Politicians ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians]]

=== Obama ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama]]

=== Science and Evolution ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution]]

== Humorous quotes relating to bias and Wikipedia ==

''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

=== Song excerpt ===

{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,
whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy". - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic<ref>http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm</ref>}}

==See also==
*[[ Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Subject matter is [[New World Order]] and Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]. Article here in Conservapedia relates it to [[KAL 007]] as the subject matter bears directly).
*[[Wikipedia and atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf The Top 200 Chomsky Lies]--Comprehensively debunks the claims of the [[Noam Chomsky| cult leader]] behind the radical left's talking points.

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
* Please post the content to the appropriate sub article if possible. I (ctown200) am still working on breaking this article into sub topics. It's taking me too long!

{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category: Wikipedia]]

Essay: Deceptive Advertising

2011-03-18T02:43:32Z

AddisonDM:

User:AddisonDM

2011-03-18T02:38:09Z

AddisonDM:

Hello, welcome to my user page! I have been an editor at [[Conservapedia]] since 2008 and an administrator since 2009. I've worked mainly on articles relating to [[Christianity]], [[environmentalism]], and [[politics]]. Check out some of my articles or essays!

{{User Sysop}}

==Articles I have edited:==

*[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]] (added Governmental Structure section)
*[[NASCAR]] (added new names of racing series)
*[[Indulgences]]
*[[Anthem]] (Completely revamped: added Major Plot Events and Society and Government)
*[[Steel]] (Added Andrew Carnegie's name)
*[[Selena Gomez]] (Added link to [[purity ring]] and specified that Selena wears one)
*[[Vegetarianism]] (Instigated the inclusion of citations where they were needed)
*[[Recycling]] (mentioned "reduce, reuse, recycle" slogan, made specification)
*[[Goth (subculture)]] (Fixed up grammar)
*[[Transubstantiation]] (Fixed up existing text, added new section)
*[[Nashville]] (Added new section)
*[[Essay:Greatest Church Hymns]]
*Improved [[Tyndale Bible]]
*[[Disputed Biblical Translations]] (added example of translating difference between Protestants and Catholics)
*Updated [[Al Franken]] (added latest news on the Senate race recount)
*[[Jeremiah Wright]] (Make redirects and fix citation error)
*[[List of 50 states]] (completely revamped with some help)
*[[Trans fat]] (Total rewrite)
*[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] (Added [[democide]], [[fellow traveller]], and design by committee)
*[[Speciation]] (New section, relation to evolution)
*[[Old Earth]]
*[[Black Friday]] (Complete rewrite)

==Articles I have created:==

*[[Pump 'Em Up]] (organization to conserve fuel by inflating tires)
*[[Taylor Swift]] (Country music star)
*[[Jonas Brothers]] (popular boy band)
*[[Purity ring]] (symbol of commitment to remain chaste till marriage)
*[[Christine Cloud]] (Christian missionary attacked by gay activist)
*[[The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History]] (popular history book)
*[[Catholic Answers]] (Catholic apologetics apostolate)
*[[Real presence]] (Different Christian beliefs on the Eucharist)
*[[Landfill]] (Waste disposal method)
*[[Goodsearch]] (Search engine donating money to charities of your choice)
*[[Tripartite Pact]] (Pact creating Axis Powers of WWII)
*[[Contemporary Christian Music]]
*[[Music Row]] (Nashville music/entertainment district)
*[[Holy God We Praise Thy Name]] (Traditional Catholic hymn)
*[[Political cartoon]]
*[[The Message]] (Bible translation)
*[[Cotton Patch Version]] (''Very'' interesting Bible translation!)
*[[Orans]] (Position of prayer)
*[[Bernard Madoff]]
*[[Lauda Sion Salvatorem]] ([[Corpus Christi]] hymn)
*[[Kwanzaa]] (African American holiday)
*[[The Night Before Christmas]]
*[[Menorah]] ([[Jewish]] symbol and [[Chanukah]] candleholder)
*[[Jack London]] (Writer and novelist)
*[[Creation]] (Overviewing differing views on creation and giving bios of famous creationists)
*[[The Iron Heel]] ([[Dystopian]] novel)
*[[Natural-born citizen]]
*[[Chesley Sullenberger]] (pilot of plane crashed in [[Hudson River]])
*[[Obama-isms]]
*[[Resin identification codes]] (Symbols to identify plastics for recycling)
*[[Megachurch]]
*'''[[Conservapedia]]''' ('''Content article about CP''')
*[[Open mind]]
*[[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]
*[[Stars and Stripes Forever]]
*[[Political Compass]]
*[[Pipe organ]] (stub, please expand)
*[[Mother of Divine Grace School]] ([[Homeschooling]] service)
*[[Composting]] (will expand)
*[[Know Homeschooling]] (A wiki about homeschooling)
*[[Nellie Gray]] (founder of [[March for Life]])
*[[The Teaching Company]]
*[[Seton Home Study School]]
*[[Ray Kroc]] (Entrepreneur behind [[McDonald's]])
*[[Wasabi]] ([[Japanese]] condiment)
*[[Generation Joshua]]
*[[Exodus Mandate]]
*[[Red Envelope Project]]
*[[Revelation (religion)]]
*[[Essay: Greatest political rivalries in American history|Greatest political rivalries in American history]]
*[[Anacyclosis]]
*[[Google Earth]]
*[[Apostles' Creed]]
*[[Foundation for a Better Life]]
*[[Freedom From Religion Foundation]]
*[[Larry Kudlow]]
*[[Interesterified fat]] (Type of processed oil)
*[[Melting pot]] (Cultural term)
*[[Priests for Life]]
*[[Randall Terry]]
*[[Tiktaalik roseae]] (Claimed transitional form between fish and amphibian tetrapods)
*[[Biogeography]]
*[[Polystrate fossil]]
*[[Darwinius masillae‎]] (new "missing link" fossil)
*[[Stasis (biology)]]
*[[Derived (evolution)]]
*[[Omphalos hypothesis]]
*[[Great Books Academy]] (homeschool curriculum)
*[[Calvert School]] (Private school and homeschool curriculum)
*[[List of homeschool curriculums]]
*[[Billy Mays]] (American advertiser)
*[[Philip D. Gingerich]] (Evolutionist, paleontologist)
*[[Closed communion]]
*[[Open communion]]
*[[Pakicetus]]
*[[Ambulocetus]]
*[[Vance Packard]]
*[[Planned obsolescence]]
*[[The Story of Stuff]]
*[[Pay as you throw]]

'''Essays:'''

*[[Essay: Deceptive Advertising]]
*[[Essay: Real Environmentalism]]
*[[Essay: Artificial Food]]
*'''[[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America|The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]]''' ('''Nominated and selected as Featured Article during Holy Week/Easter Week''')
*[[Essay:Justifying Justification by Faith and Works|Justifying Justification by Faith and Works]] (Essay supporting Catholic view of salvation)
*[[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"|Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]] (All the wonderful contributions made by vandals. If you know any, share them!)

'''Templates:'''

*[[Template:Bible Versions]]
*[[Template:Creation vs. evolution]]
*[[Template:Conservatism]]

'''Conservapedia Exclusives:'''
These are articles I've created which do not exist on Wikipedia:

*[[Pump 'Em Up]]
*[[Christine Cloud]]
*[[Holy God We Praise Thy Name]]
*[[Obama-isms]]
*[[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]
*[[Mother of Divine Grace School]]
*[[Know Homeschooling]]
*[[Nellie Gray]]

==About me==

'''Favorite quotes:'''

"Everyone (in Jersey) is the best at something" - '''Mr. Schlafly'''

"If you have talent, that's God's gift to you. If you use that talent, that's your gift to God" - '''Red Skeleton'''

"Guys will look all over a girl, but they won't remember the color of her eyes - '''a youth minister'''

“And when they call this treason we will call it American! When they call it fad we will call it restoration! And when they call us anarchists, we will call ourselves free men!” - '''Quote from a story I'm writing'''

"In response to the claim that God keeps the planets and heavenly bodies suspended and in motion, the atheist will say “Aha! We have found gravity! You see, it is not God, but gravity that governs the stars.” But would God not use natural means to guide His creation? Did He not form Man from the dust of the earth? Did He not take on Man’s nature to save us? For the atheist to replace God with gravity is no more logical than to say, “The watch operates using a battery! Thus, the watch has no creator!" -
'''Myself'''

"There is no such thing as 'socialism.' If the rich spread their wealth of their own free will, it's called charity. If the government spreads their wealth against their will, it's called tyranny."

"A free lunch violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics." -
'''Myself'''

"If you're doing nothing, do ten times more. If you're doing a little bit, do ten times more. If you're doing everything you can, do ten times more." -
'''A congressman at the March for Life'''

"The invisible hand needs a shot in the arm." -
'''A description of the government bailouts during the recession'''

==Medals and Awards==
[[Image:Banhammer2.jpg|thumb|600px|right|'''AddisonDM''' is hereby awarded the prestigious & coveted '''Banhammer''' barnstar for tireless vigilence against liberal fascists, vandals & trolls!]]
[[Image:Medal_Christmas_Campaign.jpg|right]]

[[Category:Christian Conservapedians]][[Category:Catholic Conservapedians]]

Essay: Deceptive Advertising

2011-03-18T02:37:40Z

AddisonDM: Created page with "Examples of deceptive or misleading advertising: * ''"Zero grams trans fat."'' Legally, if the content of a nutrient is less than half a gram, it does not have to counted as a g..."

User talk:SaWi

2011-03-17T14:34:41Z

AddisonDM:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:36, 12 January 2011 (EST)}}
Hello. I noticed you've been starting a lot of discussions on talk pages, which is good. However, perhaps there are some pages you would like to work with where you can make more substantive edits. Just a suggestion. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:11, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
:I sorted thought the same thing but didn't want to say anything. I just noticed a lot of the edits were "is there a reference for such and such" which I'd then add but would have been easier if SaWi added it him/herself. Not to be rude, as I said I am new also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:45, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
::To be honest I'm more into adding and/or changing small stuff. And I don't want to get accused of liberal censorship if I remove uncited material. And it's not my problem if someone don't include a source for their statements. If it isn't backed up by facts, then it shouldn't been added in the first place [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 05:25, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Well that's perfectly fine, SaWi. But here's a tip; if there's no citation, you don't have to start a discussion on it. You can just add info as you want. If one of the administrators has a problem, they will just revert it (but hopefully not :) [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:34, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

User talk:SaWi

2011-03-17T00:11:44Z

AddisonDM:

Talk:Deliberate ignorance

2011-03-17T00:09:53Z

AddisonDM:

I just wanted to say how happy I am that it is OK to post insults about active, helpful editors. It's the reason I edit here; they don't allow that kind of thing at Wikipedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: HelpJazz, feigning "insult" is an example of [[liberal style]]. Relax. Also, there is no evidence that you are a "libertarian" and we've rejected self-labels here long ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

(unacceptable language deleted)

I've noticed that there are no citations for these examples of deliberate ignorance, also would it be possible for a sysop to create a category for cryptology realted articles [[User:MCollins|MCollins]] 12:33, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

The "I've never heard that in the New York Times" is extremely biased, as the NYT is only read by 20 percent of the population (according to conservapedia). Why not change it to, "the news?"

==Censorship Complaint==

Not that I expect anything to change, but I have to protest ASchlafly's removal of my edit regarding Dick Cheney as "liberal claptrap". The topic is "Deliberate Ignorance", not "Liberal Deliberate Ignorance", and in the interest of balance it's appropriate to have cited examples that show the characteristic to be universal, and not just a liberal one. Cheney's insistence in 2005 that the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes was deliberately ignorant of the situation on the ground and the opinions of the military leaders whose observations are supposed to be given the most weight. Cheney had daily access to public and classified intelligence that warned of the trend towards destabilization (which eventually required the surge policy to reverse), so his statement was clearly a case of cognitive dissonance with regard the the facts at his disposal, or in this case, Deliberate Ignorance. I'm requesting an academic refutation of this view, and if non is received I'll restore the Cheney example. I cannot speak on behalf of the other deletions. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

It just isn't true to say that "evolutionists refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the whale...". See [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans here], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx079oEgKKs here] and [http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm here] for example. And there are many more where they came from. Evolutionists say that they already have a plausible evolutionary path for the whale so why would they be addressing the lack of such a path? Is there some self-evident reason that the suggested path is implausible in evolutionary terms? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 16:47, 3 March 2011 (EST)
:You hit the nail on the head: ''"Evolutionists say..."'' Yes, they "say." They "say" fish evolved into frogs, dinosaurs evolved into birds, apes evolved into scientists. They can "say" all they want, but ''saying'' it happened is far different from ''proving'' it happened. I can use that same argument - and with just as much authority - by saying a housefly evolved into a house, a horsefly evolved into a horse, or a stinkbug evolved into a Volkswagen Beetle. And just like the evolutionists, I'd have as my "proof" the flies, the house, the horse, and the bugs; I'd have that brilliant scenario to fit what's in between, and I'd have those papers published that compel the public to "accept" what was just explained here.
:No, we're not going to accept the so-called "proofs" of whale origins, nor anything else related to evolution; it's just a tale, as per the first sentence of the first link you provided. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:48, 3 March 2011 (EST)

::Very well put, Karajou. The "theory of evolution" is a claim about a '''''process''''', and like any other claim it should only be accepted if there is proof for it. Proof of a process requires evidence of a process. Relying on the beginning and end says little about what happened in between. In fact, physics teaches that viewing the beginning and end of work says almost nothing about the nature of the work that occurred in between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 3 March 2011 (EST)

:::I'm afraid Karajou's analogies are somewhat inadequate. The theory of evolution is a lot more specific than posing an argument that one thing transformed into another. In fact, the theory is less about the 'states' and more about the 'process'. The theory, whatever one may think of it, does put forward a biological mechanism which is plausible insofar as it is at least theoretically possible based upon our knowledge of DNA, reproduction etc. But the argument about 'proof' is also lacking. The aim is not and never has been to amass tonnes of evidence until we can reach some mythical point and declare 'evolution is fact'. Science is not built upon that notion; it is built upon the hypothetico-deductive method, as outlined by Karl Popper. The aim is to try and ''dis''prove the theory. My aim is simply to clear up the philosophical issues, not to come down on either side of the evolutionist -vs- intelligent design debate. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 18:32, 3 March 2011 (EST)
::::To disagree with you slightly, my analogy is completely adequate. What I have cited above is ''hearsay evidence'', which is what the ''process'' of evolution is based on; what we have in the mainstream is an explanation of the process based on an ''interpretation'' of fossil evidence, and all based on nothing more than the word of the scientist. We have to accept his word that it happened in the way he described it. Unfortunately, the concept has gone beyond theory; there are too many scientists, professors, and teachers who demand we accept evolution not as a theory, ''but as an established fact''. A frog evolving into a fish is just as much based on hearsay as a housefly evolving into a house. We recognize that evolution is simply a false theory; in fact, it violates every step of the scientific method as well as common sense. This site intends to explain it properly and tell it to the public. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 3 March 2011 (EST)

::::: I am afraid that this discussion has wandered well away from the point that I was trying to make in the original post. I wasn't saying that evolution ought to be accepted. That surely is an argument for elsewhere. I was saying that ''in evolutionary terms'' there appears to be a plausible path for the whale. That being so, it makes no sense to talk about a failure to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path. The reason they don't address it is because, within the terms of their theory, there is already an explanation. You might as well criticise evolutionary scientists for their failure to address the lack of a plausible path for mice, oxen, cockatoos, deer, slugs and fleas as much as whales on the basis that is being argued above. I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 20:26, 3 March 2011 (EST)

:::::: 150 years after Darwin suggested that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open, I haven't seen a plausible, detailed explanation yet. Are you aware of a detailed explanation that addresses the substantive issues and unique characteristics of a whale?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:18, 4 March 2011 (EST)

::::::: Sorry for the delay in responding. Did you look at the links that I posted above? I don't for a moment suggest that your own ignorance of evolutionary biology is deliberate. But the editor who posted the whale reference should at least have taken a cursory look at the readily available material on the subject. To reiterate: I am not saying that the evolutionary position is true. I am saying that ''from an evolutionary point of view'' there is no lack of a plausible path any more than there is a lack of a plausible evolutionary path for any other creature. Accordingly I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 19:57, 8 March 2011 (EST)

:::::::: I assume from the lack of response that no-one has any problem with me removing the item now. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 19:28, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Hi, please don't remove this item from the list. I think it is educational. The question of whale evolution is controversial, even among the evolutionists themselves. The point of the item is that this (possible) counterexample to evolution does not dissuade evolutionists from accepting the overall theory, even when it (possibly) contradicts fact. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:09, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

User:AddisonDM

2011-03-15T23:50:58Z

AddisonDM:

Hello, welcome to my user page! I have been an editor at [[Conservapedia]] since 2008 and an administrator since 2009. I've worked mainly on articles relating to [[Christianity]], [[environmentalism]], and [[politics]]. Check out some of my articles or essays!

{{User Sysop}}

==Articles I have edited:==

*[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]] (added Governmental Structure section)
*[[NASCAR]] (added new names of racing series)
*[[Indulgences]]
*[[Anthem]] (Completely revamped: added Major Plot Events and Society and Government)
*[[Steel]] (Added Andrew Carnegie's name)
*[[Selena Gomez]] (Added link to [[purity ring]] and specified that Selena wears one)
*[[Vegetarianism]] (Instigated the inclusion of citations where they were needed)
*[[Recycling]] (mentioned "reduce, reuse, recycle" slogan, made specification)
*[[Goth (subculture)]] (Fixed up grammar)
*[[Transubstantiation]] (Fixed up existing text, added new section)
*[[Nashville]] (Added new section)
*[[Essay:Greatest Church Hymns]]
*Improved [[Tyndale Bible]]
*[[Disputed Biblical Translations]] (added example of translating difference between Protestants and Catholics)
*Updated [[Al Franken]] (added latest news on the Senate race recount)
*[[Jeremiah Wright]] (Make redirects and fix citation error)
*[[List of 50 states]] (completely revamped with some help)
*[[Trans fat]] (Total rewrite)
*[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] (Added [[democide]], [[fellow traveller]], and design by committee)
*[[Speciation]] (New section, relation to evolution)
*[[Old Earth]]
*[[Black Friday]] (Complete rewrite)

==Articles I have created:==

*[[Pump 'Em Up]] (organization to conserve fuel by inflating tires)
*[[Taylor Swift]] (Country music star)
*[[Jonas Brothers]] (popular boy band)
*[[Purity ring]] (symbol of commitment to remain chaste till marriage)
*[[Christine Cloud]] (Christian missionary attacked by gay activist)
*[[The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History]] (popular history book)
*[[Catholic Answers]] (Catholic apologetics apostolate)
*[[Real presence]] (Different Christian beliefs on the Eucharist)
*[[Landfill]] (Waste disposal method)
*[[Goodsearch]] (Search engine donating money to charities of your choice)
*[[Tripartite Pact]] (Pact creating Axis Powers of WWII)
*[[Contemporary Christian Music]]
*[[Music Row]] (Nashville music/entertainment district)
*[[Holy God We Praise Thy Name]] (Traditional Catholic hymn)
*[[Political cartoon]]
*[[The Message]] (Bible translation)
*[[Cotton Patch Version]] (''Very'' interesting Bible translation!)
*[[Orans]] (Position of prayer)
*[[Bernard Madoff]]
*[[Lauda Sion Salvatorem]] ([[Corpus Christi]] hymn)
*[[Kwanzaa]] (African American holiday)
*[[The Night Before Christmas]]
*[[Menorah]] ([[Jewish]] symbol and [[Chanukah]] candleholder)
*[[Jack London]] (Writer and novelist)
*[[Creation]] (Overviewing differing views on creation and giving bios of famous creationists)
*[[The Iron Heel]] ([[Dystopian]] novel)
*[[Natural-born citizen]]
*[[Chesley Sullenberger]] (pilot of plane crashed in [[Hudson River]])
*[[Obama-isms]]
*[[Resin identification codes]] (Symbols to identify plastics for recycling)
*[[Megachurch]]
*'''[[Conservapedia]]''' ('''Content article about CP''')
*[[Open mind]]
*[[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]
*[[Stars and Stripes Forever]]
*[[Political Compass]]
*[[Pipe organ]] (stub, please expand)
*[[Mother of Divine Grace School]] ([[Homeschooling]] service)
*[[Composting]] (will expand)
*[[Know Homeschooling]] (A wiki about homeschooling)
*[[Nellie Gray]] (founder of [[March for Life]])
*[[The Teaching Company]]
*[[Seton Home Study School]]
*[[Ray Kroc]] (Entrepreneur behind [[McDonald's]])
*[[Wasabi]] ([[Japanese]] condiment)
*[[Generation Joshua]]
*[[Exodus Mandate]]
*[[Red Envelope Project]]
*[[Revelation (religion)]]
*[[Essay: Greatest political rivalries in American history|Greatest political rivalries in American history]]
*[[Anacyclosis]]
*[[Google Earth]]
*[[Apostles' Creed]]
*[[Foundation for a Better Life]]
*[[Freedom From Religion Foundation]]
*[[Larry Kudlow]]
*[[Interesterified fat]] (Type of processed oil)
*[[Melting pot]] (Cultural term)
*[[Priests for Life]]
*[[Randall Terry]]
*[[Tiktaalik roseae]] (Claimed transitional form between fish and amphibian tetrapods)
*[[Biogeography]]
*[[Polystrate fossil]]
*[[Darwinius masillae‎]] (new "missing link" fossil)
*[[Stasis (biology)]]
*[[Derived (evolution)]]
*[[Omphalos hypothesis]]
*[[Great Books Academy]] (homeschool curriculum)
*[[Calvert School]] (Private school and homeschool curriculum)
*[[List of homeschool curriculums]]
*[[Billy Mays]] (American advertiser)
*[[Philip D. Gingerich]] (Evolutionist, paleontologist)
*[[Closed communion]]
*[[Open communion]]
*[[Pakicetus]]
*[[Ambulocetus]]
*[[Vance Packard]]
*[[Planned obsolescence]]
*[[The Story of Stuff]]
*[[Pay as you throw]]

'''Essays:'''

*[[Essay: Real Environmentalism]]
*[[Essay: Artificial Food]]
*'''[[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America|The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]]''' ('''Nominated and selected as Featured Article during Holy Week/Easter Week''')
*[[Essay:Justifying Justification by Faith and Works|Justifying Justification by Faith and Works]] (Essay supporting Catholic view of salvation)
*[[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"|Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]] (All the wonderful contributions made by vandals. If you know any, share them!)

'''Templates:'''

*[[Template:Bible Versions]]
*[[Template:Creation vs. evolution]]
*[[Template:Conservatism]]

'''Conservapedia Exclusives:'''
These are articles I've created which do not exist on Wikipedia:

*[[Pump 'Em Up]]
*[[Christine Cloud]]
*[[Holy God We Praise Thy Name]]
*[[Obama-isms]]
*[[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]
*[[Mother of Divine Grace School]]
*[[Know Homeschooling]]
*[[Nellie Gray]]

==About me==

'''Favorite quotes:'''

"Everyone (in Jersey) is the best at something" - '''Mr. Schlafly'''

"If you have talent, that's God's gift to you. If you use that talent, that's your gift to God" - '''Red Skeleton'''

"Guys will look all over a girl, but they won't remember the color of her eyes - '''a youth minister'''

“And when they call this treason we will call it American! When they call it fad we will call it restoration! And when they call us anarchists, we will call ourselves free men!” - '''Quote from a story I'm writing'''

"In response to the claim that God keeps the planets and heavenly bodies suspended and in motion, the atheist will say “Aha! We have found gravity! You see, it is not God, but gravity that governs the stars.” But would God not use natural means to guide His creation? Did He not form Man from the dust of the earth? Did He not take on Man’s nature to save us? For the atheist to replace God with gravity is no more logical than to say, “The watch operates using a battery! Thus, the watch has no creator!" -
'''Myself'''

"There is no such thing as 'socialism.' If the rich spread their wealth of their own free will, it's called charity. If the government spreads their wealth against their will, it's called tyranny."

"A free lunch violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics." -
'''Myself'''

"If you're doing nothing, do ten times more. If you're doing a little bit, do ten times more. If you're doing everything you can, do ten times more." -
'''A congressman at the March for Life'''

"The invisible hand needs a shot in the arm." -
'''A description of the government bailouts during the recession'''

==Medals and Awards==
[[Image:Banhammer2.jpg|thumb|600px|right|'''AddisonDM''' is hereby awarded the prestigious & coveted '''Banhammer''' barnstar for tireless vigilence against liberal fascists, vandals & trolls!]]
[[Image:Medal_Christmas_Campaign.jpg|right]]

[[Category:Christian Conservapedians]][[Category:Catholic Conservapedians]]

Coexist exhibition

2011-03-15T23:48:13Z

AddisonDM: more encyclopedic style; minor wording changes

[[Image:coexist.jpg|right|thumb| The work of artist Piotr Mlodozeniec]]

'''Coexist exhibition''' is a project of the Museum on the Seam located in [[Jerusalem]]. Their website states "Exhibition Coexistence brings the universal message of diversity and acceptance of the other to the world community." The exhibition has visited 24 cities around the globe. Over thirty artists display their works including [[Yoko Ono]].

==Coexist==
The exhibition's logo spelled out COEXIST using [[Islam]]ic, [[Judaism|Jewish]] and [[Christian]] symbols: the crescent, Star of David, and Christian cross.

==Message Co-opted by Liberals==
Whenever diversity is a topic, leftists are likely to be involved. The original work of Piotr Mlodozeniec has been changed, most likely by liberals, to reflect what are supposed to be the new realities of the day. The liberal COEXIST image adds the following to Islam, Judaism and Christianity symbols: Peace sign, Gender, [[Wicca]] and [[Taoism]]. This emblem is commonly used as a bumber sticker.
[[Image:Liberal-coexist.JPG‎|right|thumb| The liberal version.]]

==The Message==
Coexistence, diversity, and tolerance, are praiseworthy messages. The [[Jews]] and [[Christians]] are tolerant people; however, they do not tolerate evil, nor should they. As [[Martin Luther King]] stated, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." We should not coexist with evil but fight as commanded by God. The hypocrisy of this message is that a certain contingent of Muslims refuses to coexist with other religions. Islam refuses to recognize those that do not adhere to [[Mohammed]]. Also, Muslims put to death those people who convert from Islam and believe those who are non-believers are only good enough to be slaves of [[Muslim]]s.

==External Links==
*[http://www.coexistence.art.museum/Coex/Index.asp Home Page]

[[File:41496_1098789758_1575_n.jpg|left|thumb| The conservative version]]
[[Category:Art]]
[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

DeviantART

2011-03-15T23:43:26Z

AddisonDM:

'''deviantART''' is an online [[artist]] community. It allows users to register for free and present their art in individual galleries. Recently, deviantART has allowed users to organize their galleries into folders, whereas before there was simple the main gallery and scraps. Works of all media and literature are accepted, though there is some limitation on content. The most popular artwork tend to be of the [[anime]] style, while they offer place for all types of art. Digital art is among the most popular but there is still a large quantity of photography and writing. Parents should monitor childrens exposure to the website as it contains many adult themes and content of a sexual nature.

== External links ==
* [http://www.deviantart.com/ deviantART]

[[category:Websites]][[Category:Art]]

Glenn Beck

2011-03-15T23:40:26Z

AddisonDM: Undo revision 857093 by AddisonDM (talk)

[[Image:Beck Glenn Fox.jpg|thumb|right|200px]]
'''Glenn Beck''' is a [[conservative]] and [[libertarian]] talk-radio host and television anchor employed by [[Fox News]].<ref> [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/tv_fox_beck_cnn/2008/10/16/141295.html Glenn Beck Leaving CNN for Fox News] AP, October 16, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/06/entertainment/et-foxnews6 Fox News' Glenn Beck strikes ratings gold by challenging Barack Obama] p.3 </ref>
His radio show, The Glenn Beck Program, is syndicated by over 230 radio stations across the [[United States]]. His television show, Glenn Beck, appeared daily on [[CNN]] Headline News, before he switched to FOX, during the 6:00 p.m. hour (EDT).

Beck is the author of five books, including ''The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland'' and three #1 New York Times Bestsellers, ''An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems,'' ''The Christmas Sweater,'' ''Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government,'' ''Arguing With Idiots,'' and most recently ''Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure''.

Beck is a [[Mormon]], having converted after recovering from [[alcoholism]].<ref>Glenn Beck. (2008). An Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck [DVD]. Deserest Book.</ref>

== Earnings and Book Deal ==
[http://www.businessinsider.com BusinessInsider.com] estimated Beck will make $18 million in 2009<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/the-empire-of-glenn-beck-slideshow-2009-4 Glenn Beck's Cash Machine]</ref> Now with the signing of his new book deal with [[Simon & Schuster]], he will be given a larger share in the profits of each book, as well as increased creative control.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124138941245781353.html Wall St. Journal; New Deal Gives Beck Share in Book Profits]</ref>

==Liberal attempts to silence Beck==
Liberal activism groups attempted to silence Beck by pushing his advertisers to abandon his program, after he alleged that [[Barack Obama]] is [[racism|racist]] against white people, and that he [[hate|hates]] white culture. This prompted "RedState" to defend Beck and call for a boycott of the advertisers on his show who were hoodwinked into boycotting it by the liberal elite.

The publicity over the attempts on Beck's popularity achieved a result that the liberals cannot have intended: Beck was featured on the cover of [[Time]] magazine, and in a final insult to liberal pride; he is depicted sticking his tongue out at the reader. Beck, however, was less than pleased with the Time cover: He stated that ''Time'' ought to have featured the large crowds attending the [[September 12 March on Washington]] and not him on its cover.

On August 28th, 2010, Glenn Beck hosted his Restoring Honor to America rally at the [[Lincoln Memorial]]. [[Google]] attempted to mislead attendees by changing its location in ''Google Maps'' to the Roosevelt Memorial days before the rally.

== Known favorite associations ==
Beck frequently has Judge [[Andrew Napolitano]] appear as a guest on his program. Judge Napolitano has even hosted the Glenn Beck show himself when Mr. Beck was on assignment.

== 9/12 Project ==
In 2009, Beck launched the 9/12 project, a project aimed at recovering America's Christian founding values, closely allied with the [[Tea Party Movement]]. On September 12, 2009 (9/12), a massive Taxpayer March on Washington was accomplished, with hundreds of thousands of attendees, and was roundly censored by the [[liberal media]].

===The Project's 9 Principles, 12 Values===

The 9 Principles:
# America Is Good.
# I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
# I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
# The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
# If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
# I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
# I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
# It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
# The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

The 12 Values:
Honesty, Reverence, Hope, Thrift, Humility, Charity, Sincerity, Moderation, Hard Work, Courage, Personal Responsibility, Gratitude

==See Also==
* [[Restoring Honor Rally]]
* [[Fox News]]
* [[Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure]]

==External References==
* [http://www.the912project.com/ 9/12 Project website]
* [http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml Glenn Beck's personal site]
* [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov09/0,4670,APonTVPostElection,00.html Glenn Beck jumps from CNN to [[Fox News]]]

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT: Beck, Glenn}}
[[Category: Broadcasters]]
[[Category: Television]]
[[Category: Conservative Commentators]]
[[Category: Media personalities ]]
[[Category: Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

{{Conservatism}}

Glenn Beck

2011-03-15T23:40:08Z

AddisonDM: Reverted edits by MaxFletcher (talk) to last revision by Iduan

[[Image:Beck Glenn Fox.jpg|thumb|right|200px]]
'''Glenn Beck''' is a [[conservative]] and [[libertarian]] talk-radio host and television anchor employed by [[Fox News]].<ref> [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/tv_fox_beck_cnn/2008/10/16/141295.html Glenn Beck Leaving CNN for Fox News] AP, October 16, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/06/entertainment/et-foxnews6 Fox News' Glenn Beck strikes ratings gold by challenging Barack Obama] p.3 </ref>
His radio show, The Glenn Beck Program, is syndicated by over 230 radio stations across the [[United States]]. His television show, Glenn Beck, appeared daily on [[CNN]] Headline News, before he switched to FOX, during the 6:00 p.m. hour (EDT).

Beck is the author of five books, including ''The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland'' and three #1 New York Times Bestsellers, ''An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems,'' ''The Christmas Sweater,'' ''Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government,'' ''Arguing With Idiots,'' and most recently ''Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure''.

Beck is a [[Mormon]], having converted after recovering from [[alcoholism]].<ref>Glenn Beck. (2008). An Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck [DVD]. Deserest Book.</ref>

== Earnings and Book Deal ==
[http://www.businessinsider.com BusinessInsider.com] estimated Beck will make $18 million in 2009<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/the-empire-of-glenn-beck-slideshow-2009-4 Glenn Beck's Cash Machine]</ref> Now with the signing of his new book deal with [[Simon & Schuster]], he will be given a larger share in the profits of each book, as well as increased creative control.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124138941245781353.html Wall St. Journal; New Deal Gives Beck Share in Book Profits]</ref>

==Liberal attempts to silence Beck==
Liberal activism groups attempted to silence Beck by pushing his advertisers to abandon his program, after he alleged that [[Barack Obama]] is [[racism|racist]] against white people, and that he [[hate|hates]] white culture. This prompted "RedState" to defend Beck and call for a boycott of the advertisers on his show who were hoodwinked into boycotting it by the liberal elite.

The publicity over the attempts on Beck's popularity achieved a result that the liberals cannot have intended: Beck was featured on the cover of [[Time]] magazine, and in a final insult to liberal pride; he is depicted sticking his tongue out at the reader. Beck, however, was less than pleased with the Time cover: He stated that ''Time'' ought to have featured the large crowds attending the [[September 12 March on Washington]] and not him on its cover.

On August 28th, 2010, Glenn Beck hosted his Restoring Honor to America rally at the [[Lincoln Memorial]]. [[Google]] attempted to mislead attendees by changing its location in ''Google Maps'' to the Roosevelt Memorial days before the rally.

== Known favorite associations ==
Beck frequently has Judge [[Andrew Napolitano]] appear as a guest on his program. Judge Napolitano has even hosted the Glenn Beck show himself when Mr. Beck was on assignment.

== 9/12 Project ==
In 2009, Beck launched the 9/12 project, a project aimed at recovering America's Christian founding values, closely allied with the [[Tea Party Movement]]. On September 12, 2009 (9/12), a massive Taxpayer March on Washington was accomplished, with hundreds of thousands of attendees, and was roundly censored by the [[liberal media]].

===The Project's 9 Principles, 12 Values===

The 9 Principles:
# America Is Good.
# I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
# I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
# The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
# If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
# I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
# I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
# It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
# The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

The 12 Values:
Honesty, Reverence, Hope, Thrift, Humility, Charity, Sincerity, Moderation, Hard Work, Courage, Personal Responsibility, Gratitude

==See Also==
* [[Restoring Honor Rally]]
* [[Fox News]]
* [[Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure]]
* [http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml Glenn Beck's personal site]
* [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov09/0,4670,APonTVPostElection,00.html Glenn Beck jumps from CNN to [[Fox News]]]

==External References==
[http://www.the912project.com/ 9/12 Project website]

{{Conservatism}}

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT: Beck, Glenn}}
[[Category: Broadcasters]]
[[Category: Television]]
[[Category: Conservative Commentators]]
[[Category: Media personalities ]]
[[Category: Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Conservapedia

2011-03-15T17:05:54Z

AddisonDM:

{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservapedia| Previous Breaking News: Conservapedia]]
|}

'''Conservapedia''', launched on November 21, 2006, is a [[conservative]], [[family-friendly]] [[Wiki]] [[encyclopedia]]. It was founded by [[teacher]] and [[attorney]] [[Andrew Schlafly]] with the help of several students from his fall 2006 World History class. In May 2008, Schlafly and some of his [[homeschooling|homeschooled]] students appeared on the [[CBC]] news program The Hour (see: [[Videos on Conservapedia]] ).

When a student handed in her paper using the date-markers “[[BCE]]” and "CE” from [[Wikipedia]], Schlafly realized that Wikipedia, despite its claim of neutrality, contained bias against the achievements of [[Christianity]] and conservatism. Other occasions of [[liberal bias]], including the reversion of factual edits about the 2005 Kansas Evolution Hearings, led to the creation and launch of Conservapedia.

Though Conservapedia originally contained mostly [[history]] articles, it has grown over several years to be a general reference, with information about history, [[math]], [[science]], [[politics]], [[religion]] and other topics. It also contains [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics|debates]], [[essays]] and [[Conservapedia:Index|educational resources]].

In March 2007 it was picked up by the media, and faced a barrage of [[vandalism]] (See [[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"|Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]]). Ever since then, it has continued to grow, and now has [[Special:Statistics|tens of millions of page views]], and enjoys prominence on search engines.
== Rapid Expansion of Web Traffic Relative to Many Conservative Websites==
[[File:TrafficGraph.png|right|300px]]
Conservapedia was listed in May of 2009 as one of the 50 most popular conservative websites in terms of web traffic by the [[conservative]] blog Right Wing News.<ref name=popular50>[http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/03/the_50_most_popular_websites_o.php The 50 Most Popular Conservative Websites], ''Right Wing News'', March 16, 2009.</ref> Considering that Conservapedia was only about 3 years old in May of 2009 and was doing better in web traffic than some veteran conservative websites, the rise in web traffic for Conservapedia during its existence has been quite favorable. In May of 2009, the website Right Wing News determined with the help of [[Alexa]] data that Conservapedia was ranked 37 out of 50 in terms of its website traffic relative to other popular conservative websites.<ref name=popular50/> Conservapedia is looking forward to greatly spreading awareness of Conservapedia via the significant expansion of its [[YouTube]] channel subscriber base at [http://www.youtube.com/user/conservapediavideos Conservapediavideos]. [[Conservapediavideos]] will likely soon feature a multitude of excellent conservative videos.

==Leadership==
Unlike Wikipedia, which bills itself as a [[democratic]] system and ends up functioning as a [[mobocracy]], Conservapedia employs a hierarchy based on a [[Meritocracy|merit system]].

Andrew Schlafly is the chief administrator and is the most prolific editor, followed by bureaucrats, administrators, and regular editors. Editors who contribute substantial content may be promoted to administrator and bureaucrat, or gain extra user rights such as blocking power and uploading images.

==Educational atmosphere==
Due to the existence of essays and debates on Conservapedia, and conventions such as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|"90/10 rule"]] and the use of real names, Conservapedia successfully fosters an [[education]]al environment. Because liberal bias is not allowed, much information that would be elsewhere censored can be found on Conservapedia; often it is one of the only places to find such information in one place.

==Promoting Original Scholarship ==
Many pages tagged as essays are really more like projects, or are otherwise thought-provoking, giving Conservapedia some characteristics of a [[think tank]]. See [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]], [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America|The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]], [[Essay:Top Causes of Rejecting Conservativism|Top Causes of Rejecting Conservativism]], [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?|Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]], [[Disputed Biblical Translations]], and [[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]].

=== Conservative Bible Project ===
On August 12, 2009, Conservapedia began an enormous scholarly enterprise, the [[Conservative Bible Project]], which endeavors to retranslate scripture into modern English while emphasizing Biblical insights and counteracting liberal bias. As of Oct. 29, 2009, this project has translated about 30% of it, or about 2400 verses.

The project has been the subject of extensive discussion and debate throughout television, radio, and print media, as well as on the internet, and has succeeded in encouraging even its most strident liberal critics to read the bible in their efforts to refute it!

==Differences with Wikipedia==
Conservapedia strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the [[fact]]s, which often back up conservative ideas more than [[liberal]] ones. Rather than claim a neutral point of view and then insert bias, Conservapedia is clear that it seeks to give due credit to conservatism and Christianity. Schlafly said in regard to the point of view issue, "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's take a point of view, let's disclose that point of view to the reader." <ref>Robert Siegel. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084 Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?], npr.org, November 29, 2009.</ref>

Wikipedia articles may contain [[trivia]], [[gossip]], profanity, and even [[Pornography|pornographic]]/sexually explicit images. The latter three are prohibited on Conservapedia and trivia is largely discouraged.

The administrative hierarchy prevents Conservapedia from being hijacked by a faction, and thus preserves it from mobocracy, as discussed above.

==Influential editors and users==
*[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is the username of the aforementioned founder of Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly. He has contributed massively to Conservapedia since the beginning, authored many articles including the [[World History Lectures|student lectures]], and is the final authority on article content and user conduct.

*[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] was one of the original three who joined at the beginning of the influx in February 2007, amid massive media attention, and has been an extraordinary contributor ever since. The cartoons and many of the military history entries are his superb work.

*[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], active at Conservapedia for many years, and at Wikipedia for more than seven years, was the first elected bureaucrat at Wikipedia and has been extremely influential at both sites. At Conservapedia, he has primarily aimed at accuracy, rationality, and user cooperation.

*[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] has contributed the majority of content to the extremely popular [[evolution]], [[atheism]], and [[homosexuality]] articles. The first two articles were featured as articles of the year at Conservapedia. In addition, Conservative created the Conservapedia resources [[Resources on becoming a Christian]] and [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]].

*[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] has contributed a large amount of content about the [[art]]s, such as pages on [[literature]], [[sculpture]], and [[painting]]. He created the [[Painting Masterpieces|galleries of artwork]] which are featured on Conservapedia's [[Main_Page|Main page]] as the "Masterpiece of the Week". His work has helped beautify the encyclopedia.

*[[User:Jpatt | Jpatt]] has more than 13,000 edits and 2,000 blocks, and is phenomenal in identifying good stories and posting headlines for them.

*[[User:TerryH | TerryH]], a fabulous writer and biblical scholar who graduated from [[Yale]], has broken big stories here in addition to translating some of the [[Bible]].

*[[User:Chippeterson]] has been a brilliant editor of numerous political entries.

*[[User:TK|TK]] has made many substantive contributions since coming to Conservapedia over two years ago, and is known for his vigilance against vandals (RIP).

*[[User:DeanS|DeanS]] helped found the Conservapedia news project, and he is its main contributor. He has also worked on articles related to [[Mormonism]].

*[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] has been an editor since the very beginning of Conservapedia, and was interviewed and quoted in a newspaper article to explain and defend the project.

*[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] works on maintenance, and in addition to neutral contributions has created the popular article [[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"|Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]], as well as the Conservapedia article itself.

*[[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] Created some of Conservapedia's most acclaimed articles, and was a tireless vandal fighter and researcher on the [[Socialist]] and [[Communist]] agendas.

*[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] has a PhD in American Studies and has been a professor of history and political science at numerous schools. Professor Jensen has made significant contibutions to Conservapedia's historical articles.

*[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] has thousands of edits and his work on Templates has been particularly noteworthy.

*[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] is a gifted mathematician who has been invaluable to many of those entries; he also uploaded the [[KJV]] for easy comparison in the [[Conservative Bible Project]].

==Impact==
Conservapedia has been praised and ridiculed in the [[media]], on [[blog]]s, and on rival sites. Critics claim that it contains fringe viewpoints, while supporters note that it simply provides another viewpoint and an alternative to liberal bias.

*Conservapedia provides information about the [[American]] people that liberal critics would rather hide: for example, nearly 50 percent of Americans reject evolution and embrace [[creationism]], and even more want creationism taught alongside evolution in school. <ref>Bootie Cosgrove-Mather. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution], ''CBS News'', November 22, 2004.</ref> Another example is the fact that atheists- often claiming to be more equipped to help their fellow men than religious people- actually give less to charity than believers, even when church giving is excluded.

*Search results for controversial subjects such as [[atheism]] and [[evolution]] contain Conservapedia links within a few searches and often on the first page.<ref>[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS293US293&q=atheism&btnG=Search atheism - Google Search]</ref><ref>[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS293US293&q=theory+of+evolution&btnG=Search theory of evolution - Google Search]</ref>

*Many biographical articles contain religious references and information about the person’s religion, much more so than Wikipedia. Editor and college student Tasha Jones, ([[User:Taj|Taj]]) said of this aspect, “It gives me a better understanding of how people feel religion relates to our lives.” <ref>Stephanie Simon. [http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/19/nation/na-schlafly19 A conservative's answer to Wikipedia], ''Los Angeles Times'', June 19, 2007.</ref>

*Conservapedia is active in political advocacy. For example, it [[charter]]ed a bus for the 2009, 2010, and 2011 [[March for Life]].

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia Commandments]]
*[[Conservapedia:About|About Conservapedia]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles mentioning Conservapedia]]
*[[Videos on Conservapedia]]
*[[Special:ListUsers/Siteadmin|List of Site Admins]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]][[Category:Wikis]][[Category:Encyclopedias]][[Category:Reference Material]][[Category:Conservative]][[Category:Websites]]

Conservapedia:Essays

2011-03-15T01:53:34Z

AddisonDM:

'''''This is an Index of "Essays" written by Conservapedia Members.'''''

Unlike articles, essays may represent a particular point of view. If you write an essay, please attribute it to yourself and link it to this top page. Essays are still subject to control for obscenities, etcetera.
==Politics==
#'''[[Essay:Gun control]]''' by [[User:StephenW|StephenW]]
#'''[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]''' by --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)
#'''[[Essay:End Gates' Tax Exemption]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods]]'''
#'''[[Cuban Dealings Essay]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Gun Control Essay "Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark"]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Court Rules for Gay Club, but Gives School Alternatives]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Title IX]]''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power]]'''
#'''[[Essay: 12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity]] by American Solutions
#'''[[Essay:School Prayer and the First Amendment]] by Leo Samuels
#'''[[Essay:Liberals can't lose in the 2010 UK Elections]] - [[User:Newton|Newton]] 11:53, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
#'''[[Essay: Real Environmentalism]] by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]

==Religion==
#'''[[Essay:Oath of Saint Luke]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power#What Is All This About?]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Noah's Ark Was Real]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay: Young Earth Cosmology]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay:Allegiance]]''' by [[User:DanH|DanH]]
#'''[[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]]''' by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]
#'''[[Essay:Shock "Value"?]]''' by [[User:JY23|JY23]]

==Conservapedia==
#'''[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Rules_of_Chivalry_for_Students]]''', by [[User:Aschlafly|Ashlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]]''' by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]

==Wikipedia==
#'''[[Essay:Wikipedia's Ads-for-Charity]]
#'''[[Essay:Uses of Wikipedia]]'''
==Conservative popular culture==
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Music is not neutral]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Born Again American]]'''

==Science==
#'''[[Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design]]
#'''[[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine]]''' by [[User:RobS|RobS]]
# '''[[Essay: Out-of-place Artifacts, ET's, and the Great Flood]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay:Darwin's The Origin of Species: Supplanting William Paley's Notion of Creator]] by [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

==Other==
#'''[[Essay: Is File-sharing a Moral Action?]]''' by [[user:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
#'''[[Essay:Most Influential Persons]]
#'''[[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
#'''[[Essay:Accuracy in Academia Interview]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Interview with Australian Researcher]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Adultress Story]]''' by ([[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]])

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Essays|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]

Conservapedia

2011-03-15T01:51:21Z

AddisonDM: updating page; hasn't been updated in a bit

{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservapedia| Previous Breaking News: Conservapedia]]
|}

'''Conservapedia''', launched on November 21, 2006, is a [[conservative]], [[family-friendly]] [[Wiki]] [[encyclopedia]]. It was founded by [[teacher]] and [[attorney]] [[Andrew Schlafly]] with the help of several students from his fall 2006 World History class. In May 2008, Schlafly and some of his [[homeschooling|homeschooled]] students appeared on the [[CBC]] news program The Hour (see: [[Videos on Conservapedia]] ).

When a student handed in her paper using the date-markers “[[BCE]]” and "CE” from [[Wikipedia]], Schlafly realized that Wikipedia, despite its claim of neutrality, contained bias against the achievements of [[Christianity]] and conservatism. Other occasions of [[liberal bias]], including the reversion of factual edits about the 2005 Kansas Evolution Hearings, led to the creation and launch of Conservapedia.

Though Conservapedia originally contained mostly [[history]] articles, it has grown over two years to be a general reference, with information about history, [[math]], [[science]], [[politics]], [[religion]] and other topics. It also contains [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics|debates]], [[essays]] and [[Conservapedia:Index|educational resources]].

In March 2007 it was picked up by the media, and faced a barrage of [[vandalism]] (See [[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"|Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]]). Ever since then, it has continued to grow, and now has [[Special:Statistics|tens of millions of page views]], and enjoys prominence on search engines.
== Rapid Expansion of Web Traffic Relative to Many Conservative Websites==
[[File:TrafficGraph.png|right|300px]]
Conservapedia was listed in May of 2009 as one of the 50 most popular conservative websites in terms of web traffic by the [[conservative]] blog Right Wing News.<ref name=popular50>[http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/03/the_50_most_popular_websites_o.php The 50 Most Popular Conservative Websites], ''Right Wing News'', March 16, 2009.</ref> Considering that Conservapedia was only about 3 years old in May of 2009 and was doing better in web traffic than some veteran conservative websites, the rise in web traffic for Conservapedia during its existence has been quite favorable. In May of 2009, the website Right Wing News determined with the help of [[Alexa]] data that Conservapedia was ranked 37 out of 50 in terms of its website traffic relative to other popular conservative websites.<ref name=popular50/> Conservapedia is looking forward to greatly spreading awareness of Conservapedia via the significant expansion of its [[YouTube]] channel subscriber base at [http://www.youtube.com/user/conservapediavideos Conservapediavideos]. [[Conservapediavideos]] will likely soon feature a multitude of excellent conservative videos.

==Leadership==
Unlike Wikipedia, which bills itself as a [[democratic]] system and ends up functioning as a [[mobocracy]], Conservapedia employs a hierarchy based on a [[Meritocracy|merit system]].

Andrew Schlafly is the chief administrator and is the most prolific editor, followed by bureaucrats, administrators, and regular editors. Editors who contribute substantial content may be promoted to administrator and bureaucrat, or gain extra user rights such as blocking power and uploading images.

==Educational atmosphere==
Due to the existence of essays and debates on Conservapedia, and conventions such as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|"90/10 rule"]] and the use of real names, Conservapedia successfully fosters an [[education]]al environment. Because liberal bias is not allowed, much information that would be elsewhere censored can be found on Conservapedia; often it is one of the only places to find such information in one place.

==Promoting Original Scholarship ==
Many pages tagged as essays are really more like projects, or are otherwise thought-provoking, giving Conservapedia some characteristics of a [[think tank]]. See [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]], [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America|The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]], [[Essay:Top Causes of Rejecting Conservativism|Top Causes of Rejecting Conservativism]], [[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?|Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]], [[Disputed Biblical Translations]], and [[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]].

=== Conservative Bible Project ===
On August 12, 2009, Conservapedia began an enormous scholarly enterprise, the [[Conservative Bible Project]], which endeavors to retranslate scripture into modern English while emphasizing Biblical insights and counteracting liberal bias. As of Oct. 29, 2009, this project has translated about 30% of it, or about 2400 verses.

The project has been the subject of extensive discussion and debate throughout television, radio, and print media, as well as on the internet, and has succeeded in encouraging even its most strident liberal critics to read the bible in their efforts to refute it!

==Differences with Wikipedia==
Conservapedia strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the [[fact]]s, which often back up conservative ideas more than [[liberal]] ones. Rather than claim a neutral point of view and then insert bias, Conservapedia is clear that it seeks to give due credit to conservatism and Christianity. Schlafly said in regard to the point of view issue, "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's take a point of view, let's disclose that point of view to the reader." <ref>Robert Siegel. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084 Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?], npr.org, November 29, 2009.</ref>

Wikipedia articles may contain [[trivia]], [[gossip]], profanity, and even [[Pornography|pornographic]]/sexually explicit images. The latter three are prohibited on Conservapedia and trivia is largely discouraged.

The administrative hierarchy prevents Conservapedia from being hijacked by a faction, and thus preserves it from mobocracy, as discussed above.

==Influential editors and users==
*[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is the username of the aforementioned founder of Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly. He has contributed massively to Conservapedia since the beginning, authored many articles including the [[World History Lectures|student lectures]], and is the final authority on article content and user conduct.

*[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] was one of the original three who joined at the beginning of the influx in February 2007, amid massive media attention, and has been an extraordinary contributor ever since. The cartoons and many of the military history entries are his superb work.

*[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], active at Conservapedia for many years, and at Wikipedia for more than seven years, was the first elected bureaucrat at Wikipedia and has been extremely influential at both sites. At Conservapedia, he has primarily aimed at accuracy, rationality, and user cooperation.

*[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] has contributed the majority of content to the extremely popular [[evolution]], [[atheism]], and [[homosexuality]] articles. The first two articles were featured as articles of the year at Conservapedia. In addition, Conservative created the Conservapedia resources [[Resources on becoming a Christian]] and [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]].

*[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] has contributed a large amount of content about the [[art]]s, such as pages on [[literature]], [[sculpture]], and [[painting]]. He created the [[Painting Masterpieces|galleries of artwork]] which are featured on Conservapedia's [[Main_Page|Main page]] as the "Masterpiece of the Week". His work has helped beautify the encyclopedia.

*[[User:Jpatt | Jpatt]] has more than 13,000 edits and 2,000 blocks, and is phenomenal in identifying good stories and posting headlines for them.

*[[User:TerryH | TerryH]], a fabulous writer and biblical scholar who graduated from [[Yale]], has broken big stories here in addition to translating some of the [[Bible]].

*[[User:Chippeterson]] has been a brilliant editor of numerous political entries.

*[[User:TK|TK]] has made many substantive contributions since coming to Conservapedia over two years ago, and is known for his vigilance against vandals (RIP).

*[[User:DeanS|DeanS]] helped found the Conservapedia news project, and he is its main contributor. He has also worked on articles related to [[Mormonism]].

*[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] has been an editor since the very beginning of Conservapedia, and was interviewed and quoted in a newspaper article to explain and defend the project.

*[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] works on maintenance, and in addition to neutral contributions has created the popular article [[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"|Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]], as well as the Conservapedia article itself.

*[[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] Created some of Conservapedia's most acclaimed articles, and was a tireless vandal fighter and researcher on the [[Socialist]] and [[Communist]] agendas.

*[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] has a PhD in American Studies and has been a professor of history and political science at numerous schools. Professor Jensen has made significant contibutions to Conservapedia's historical articles.

*[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] has thousands of edits and his work on Templates has been particularly noteworthy.

*[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] is a gifted mathematician who has been invaluable to many of those entries; he also uploaded the [[KJV]] for easy comparison in the [[Conservative Bible Project]].

==Impact==
Conservapedia has been praised and ridiculed in the [[media]], on [[blog]]s, and on rival sites. Critics claim that it contains fringe viewpoints, while supporters note that it simply provides another viewpoint and an alternative to liberal bias.

*Conservapedia provides information about the [[American]] people that liberal critics would rather hide: for example, nearly 50 percent of Americans reject evolution and embrace [[creationism]], and even more want creationism taught alongside evolution in school. <ref>Bootie Cosgrove-Mather. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution], ''CBS News'', November 22, 2004.</ref> Another example is the fact that atheists- often claiming to be more equipped to help their fellow men than religious people- actually give less to charity than believers, even when church giving is excluded.

*Search results for controversial subjects such as [[atheism]] and [[evolution]] contain Conservapedia links within a few searches and often on the first page.<ref>[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS293US293&q=atheism&btnG=Search atheism - Google Search]</ref><ref>[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS293US293&q=theory+of+evolution&btnG=Search theory of evolution - Google Search]</ref>

*Many biographical articles contain religious references and information about the person’s religion, much more so than Wikipedia. Editor and college student Tasha Jones, ([[User:Taj|Taj]]) said of this aspect, “It gives me a better understanding of how people feel religion relates to our lives.” <ref>Stephanie Simon. [http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/19/nation/na-schlafly19 A conservative's answer to Wikipedia], ''Los Angeles Times'', June 19, 2007.</ref>

*Conservapedia is active in political advocacy. For example, it [[charter]]ed a bus for the 2009, 2010, and 2011 [[March for Life]].

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia Commandments]]
*[[Conservapedia:About|About Conservapedia]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles mentioning Conservapedia]]
*[[Videos on Conservapedia]]
*[[Special:ListUsers/Siteadmin|List of Site Admins]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]][[Category:Wikis]][[Category:Encyclopedias]][[Category:Reference Material]][[Category:Conservative]][[Category:Websites]]

Planned obsolescence

2011-03-12T02:22:37Z

AddisonDM: another example

'''Planned obsolescence''' refers to manufacturing or marketing techniques generally designed to artificially shorten the life of a product, either by making it actually useless, or appear useless before it would naturally. There are several similar but subtly different types of planned obsolescence.

It should be noted that most of these types of obsolescence can and do occur naturally, without any intent to create the obsolescence. Obsolescence may be the result of true progress in developing industries such as the computer industry.

==Types of Planned Obsolescence==

*''Obsolescence of function'': This refers to when an item is produced to break down or otherwise become non-functional in an abnormally short period of time. It may also refer to cases where an item is rendered non-functional but where the item itself still works: e.g. the creation of a new cell phone network that is incompatible with earlier cell phones. Obsolescence of function is sometimes simply shoddy workmanship (though not all poor workmanship is an attempt at planned obsolescence).

*''Obsolescence of style'': This refers to the the obsolescence of items such as clothing, fashion accessories, and home decorating products due to changes in style. For example, if the fashion trend is for high skirts, low skirts will be rendered stylistically obsolete. In some cases, style changes are so great that old styles would look out of place or ridiculous.

*''Technical obsolescence'': This refers to the obsolescence of an older item caused by the creation of a newer item performing the same function, e.g. a digital camera that takes higher quality photos. While the older item still performs the function in question, it is comparatively inferior to the newer item.

==Other Examples==
One of the most egregious examples of planned obsolescence is the rechargeable batteries commonly contained in small electronic devices such as MP3 players, PDAs, and some cell phones (such as the iPhone). The batteries are often soldered into the unit, making replacement almost impossible for the average user (some companies such as Apple do offer battery replacement for a considerable fee). Some of these batteries also contain circuits that regulate and limit the number of charging cycles the battery will take before it fails to charge, limiting the useful life of the battery, and consequently the unit itself. This strategy is even readily admitted by the product developers themselves; a product development firm states, "Cell phones have proprietary lithium batteries that can be charged and discharged for a limited number of times. After the battery stops retaining charge it has to be replaced. The cost of replacing the proprietary battery is often about the same as replacing the cell phone."<ref>http://www.fast-product-development.com/obsolescence-management.html</ref>

Another example of planned obsolescence is items that warn the user when it is time to replace them, such as the fading colored strips on razors or the low ink warnings for ink jet cartridges. Generally printers will display low ink warnings even when a considerable amount of ink remains, and many printers actually stop printing once the low ink warning has appeared, regardless of how much ink is actually left. Some cartridges still contain than 40% of their ink when they display a low ink warning.<ref>http://www.pcworld.com/article/152953/how_much_ink_is_left_in_that_dead_cartridge.html</ref>

One kind of planned obsolescence has the same effect as technical obsolescence, but it is slightly different; sometimes a company will incrementally introduce features into a product even if it would not cost much more for all of the features to be in a product. For example, a new feature might be added to a GPS every new model, making the new one slightly better than the old one.

Often, batteries for cordless power tools will change such that batteries for working but older tools can no longer be acquired at reasonable prices. This forces the consumer to buy a new tool set when in reality only a new battery is required.

==Arguments==
Planned obsolescence is commonly criticized by social critics as a wasteful attempt simply to sell more items. However, marketers, if they admit to using planned obsolescence, generally describe it as a means of making newer, better products affordable and available. For example, if a company designed its MP3 player to last 10 years, then a) it would cost more, and b), consumers would not update it with a better unit because they paid more for it.

==Value Engineering==
Some product design strategies that are indistinguishable from planned obsolescence are actually meant to provide a more affordable product to the consumer. These strategies are known as "value engineering", the purpose of which is to create the most suitable product at the lowest possible cost.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/value-engineering</ref> Value engineering may be considered a form of planned obsolescence, but it does carry such a negative connotation.

An example of value engineering would be building a computer to last only a few years, since by then it would be superseded by better technology anyway. If the old computer were built to last, say, 20 years, it would presumably cost more, which would be wasteful since the computer would be technically obsolete in only about four years (of course, this is negative for anyone who would intend to keep their computer appreciably longer than four years).
==See Also==
*[[Vance Packard]]
*[[Consumerism]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Economics]]

Homework Five Answers - Student Six

2011-03-10T16:13:59Z

AddisonDM:

[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:50, 10 March 2011 (EST)

'''2. During the time period covered by this lecture, a political party became very strong and then disappeared. Identify it, and explain why it disappeared'''. The Whig Party became very powerful, even electing two presidents, and then after only a couple of decades of prominence all but disappeared. There are two reasons for the collapse of the Whig Party, the greatest and most immediate being its internal dispute over slavery. The pro-slavery Whigs became Democrats, and the anti-slavery Whigs became Republicans. The other, broader reason for the Whig Party’s collapse was the fact that it was founded on opposition to Jackson, who was president all the way back in the 1820s and 30s. As the Jacksonian Democracy period faded, so probably did the Whig Party’s sense of unity and purpose.

'''3. Lincoln v. Douglas: Why do you think Douglas beat Lincoln in 1858 (say which election), but then Lincoln won the rematch in 1860 (identify the election)?''' The greatest factor in Lincoln’s 1860 presidential victory was probably nothing he did, but the fact that Douglas discredited himself with his failed notion of popular sovereignty. The South opposed this because it put their status as slave-owners in the hands of popular vote, and the North opposed it because it was not truly against slavery. By trying to be a moderate, Douglas failed to gain solid support from anyone, as both sides were increasingly doubling down rather than trying to compromise.

Lincoln lost the 1858 Senate election because Douglas was simply a better politician, and his popular sovereignty idea had not yet become opposed by everyone. Another possible reason that Douglas won this election but not the presidential election is this: he seems to have hopped from office to office, rarely filling out a term before running for a new one. Perhaps the American people, even subconsciously, opposed the idea of Douglas now leaving the Senate after only two years to become president. (Maybe after one or two years as president, Douglas would then nominate himself to the Supreme Court!)

'''5. Lincoln thought Harriet Beecher Stowe caused the Civil War. What do you think?''' Harriet Beecher Stowe certainly helped cause the Civil War, but did not single-handedly cause it. The ''Dred Scott'' decision and the Kansas/popular sovereignty debacle probably contributed more. In fact, from the very beginning of the nation, even the colonies, the difference between North and South all but predetermined some ultimate conflict, which turned out to be the Civil War. Stowe’s ''Uncle Tom’s Cabin'' was only fuel on a fire that was already raging.

'''6. Explain the cartoon.''' Columbia (the cartoon portrayal of America) is spanking Steven Douglas for his support of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The cartoonist is probably a Northern abolitionist, and opposed that law primarily because of the violence that it instigated.

'''7. "Remember the Alamo!" Why?''' I’m not sure why. It has always struck me as rather silly to remember our defeats, e.g. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the Alamo. Why not remember our victories? I guess the idea is that our defeat at the Alamo would be a rallying cry to regroup and then defeat Mexico in return (which happened). Perhaps if we forget our defeats, we won’t be able to amend them in the future. This may have been particular true for America in the 1840s, when accepting a defeat might have broken our resolve because we were still not a superpower nation.

'''8. The biggest question in all of American History is this: Do you think it was possible to avoid the Civil War? If so, how?''' Theoretically, the Civil War could have been avoided if everyone became either pro- or anti-slavery. But obviously that was not going to happen. The real question is, was a compromise possible? Because without a compromise the Civil War ''was'' unavoidable.

Considering that the Missouri Compromise was working, it might have continued to work had it not been replaced by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. In another few decades, industrialization would probably have reached the point that slavery was no longer needed, and the issue may simply have become obsolete.

However, the South might actually have rejected industrialization in order to keep slavery, since it viewed slavery as a rights issue and not merely as a convenience. My guess is that the Civil War was conceivably avoidable, but that it almost certainly would have happened in ''some'' manner; maybe less violent, maybe further down the road, but there was probably going to be some ultimate showdown between the North and South.

''Honors''

'''1. Discuss any of the issues or mysteries relating to this lecture (1840-1860).''' James Buchanan did in fact pressure two associate justices on the Supreme Court to vote in favor of slavery in the ''Dred Scott'' decision. The second justice he pressured was a Northerner, and Buchanan wanted his vote so that it did not appear that the vote was sectional/partisan. This communication would almost certainly be disallowed today.

'''3. The South thought it could win the Civil War. Why did it think that? Do you agree it was possible for the South to win?''' The South thought it had better generals and men, with its more outdoor-focused society, and thought foreign nations dependent on its imports would join it against the North. It also had control of the Mississippi river and only had to defend its territory, not attack. I think it was certainly possible for the South to win. Both sides made mistakes, and the South had a particular misfortune in the death of Stonewall Jackson, perhaps its best general. If Jackson had lived and the South had had slightly better strategy it could probably have won, or at least caused a stalemate. The South certainly miscalculated in terms of expecting foreign intervention, but even so a Southern victory was a distinct possibility.

'''5. Compare or contrast the Dred Scott decision with Roe v. Wade.''' ''Dred Scott'' was different from ''Roe v. Wade'' because it said that slaves were non-citizens and property, and government can’t deprive citizens of their rightful property. ''Dred Scott'' did not create any particular right to slavery. ''Roe v. Wade'', on the other hand, specifically decided there was a right to abortion, under the “right to privacy.” The two cases relied on completely different constitutional provisions: ''Roe v. Wade'' relied on the 14th Amendment, which did not exist at the time of the ''Dred Scott'' decision.

The effect of the two cases was similar, however, in that they both denied basic rights to whole classes of human beings: African Americans in one case, unborn babies in the other case. While they were legally different, they had a very similar social effect.

Homework Five Answers - Student Six

2011-03-10T16:13:12Z

AddisonDM:

[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:50, 10 March 2011 (EST)

'''2. During the time period covered by this lecture, a political party became very strong and then disappeared. Identify it, and explain why it disappeared'''. The Whig Party became very powerful, even electing two presidents, and then after only a couple of decades of prominence all but disappeared. There are two reasons for the collapse of the Whig Party, the greatest and most immediate being its internal dispute over slavery. The pro-slavery Whigs became Democrats, and the anti-slavery Whigs became Republicans. The other, broader reason for the Whig Party’s collapse was the fact that it was founded on opposition to Jackson, who was president all the way back in the 1820s and 30s. As the Jacksonian Democracy period faded, so probably did the Whig Party’s sense of unity and purpose.

'''3. Lincoln v. Douglas: Why do you think Douglas beat Lincoln in 1858 (say which election), but then Lincoln won the rematch in 1860 (identify the election)?''' The greatest factor in Lincoln’s 1860 presidential victory was probably nothing he did, but the fact that Douglas discredited himself with his failed notion of popular sovereignty. The South opposed this because it put their status as slave-owners in the hands of popular vote, and the North opposed it because it was not truly against slavery. By trying to be a moderate, Douglas failed to gain solid support from anyone, as both sides were increasingly doubling down rather than trying to compromise.

Lincoln lost the 1858 Senate election because Douglas was simply a better politician, and his popular sovereignty idea had not yet become opposed by everyone. Another possible reason that Douglas won this election but not the presidential election is this: he seems to have hopped from office to office, rarely filling out a term before running for a new one. Perhaps the American people, even subconsciously, opposed the idea of Douglas now leaving the Senate after only two years to become president. (Maybe after one or two years as president, Douglas would then nominate himself to the Supreme Court!)

'''5. Lincoln thought Harriet Beecher Stowe caused the Civil War. What do you think?''' Harriet Beecher Stowe certainly helped cause the Civil War, but did not single-handedly cause it. The ''Dred Scott'' decision and the Kansas/popular sovereignty debacle probably contributed more. In fact, from the very beginning of the nation, even the colonies, the difference between North and South all but predetermined some ultimate conflict, which turned out to be the Civil War. Stowe’s ''Uncle Tom’s Cabin'' was only fuel on a fire that was already raging.

'''6. Explain the cartoon.''' Columbia (the cartoon portrayal of America) is spanking Steven Douglas for his support of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The cartoonist is probably a Northern abolitionist, and opposed that law primarily because of the violence that it instigated.

'''7. "Remember the Alamo!" Why?''' I’m not sure why. It has always struck me as rather silly to remember our defeats, e.g. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the Alamo. Why not remember our victories? I guess the idea is that our defeat at the Alamo would be a rallying cry to regroup and then defeat Mexico in return (which happened). Perhaps if we forget our defeats, we won’t be able to amend them in the future. This may have been particular true for America in the 1840s, when accepting a defeat might have broken our resolve because we were still not a superpower nation.

'''8. The biggest question in all of American History is this: Do you think it was possible to avoid the Civil War? If so, how?''' Theoretically, the Civil War could have been avoided if everyone became either pro- or anti-slavery. But obviously that was not going to happen. The real question is, was a compromise possible? Because without a compromise the Civil War ''was'' unavoidable.

Considering that the Missouri Compromise was working, it might have continued to work had it not been replaced by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. In another few decades, industrialization would probably have reached the point that slavery was no longer needed, and the issue may simply have become obsolete.

However, the South might actually have rejected industrialization in order to keep slavery, since it viewed slavery as a rights issue and not merely as a convenience. My guess is that the Civil War was conceivably avoidable, but that it almost certainly would have happened in ''some'' manner; maybe less violent, maybe further down the road, but there was probably going to be some ultimate showdown between the North and South.

Honors

'''1. Discuss any of the issues or mysteries relating to this lecture (1840-1860).''' James Buchanan did in fact pressure two associate justices on the Supreme Court to vote in favor of slavery in the ''Dred Scott'' decision. The second justice he pressured was a Northerner, and Buchanan wanted his vote so that it did not appear that the vote was sectional/partisan. This communication would almost certainly be disallowed today.

'''3. The South thought it could win the Civil War. Why did it think that? Do you agree it was possible for the South to win?''' The South thought it had better generals and men, with its more outdoor-focused society, and thought foreign nations dependent on its imports would join it against the North. It also had control of the Mississippi river and only had to defend its territory, not attack. I think it was certainly possible for the South to win. Both sides made mistakes, and the South had a particular misfortune in the death of Stonewall Jackson, perhaps its best general. If Jackson had lived and the South had had slightly better strategy it could probably have won, or at least caused a stalemate. The South certainly miscalculated in terms of expecting foreign intervention, but even so a Southern victory was a distinct possibility.

'''5. Compare or contrast the Dred Scott decision with Roe v. Wade.''' ''Dred Scott'' was different from ''Roe v. Wade'' because it said that slaves were non-citizens and property, and government can’t deprive citizens of their rightful property. ''Dred Scott'' did not create any particular right to slavery. ''Roe v. Wade'', on the other hand, specifically decided there was a right to abortion, under the “right to privacy.” The two cases relied on completely different constitutional provisions: ''Roe v. Wade'' relied on the 14th Amendment, which did not exist at the time of the ''Dred Scott'' decision.

The effect of the two cases was similar, however, in that they both denied basic rights to whole classes of human beings: African Americans in one case, unborn babies in the other case. While they were legally different, they had a very similar social effect.

Homework Five Answers - Student Six

2011-03-10T15:50:08Z

AddisonDM: Created page with "~~~~"

[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:50, 10 March 2011 (EST)

Homosexual rights advocacy

2011-03-10T02:21:33Z

AddisonDM:

{{Homosexuality}}
The '''gay rights''' movement seeks to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships.

The gay rights movement seeks to remove the stigma of sexual [[perversion]] from homosexuality by arguing that either,
# Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
# Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).
# Homosexuality is perfectly normal and should be respected, despite God's laws against it in the Bible.

Gay rights are a favored topic of [[liberals]], and are based on [[moral relativity]], the wrongheaded idea that there is no absolute Right or Wrong.

==Ludicrous arguments==

Homosexuality advocates claim that desire for same-sex fornication is innate, yet their feminist allies deny that aptitude or motivation for math and science is innate. Furthermore, two prominent scientists (both homosexual men, so unlikely to be biased against the cause) both cite '''factors other than genetics''' in the development of homosexual desires.{{citation needed}}

==History==
[[Harry Hay]] is regarded as the father of the modern gay liberation movement. As a [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." <ref> [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ Red Roots Of Gay Movement], Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media, September 10, 2003. </ref>

The first step Hay took in organizing the gay rights movement was to recommend to the CPUSA that he be expelled. In
light of his 18 years of service to the party <ref>[http://www.sojournertruth.net/ipp.html#i In Partial Payment Class Struggle, Sexuality and Gay Liberation (1978)], by A. Rausch. Retrieved from ''Urgent Tasks: [[Leftist|Journal of the Revolutionary Left]]'', Sojourner Truth Organization Digital Archive , 10 May 2007. </ref> they released him as “a security risk but a life-long friend of the people.” The early leadership of the Foundation shaped the organization to reflect the cell structure of the Communist Party, in which "secrecy, hierarchical structures, and centralized leadership predominated." <ref>John D'Emilio, ''Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), quoted in Martin Meeker, Behind the Mask of Respectability, ''Journal of the History of Sexuality'', (2001) 78-116. </ref>
Hay and his fellow gay rights activists began circulating the [[USSR]] and the East European Communist parties sponsored anti-war [[Stockholm Peace petition]] against the [[Korean War]] <ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/germberia.htm New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis,]Milton Leitenberg, Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. </ref> at a gay beach in Los Angeles. The first months produced hundreds of members.

Amid growing public focus on gays and lesbians, 91 homosexuals were found to be employed in the [[U.S. State Department]]. Congressional investigators discovered homosexuals employed in 36 of 53 branches of Government, as well as in the armed forces. Between Jan. 1, 1947 and April 1950, 4,954 cases had come to light among some three and a half million people in Government service. Most were in the armed services. 574 cases were found involving civilian Government employees; in all the other cases the accused had either quit, been cleared or fired. The investigators found the greatest batch of civilian cases—143—in the U.S. State Department. State had cleared or gotten rid of all but a dozen whose cases were still pending. The Veterans Administration was found to have 101 cases. Others included the Atomic Energy Commission, 8; EGA, 27; Congress' legislative agencies (Library of Congress, congressional employees, etc.), 19. One Senator remarked, "It follows that if blackmailers can extort money from a homosexual under threat of disclosure, [[espionage]] agents can use the same type of pressure to extort confidential information." <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859060,00.html Object Lesson], ''TIME magazine'', Dec. 25, 1950.</ref>

The [[Human Rights Campaign]] referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". <ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of pedophiles. ''The Boston Phoenix'' noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, [[NAMBLA]], to march in gay-pride parades. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

== Homosexual Rights Timeline ==

* Henry Gerber starts Society for Human Rights under a State of Illinois charter for a non-profit organization for people with "mental abnormalities" on December 25, 1924. Several issues of ''Friendship and Freedom'', the first American publication for homosexuals were printed but the organization was shut down by Chicago police. Gerber was arrested but not convicted of any crime. As a result of his efforts, Gerber lost his job as a post office clerk, his life savings, and found himself abandoned by his friends. <ref> http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/factfiles/ff1924.htm </ref>

* [[Alfred Kinsey]] publishes ''Sexual Behavior in the Human Male'' in 1948, allegedly the first scientific body of work that examined the subject of homosexuality. Mainstream publications started printing their opinions about this formerly taboo subject. <ref> http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/library/mediaresponses.html </ref> <ref> http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/library/kinsey.html </ref>

* Rev. Elder Troy Perry founded the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches in 1968 which served as a specific outreach to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities. <ref>http://www.mcccharleston.org/about/troyperry.htm</ref>

*[[Stonewall Riots]] of 1969 marked a turning point within the Civil Rights Era of the United States. New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn and for the first time the gay patrons fought back which started several days of rioting.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/exhibitions/sw25/case1.html </ref> This bar had been operating illegally by bribing the police and was owned by the [[mafia]]. The riots occurred when the police finally came to shut down the illegal activities occurring at the site.

* American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973. <ref> http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/197308.pdf </ref>

* 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy as crafted by Gen. Colin Powell and approved by Pres. Clinton takes affect in 1993. This measure allows homosexuals to serve in the US military. Sexual orientation will not prohibit anyone from serving though they must not engage in homosexual conduct or openly say they are gay. <ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5D81F30F933A15754C0A965958260</ref>

* Gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004 when homosexual couples were granted the same right as heterosexual couples. This right was preceded by years of legal wrangling in the state courts. <ref> http://www.hrc.org/issues/5489.htm </ref>

== Legal Success ==
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the [[rational basis review]] test. ''Romer'', then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.<ref>Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620</ref>

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.<ref>See generally ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186</ref> In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas,'' 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.</ref> Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558</ref>

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, [[marriage]].<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas''; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.</ref> As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between [[rational basis review]] and [[strict scrutiny review]]. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', Scalia, J., dissenting.</ref>

In 2006, [[Catholic Charities]] of Boston closed their adoption program after more than a century of finding homes for [[orphans]] and [[unwanted children]] when it was reported by the ''Boston Globe'' that gay couples had received children placed from the agency.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions], By Patricia Wen, ''The Boston Globe'', March 11, 2006.</ref> Massachusetts law, barring "orientation discrimination", prohibited one of the nations oldest adoption agencies from refusing service to gay activists, and a mass resignation of the agency's Board in protest followed. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp Banned in Boston], by Maggie Gallagher, ''The Weekly Standard'', 05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33.</ref>

== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
A poll reveals that a majority of US citizens<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality] Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref> disapprove of homosexuality, or at least consider it less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional [[marriage]].<ref>Traditional Values Coalition - [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2963 Homosexual Marriage In Canada Killing Free Speech]</ref>
Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws.

Conservatives also oppose attempts by homosexual activists to indoctrinate children by using liberal tactics such as ''tolerance'' or forcing ''diversity'' programs onto children in schools which strongly encourage the acceptance of homosexual behavior. Notable figures including [[Tony Perkins]] have expressed concerns.

*The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOFTCO5&show_article=1]

== Support for Gay Rights ==
An April 2009 CNN poll showed the public evenly divided over the US military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, with 48% in favor and 47% opposed.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</ref> Polls consistently show that most people are opposed to same-sex marriage. Thirty states have had a public referendum on same-sex marriage, and all thirty have voted against it.

==Tactics==

*Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." <ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., ''America'', November 18, 1995.</ref>

Advocates routinely use [[deceit]], notably pursuing various goal while pretending not to. For example, some advocates will claim:
*The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is ''right''

Yet clearly the drive for "[[tolerance]]" is only one step toward the ultimate goal of "[[approval]]".

Blurring distinctions: Advocates routinely fail to distinguish between [[homosexual behavior]] and homosexuality as an "identity".

===Presenting outstanding homosexuals as contributors to society===



Turing was arrested in 1952 for [[homosexuality|homosexual acts]] and subsequently lost his security clearance. He was allowed to stay out of prison by agreeing to be injected with female hormones (which would supposedly decrease his sex drive). He later confided to a friend that the hormones caused him to grow breasts.<ref>''Oddballs and Eccentrics''. Shaw, Karl. Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 2004</ref> This may have contributed to his suicide by [[cyanide]] poisoning in 1954.<ref>http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/index.html</ref> The British Government issued a formal, official apology for the way Alan Turing and other homosexuals were treated in the past.<ref>http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571</ref>

==See also==
*[[ACT-UP]]
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Human Rights Watch]]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_queering_the_schools.html Queering the Schools]

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Obama on rifles

2011-03-10T02:19:22Z

AddisonDM:

In a CNN Democratic primary debate in Austin, Texas, [[Barack Obama]] claimed that poor presidential leadership on [[President Bush]]'s part was resulting in shortages of weapons for US troops, who had to use captured Taliban weapons to supply the shortfall.

<blockquote>
"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq," Obama told CNN moderator Campbell Brown.

"And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief," he added.
</blockquote>

ABC News claims to have verified Obama’s story by speaking to the Army captain who was his actual source. <ref>[http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=3510 Obama Criticizes US Troops' Supplies of Arms and Ammunition] </ref>

But General Casey, Army Chief of Staff, disputed Obama's conclusions:

<blockquote>
Casey said he had "no reason to doubt what it is the captain says," (that a rifle platoon in Afghanistan didn't have enough soldiers or weapons). But he questioned the assertion that the shortages prevented the troops from doing their job.

</blockquote>

The officer did not mention any shortage of rifles.

==References==
{{reflist}}

Obama on rifles

2011-03-10T02:19:13Z

AddisonDM:

A Good Thief Tips His Hat

2011-03-10T02:18:18Z

AddisonDM:

'''A Good Thief Tips His Hat''' is an "eerie yet jovial" [[folk pop]] [[rock music]] album "with primitive [[classical]] elements and spooky [[surreal]] overtones" [http://payplay.fm/gandalf] by [[Gandalf Murphy]].

==Track List==

*1. "Genius" – 5:21
*2. "Silent Revolution" – 5:09
*3. "Radio" – 4:16
*4. "My Girl" - 3:19
*5. "Someday" - 3:21
*6. "Slambovia" - 4:14
*7. "Never Fit" - 5:34
*8. "Alice In Space" - 4:57
*9. "Good Thief" - 4:58
*10. "Circus Of Dreams" - 3:25
*11. "Already Broken" - 9:55

[[category:Albums]]

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

2011-03-10T01:16:02Z

AddisonDM:

'''''Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band''''' is a 1967 album by [[The Beatles]], often considered one of their best. It is widely considered a milestone in rock music, and frequently appears at or near the top of greatest album ever lists. ''Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'' is often considered one of the first [[concept album]]s, and helped popularize psychedelic rock. All of the songs (except where noted) were written by [[John Lennon]] and [[Paul McCartney]].

==Tracklist==
Side One
 1 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
 2 With a Little Help from My Friends
 3 [[Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds]]
 4 Getting Better
 5 Fixing a Hole
 6 [[She's Leaving Home]]
 7 Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!
 Side Two
 1 Within You Without You (written by [[George Harrison]])
 2 When I'm Sixty-Four
 3 Lovely Rita
 4 Good Morning Good Morning
 5 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)
 6 A Day in the Life

[[Category:Beatles]]
[[Category:Albums]]

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

2011-03-10T01:15:49Z

AddisonDM: don't merge, it's significant on its own

'''''Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band''''' is a 1967 album by [[The Beatles]], often considered one of their best. It is widely considered a milestone in rock music, and frequently appears at or near the top of greatest album ever lists. ''Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'' is often considered one of the first [[concept album]]s, and helped popularize psychedelic rock. All of the songs (except where noted) were written by [[John Lennon]] and [[Paul McCartney]]:

==Tracklist==
Side One
 1 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
 2 With a Little Help from My Friends
 3 [[Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds]]
 4 Getting Better
 5 Fixing a Hole
 6 [[She's Leaving Home]]
 7 Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!
 Side Two
 1 Within You Without You (written by [[George Harrison]])
 2 When I'm Sixty-Four
 3 Lovely Rita
 4 Good Morning Good Morning
 5 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)
 6 A Day in the Life

[[Category:Beatles]]
[[Category:Albums]]