Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Vaccine

2009-01-30T19:42:35Z

ArnoldFriend: /* Published Adverse Reaction Rates */ fixed my ref tag

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|[[Avian flu]] vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

Since the adoption of mass vaccination programmes, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

==Adverse Events==
Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection. All vaccines can cause illness, but this is commonly a hypersensitivity reaction (similar to an allergic response), not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

A number of vaccination reactions are deemed serious enough to contraindicate further vaccinations of the same type. These include extensive swelling and redness at the injection site, prolonged fever, [[bronchospasm]] and laryngeal [[edema]](narrowing of the airways causing difficulty in breathing), and collapse/seizures with or without unconsciousness and/or encephalitis.<ref>[http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=2067071044 General Practice Notebook - vaccine reactions]</ref>

===Published Adverse Reaction Rates===
*The Hepatitis B Vaccine (HBV) has a .000167% chance of causing [[anaphylaxis]] upon vaccination.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm]</ref>
*There is no correlation between the HBV and multiple sclerosis.<ref>[http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/vaccinenews.htm]</ref>
*The Measles, Mumps, Rubbela (MMR) vaccine has a 25% chance of causing [[arthralgia]] or [[arthritis]] (joint pain or stiffness) in women who are past puberty. This pain and stiffness lasts 1-3 weeks.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/combo-vaccines/mmr/faqs-mmr-hcp.htm]</ref>
*The MMR vaccine has a .00484% chance of causing [[thrombocytopenia]]. However, the measles and rubella both have much higher chances of causing thrombocytopenia.<ref>[http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/84/3/227 E Miller et al., Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and MMR vaccine in Archives of Disease In Childhood, 84:227-229]</ref>

==Influenza Vaccine==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]". When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated.<ref>{{hnb|Glezen|2004}}</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

===Loss of Herd Immunity in the United States===
In February of 2008, an outbreak of [[measles]] occurred in [[San Diego]]. This outbreak was a result of the loss of herd immunity. Due to the relaxed statutes in [[California]], many children in the San Diego community went unvaccinated. One of these children, a boy, contracted measles in Sweden, return to the United States and caused the outbreak. During this time, dozens of children contracted the disease and many were hospitalized with fevers reaching 104<math>^\circ</math>. These hospitalizations included a 3 month old baby who nearly died of dehydration. The parents of the unvaccinated boy were unapologetic for nearly killing the other children, instead feeling their fears of vaccines were sufficient reason to endanger the lives of many. The fear of the [[MMR]] vaccine (a vaccine against [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]]), which no longer has mercury in it, continues to this day, with the vaccine being wrongly accused of causing [[autism]].<ref> [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm]</ref>

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

Bulging or swollen [[fontanelle]]s have been linked with many vaccines commonly given to infants, such as the [[diptheria]]-[[tetanus]] (DPT) vaccine. Many families, out of concern for their child's health, have sought legal justice for the potential health damage.<ref>http://legaljustice4john.com/fontanellebulging.htm</ref>

== Liberal Deceit About Vaccines ==
Despite the [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/time-for-cdc-to-come-clea_b_16550.html claims] of liberals like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,<ref>more can be found [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/autism-vaccines-and-the-c_b_161395.html here]</ref> there is no link between the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine and Autism.<ref>[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064807be2e8&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf .pdf]</ref><ref>[http://www.neurodiversity.com/fda_comed_cp_response09-26-06.pdf .pdf]</ref> Despite these claims being repeatedly proved to be false and the proponents' (such as Andrew Wakefield, who received $623,623 from lawyers preparing to sue the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine without evidence) [[deceit|deceitful]] behavior, liberals continue to push the MMR Vaccine-Autism link.

== See also ==
*[[HPV vaccine]]
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
===External Links===
*[http://www.909shot.com/ National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)], a non-profit anti-vaccination organization
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/uploads/Compare_Risks.pdf Compare the Risks], A PDF detailing the risks between vaccination and non-vaccination
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/Home.html Stop Jenny McCarthy], A site devoted to fighting vaccine misinformation, contains many vaccine related resources.

==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine

2009-01-30T19:41:36Z

ArnoldFriend: /* Published Adverse Reaction Rates */

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|[[Avian flu]] vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

Since the adoption of mass vaccination programmes, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

==Adverse Events==
Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection. All vaccines can cause illness, but this is commonly a hypersensitivity reaction (similar to an allergic response), not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

A number of vaccination reactions are deemed serious enough to contraindicate further vaccinations of the same type. These include extensive swelling and redness at the injection site, prolonged fever, [[bronchospasm]] and laryngeal [[edema]](narrowing of the airways causing difficulty in breathing), and collapse/seizures with or without unconsciousness and/or encephalitis.<ref>[http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=2067071044 General Practice Notebook - vaccine reactions]</ref>

===Published Adverse Reaction Rates===
*The Hepatitis B Vaccine (HBV) has a .000167% chance of causing [[anaphylaxis]] upon vaccination.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm]</ref>
*There is no correlation between the HBV and multiple sclerosis.<ref>[http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/vaccinenews.htm]</ref>
*The Measles, Mumps, Rubbela (MMR) vaccine has a 25% chance of causing [[arthralgia]] or [[arthritis]] (joint pain or stiffness) in women who are past puberty. This pain and stiffness lasts 1-3 weeks.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/combo-vaccines/mmr/faqs-mmr-hcp.htm]</ref>
*The MMR vaccine has a .00484% chance of causing [[thrombocytopenia]]. However, the measles and rubella both have much higher chances of causing thrombocytopenia.<ref>[http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/84/3/227 E Miller et al., Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and MMR vaccine in Archives of Disease In Childhood, 84:227-229]

==Influenza Vaccine==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]". When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated.<ref>{{hnb|Glezen|2004}}</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

===Loss of Herd Immunity in the United States===
In February of 2008, an outbreak of [[measles]] occurred in [[San Diego]]. This outbreak was a result of the loss of herd immunity. Due to the relaxed statutes in [[California]], many children in the San Diego community went unvaccinated. One of these children, a boy, contracted measles in Sweden, return to the United States and caused the outbreak. During this time, dozens of children contracted the disease and many were hospitalized with fevers reaching 104<math>^\circ</math>. These hospitalizations included a 3 month old baby who nearly died of dehydration. The parents of the unvaccinated boy were unapologetic for nearly killing the other children, instead feeling their fears of vaccines were sufficient reason to endanger the lives of many. The fear of the [[MMR]] vaccine (a vaccine against [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]]), which no longer has mercury in it, continues to this day, with the vaccine being wrongly accused of causing [[autism]].<ref> [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm]</ref>

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

Bulging or swollen [[fontanelle]]s have been linked with many vaccines commonly given to infants, such as the [[diptheria]]-[[tetanus]] (DPT) vaccine. Many families, out of concern for their child's health, have sought legal justice for the potential health damage.<ref>http://legaljustice4john.com/fontanellebulging.htm</ref>

== Liberal Deceit About Vaccines ==
Despite the [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/time-for-cdc-to-come-clea_b_16550.html claims] of liberals like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,<ref>more can be found [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/autism-vaccines-and-the-c_b_161395.html here]</ref> there is no link between the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine and Autism.<ref>[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064807be2e8&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf .pdf]</ref><ref>[http://www.neurodiversity.com/fda_comed_cp_response09-26-06.pdf .pdf]</ref> Despite these claims being repeatedly proved to be false and the proponents' (such as Andrew Wakefield, who received $623,623 from lawyers preparing to sue the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine without evidence) [[deceit|deceitful]] behavior, liberals continue to push the MMR Vaccine-Autism link.

== See also ==
*[[HPV vaccine]]
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
===External Links===
*[http://www.909shot.com/ National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)], a non-profit anti-vaccination organization
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/uploads/Compare_Risks.pdf Compare the Risks], A PDF detailing the risks between vaccination and non-vaccination
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/Home.html Stop Jenny McCarthy], A site devoted to fighting vaccine misinformation, contains many vaccine related resources.

==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine

2009-01-30T19:30:29Z

ArnoldFriend: /* Published Adverse Reaction Rates */

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|[[Avian flu]] vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

Since the adoption of mass vaccination programmes, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

==Adverse Events==
Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection. All vaccines can cause illness, but this is commonly a hypersensitivity reaction (similar to an allergic response), not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

A number of vaccination reactions are deemed serious enough to contraindicate further vaccinations of the same type. These include extensive swelling and redness at the injection site, prolonged fever, [[bronchospasm]] and laryngeal [[edema]](narrowing of the airways causing difficulty in breathing), and collapse/seizures with or without unconsciousness and/or encephalitis.<ref>[http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=2067071044 General Practice Notebook - vaccine reactions]</ref>

===Published Adverse Reaction Rates===
*The Hepatitis B Vaccine (HBV) has a .000167% chance of causing [[anaphylaxis]] upon vaccination.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm]</ref> There is no correlation between the HBV and multiple sclerosis.<ref>[http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/vaccinenews.htm]</ref>
*The Measles, Mumps, Rubbela (MMR) vaccine has a 25% chance of causing [[arthralgia]] or [[arthritis]] (joint pain or stiffness) in women who are past puberty. This pain and stiffness lasts 1-3 weeks.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/combo-vaccines/mmr/faqs-mmr-hcp.htm]</ref>

==Influenza Vaccine==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]". When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated.<ref>{{hnb|Glezen|2004}}</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

===Loss of Herd Immunity in the United States===
In February of 2008, an outbreak of [[measles]] occurred in [[San Diego]]. This outbreak was a result of the loss of herd immunity. Due to the relaxed statutes in [[California]], many children in the San Diego community went unvaccinated. One of these children, a boy, contracted measles in Sweden, return to the United States and caused the outbreak. During this time, dozens of children contracted the disease and many were hospitalized with fevers reaching 104<math>^\circ</math>. These hospitalizations included a 3 month old baby who nearly died of dehydration. The parents of the unvaccinated boy were unapologetic for nearly killing the other children, instead feeling their fears of vaccines were sufficient reason to endanger the lives of many. The fear of the [[MMR]] vaccine (a vaccine against [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]]), which no longer has mercury in it, continues to this day, with the vaccine being wrongly accused of causing [[autism]].<ref> [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm]</ref>

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

Bulging or swollen [[fontanelle]]s have been linked with many vaccines commonly given to infants, such as the [[diptheria]]-[[tetanus]] (DPT) vaccine. Many families, out of concern for their child's health, have sought legal justice for the potential health damage.<ref>http://legaljustice4john.com/fontanellebulging.htm</ref>

== Liberal Deceit About Vaccines ==
Despite the [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/time-for-cdc-to-come-clea_b_16550.html claims] of liberals like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,<ref>more can be found [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/autism-vaccines-and-the-c_b_161395.html here]</ref> there is no link between the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine and Autism.<ref>[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064807be2e8&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf .pdf]</ref><ref>[http://www.neurodiversity.com/fda_comed_cp_response09-26-06.pdf .pdf]</ref> Despite these claims being repeatedly proved to be false and the proponents' (such as Andrew Wakefield, who received $623,623 from lawyers preparing to sue the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine without evidence) [[deceit|deceitful]] behavior, liberals continue to push the MMR Vaccine-Autism link.

== See also ==
*[[HPV vaccine]]
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
===External Links===
*[http://www.909shot.com/ National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)], a non-profit anti-vaccination organization
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/uploads/Compare_Risks.pdf Compare the Risks], A PDF detailing the risks between vaccination and non-vaccination
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/Home.html Stop Jenny McCarthy], A site devoted to fighting vaccine misinformation, contains many vaccine related resources.

==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Autism

2009-01-30T19:23:17Z

ArnoldFriend: /* External Links */

'''Autism''' is a neurological disorder, characterized by inability to interact socially; linguistic disability; intense, narrow interests; and repetitive behaviors. These are called stims or stimming. They include walking on tiptoes, flapping of hands, staring at objects for a prolonged period of time, oral fixation, spinning in circles, and other repetitive activities. Other signs include lack of eye contact, playing alone, lack of words, or in the case of Asperger's syndrome possessing a large vocabulary and intense knowledge of specialized areas but a lack of social skills or inappropriate behavior. It is usually detected by the time a child is four years old but in some cases, autism goes unnoticed into adulthood. There are many intelligent and talented autistic individuals.<ref>Temple Grandin, "Thinking in Pictures, Expanded Edition: My Life with Autism" amazon link http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307275655/ref=wl_it_dp/103-3432247-4184629?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1CWNFSEUCIXQL&colid=49VN3HJC5OQK</ref>

Diagnoses of autism has increased from 1:10,000 in 1988 to as high as 1 in 150 people <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/faq_prevalence.htm</ref>, and it has been rising. Among boys, 1 in 94 has the disorder. In New Jersey, which has the highest rate in the nation, 1 in every 60 boys has autism and 1 in every 94 children is affected.

Autism is a spectrum disorder which means there is a range in how it affects different people. There is the fragile x syndrome, Asperger's syndrome, pdd nos, mild autism, moderate autism, severe autism, and some [[idiot savants]]. Autistic children will not all act like the character portrayed in the movie ''[[Rain Man]]''. Nor are all autistic children uncaring or unable to show emotion, in fact many are very caring.

Autism was first identified in 1943 by Dr. [[Leo Kanner]]. Dr. Hans Asperger also did some research into autism at about the same time and discovered Asperger's syndrome. As early as the 90's many psychotherapies were used to treat it. One very effective treatment, though not a cure, is Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA therapy).

==Theories of causes of autism==

It has been claimed by some that a [[mercury]] preservative used in [[vaccines]], thimerosal, is the cause of injury in many recipients, including a cause of increase in autism rates.<ref>[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:952MmAWeCOsJ:www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf+jpands&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines,
Neurodevelopment Disorders, and Heart Disease in the United States]</ref> Thimerosal is a inorganic form of mercury that was widely used as a preservative, but since FDA and CDC action in 1999 and 2000 thimerosal usage in vaccines has been either removed or lessened to around 0.01% in [[vaccines]] that still use it, including influenza and DT vaccines. However, U.S. rates of autism have increased rather than declined.{{fact}} Vaccines have been shown not to be a likely cause for autism <ref>http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13703.html,</ref><ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75KN-4DJ97VJ-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c555dd340aa6cb7c3a18806ba0fd162a</ref><ref>http://www.iom.edu/?id=27771</ref>, but worries about the vaccine still linger in people who have not been informed of these findings and their subsequent refusal to vaccinate their children have been the leading cause in recent outbreaks of these diseases.<ref>http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.425/pub_detail.asp</ref>

As noted above, there is a strong interest in whether a possible link exists between the increasing numbers of people being diagnosed with autism, and the use of thimerosal (which contains mercury) as a preservative in vaccines. However, this has been disproved as a likely cause of autism and now most data indicates that autism is a mostly genetic condition. <ref> ''American Acadamy of Family Physicians'' http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020301/tips/14.html </ref>. The genetics of this condition are not yet fully understood and could be caused by complex interactions between multiple genes which would account for the "spectrum" like differences in the severity of many cases <ref> http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:7kMNqvTgRtoJ:www.ikhebeenvraag.be/mediastorage/FSDocument/52/Freitag-2.pdf+</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17764594</ref>

Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre at the [[University of Cambridge]] (U.K.) notes the strong evidence that males and females are hardwired for different behavior, with boys tending to be stronger at mechanics, categorizing and systemizing information, mathematics, etc. and girls stronger at emotionalizing and empathizing. He has proposed that autism is merely an extreme version of the male brain type, in which the (female) urge to empathize is nearly absent and the brain is almost entirely hardwired for the (male) tasks of systemizing.<ref>Baron-Cohen, Simon. ''The Essential Difference'', Basic Books 2003.</ref>

Leo Kanner in a 1949 paper identified "parental coldness" and a "lack of maternal warmth" in the parents of autistic children, leading to the term ''refrigerator mother''. The theory here is autism is caused by incomplete [[socialization]] during early childhood because of emotionally cold parents. The book ''Toxic Psychiatry'' by Peter Briggin notes that the frigid mother theory of autism was abandoned in recent years due to pressure groups.<ref>Briggin, Peter R. ''Toxic Psychiatry'', New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.</ref>

Lenny Schafer, editor of the ''Schafer Autism Report'', rejects outright the current characterization of mild social retardation (such as "Asperger's syndrome") as forms of autism. He notes that autism is a disability, and if a person is not disabled from participation in society by their condition, in such areas as being able to hold a job or communicate, including communication over the Internet, they are not autistic and should not be diagnosed as such. He accordingly rejects that there can be such a thing as autistic self-advocacy, as anyone who is truly autistic would not have that ability.<ref>http://www.sarnet.org/</ref>

''Wired'' magazine has referred to autism as a "geek syndrome", or essentially as a form of identity-politics-for-computer-nerds.<ref>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html</ref>. Those favoring this interpretation of autism have coined new terminology, including "neurodiversity" for a population with and without autistic individuals , and using the term "neurotypical" for those without autism.

==See Also==
*[[Evidence of Harm]]
*[[Asperger syndrome]]

==External Links==
#http://www.autismspeaks.org/
#http://www.autismdigest.com/
#http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/
#http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer
#http://www.autismlink.com/
#[http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/are-autism-and-vaccines-linked Opposing Views: Are Autism and Vaccines Linked?]
#[http://www.neurodiversity.com/main.html Neurodiversity - An Incredible Resource for Autism Related Information]

==References==
<references/>

[[category:psychology]]
[[category: medicine]]

Vaccine

2009-01-30T19:17:38Z

ArnoldFriend: Started section on liberal lies about certain vaccines, will put more work into it in a little bit.

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|[[Avian flu]] vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

Since the adoption of mass vaccination programmes, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

==Adverse Events==
Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection. All vaccines can cause illness, but this is commonly a hypersensitivity reaction (similar to an allergic response), not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

A number of vaccination reactions are deemed serious enough to contraindicate further vaccinations of the same type. These include extensive swelling and redness at the injection site, prolonged fever, [[bronchospasm]] and laryngeal [[edema]](narrowing of the airways causing difficulty in breathing), and collapse/seizures with or without unconsciousness and/or encephalitis.<ref>[http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=2067071044 General Practice Notebook - vaccine reactions]</ref>

===Published Adverse Reaction Rates===
*The Hepatitis B Vaccine (HBV) has a .000167% chance of causing [[anaphylaxis]] upon vaccination.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm]</ref> There is no correlation between the HBV and multiple sclerosis.<ref>[http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/vaccinenews.htm]</ref>

==Influenza Vaccine==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]". When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated.<ref>{{hnb|Glezen|2004}}</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

===Loss of Herd Immunity in the United States===
In February of 2008, an outbreak of [[measles]] occurred in [[San Diego]]. This outbreak was a result of the loss of herd immunity. Due to the relaxed statutes in [[California]], many children in the San Diego community went unvaccinated. One of these children, a boy, contracted measles in Sweden, return to the United States and caused the outbreak. During this time, dozens of children contracted the disease and many were hospitalized with fevers reaching 104<math>^\circ</math>. These hospitalizations included a 3 month old baby who nearly died of dehydration. The parents of the unvaccinated boy were unapologetic for nearly killing the other children, instead feeling their fears of vaccines were sufficient reason to endanger the lives of many. The fear of the [[MMR]] vaccine (a vaccine against [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]]), which no longer has mercury in it, continues to this day, with the vaccine being wrongly accused of causing [[autism]].<ref> [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm]</ref>

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

Bulging or swollen [[fontanelle]]s have been linked with many vaccines commonly given to infants, such as the [[diptheria]]-[[tetanus]] (DPT) vaccine. Many families, out of concern for their child's health, have sought legal justice for the potential health damage.<ref>http://legaljustice4john.com/fontanellebulging.htm</ref>

== Liberal Deceit About Vaccines ==
Despite the [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/time-for-cdc-to-come-clea_b_16550.html claims] of liberals like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,<ref>more can be found [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/autism-vaccines-and-the-c_b_161395.html here]</ref> there is no link between the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine and Autism.<ref>[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064807be2e8&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf .pdf]</ref><ref>[http://www.neurodiversity.com/fda_comed_cp_response09-26-06.pdf .pdf]</ref> Despite these claims being repeatedly proved to be false and the proponents' (such as Andrew Wakefield, who received $623,623 from lawyers preparing to sue the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine without evidence) [[deceit|deceitful]] behavior, liberals continue to push the MMR Vaccine-Autism link.

== See also ==
*[[HPV vaccine]]
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
===External Links===
*[http://www.909shot.com/ National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)], a non-profit anti-vaccination organization
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/uploads/Compare_Risks.pdf Compare the Risks], A PDF detailing the risks between vaccination and non-vaccination
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/Home.html Stop Jenny McCarthy], A site devoted to fighting vaccine misinformation, contains many vaccine related resources.

==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine

2009-01-30T19:03:05Z

ArnoldFriend: /* Adverse Events */

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|[[Avian flu]] vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

Since the adoption of mass vaccination programmes, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

==Adverse Events==
Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection. All vaccines can cause illness, but this is commonly a hypersensitivity reaction (similar to an allergic response), not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

A number of vaccination reactions are deemed serious enough to contraindicate further vaccinations of the same type. These include extensive swelling and redness at the injection site, prolonged fever, [[bronchospasm]] and laryngeal [[edema]](narrowing of the airways causing difficulty in breathing), and collapse/seizures with or without unconsciousness and/or encephalitis.<ref>[http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=2067071044 General Practice Notebook - vaccine reactions]</ref>

===Published Adverse Reaction Rates===
*The Hepatitis B Vaccine (HBV) has a .000167% chance of causing [[anaphylaxis]] upon vaccination.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm]</ref> There is no correlation between the HBV and multiple sclerosis.<ref>[http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/vaccinenews.htm]</ref>

==Influenza Vaccine==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]". When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated.<ref>{{hnb|Glezen|2004}}</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

===Loss of Herd Immunity in the United States===
In February of 2008, an outbreak of [[measles]] occurred in [[San Diego]]. This outbreak was a result of the loss of herd immunity. Due to the relaxed statutes in [[California]], many children in the San Diego community went unvaccinated. One of these children, a boy, contracted measles in Sweden, return to the United States and caused the outbreak. During this time, dozens of children contracted the disease and many were hospitalized with fevers reaching 104<math>^\circ</math>. These hospitalizations included a 3 month old baby who nearly died of dehydration. The parents of the unvaccinated boy were unapologetic for nearly killing the other children, instead feeling their fears of vaccines were sufficient reason to endanger the lives of many. The fear of the [[MMR]] vaccine (a vaccine against [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]]), which no longer has mercury in it, continues to this day, with the vaccine being wrongly accused of causing [[autism]].<ref> [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm]</ref>

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

Bulging or swollen [[fontanelle]]s have been linked with many vaccines commonly given to infants, such as the [[diptheria]]-[[tetanus]] (DPT) vaccine. Many families, out of concern for their child's health, have sought legal justice for the potential health damage.<ref>http://legaljustice4john.com/fontanellebulging.htm</ref>

== See also ==
*[[HPV vaccine]]
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
===External Links===
*[http://www.909shot.com/ National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)], a non-profit anti-vaccination organization
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/uploads/Compare_Risks.pdf Compare the Risks], A PDF detailing the risks between vaccination and non-vaccination
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/Home.html Stop Jenny McCarthy], A site devoted to fighting vaccine misinformation, contains many vaccine related resources.

==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

2009-01-30T00:12:54Z

ArnoldFriend: The Lottery, while a great story, has nothing to do with vaccines

The '''Vaccine Injury Compensation Program''' (VICP) is a no-fault fund set up in 1988 by the United States Department of Health and Human Services to indemnify medical doctors and vaccine manufacturers from liability in cases of injuries caused by vaccines.

The maximum benefit for death is $250,000 plus attorneys' fees.<ref name="Filinig a claim"/> "The total awards paid [from the Compensation Trust Fund] as of August 6, 2008 were $1,804,415,262.35, which includes [government] attorney fees and costs for petitions that were dismissed."<ref>Email dated Aug. 7, 2008, from Geoffrey Evans, MD, Director, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation. He added, "To obtain further information you seek, please visit our web site at:
www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation."</ref> As of 2007, the fund had paid out $1.18 billion to 1,500 victims, including attorneys' fees, burial and medical costs, for an average payout that exceeds $786,000 per victim.<ref name="About NVICP">{{hnb|United States Department of Justice|2000}}</ref>

The vaccines covered by the compensation service are those aimed at protecting against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), measles, mumps, rubella (German measles), polio, hepatitis B, varicella (chicken pox), ''Hemophilus influenzae'' type b, and [[rotavirus]]. Pneumococcal vaccine is expected to be covered soon.

== Criticisms of the program ==
Under the no-fault VICP system, medical doctors have no financial risk in recommending vaccinations because the government indemnifies them and their malpractice insurance against tort claims resulting from vaccine injuries.

VICP requires a $250 filing fee, and requires the mother of the victim to submit her own prenatal medical records for scrutiny.<ref name="Filinig a claim">{{hnb|United States Department of Health and Human Services|2008}}</ref> The average claim takes two years to resolve.<ref name="Balbier">{{hnb|Balbier|1999}}</ref> These hurdles discourage the filing of smaller claims, such as lost wages and costs associated with short term hospitalization for high fever and dehydration not causing permanent damage. The maximum benefit for death is $250,000 plus attorneys' fees.<ref name="Filinig a claim"/> Thomas E. Balbier, Jr. testified that "there are going to be eligibility requirements which seem unfair to some applicants."<ref name="Balbier"/>
== See also ==
* [http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm Filing a Claim with the VICP]
== References ==
{{reflist}}

== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



[[category:United States Department of Health and Human Services]]

Doctor Strangelove, Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

2009-01-29T17:19:39Z

ArnoldFriend:

'''''Doctor Strangelove, Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb''''' is a movie from 1964 that was a parody on the hawkish advocates of use of the [[atomic bomb]] against the United States' military enemies. It was a successful comedy that continues to have a cult following to this day.

The film was directed by noted [[liberal]] [[Stanley Kubrick]], whose other films have dealt with inappropriate sexuality (''[[Lolita]]'' and ''Eyes Wide Shut''), the supposed [[Theory of Evolution|evolution]] of man (''2001: A Space Odyssey''), and a liberal view of the military (''Full Metal Jacket''). Like ''Full Metal Jacket'', ''Dr. Strangelove'' is used as a tool to mock the military and portray the buildup of nuclear weapons as foolish.

The movie is also notable for being James Earl Jones' first role in a film.

==Links==
*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/ Dr. Strangelove] at the Internet Movie Database

[[category:movies]]
[[category:Cold War]]

User talk:Hsmom

2009-01-29T02:36:21Z

ArnoldFriend:

==frisbee==

Please provide this site with an entry for [[frisbee]]. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 17:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aw, '''I''' wanted ''frisbee''. :-( --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|Rob Pommer]] 17:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'll get right on that. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Handy Hints==

Here are a few examples of handy techniques. To make more sense of them, click on "edit" to see the code that produced these examples.

How to <s>strike out</s> text: Put <nowiki> <s> </nowiki> in front of the text, then <nowiki> </s> </nowiki>at the end of the text.
*Example: <nowiki>How to <s>strike out</s> text.</nowiki>
*Result: How to <s>strike out</s> text.

How to add references/citations: Put <nowiki><ref> Title of Reference [URL of reference] </ref></nowiki> The title can be put after the URL also, but it looks nicer in the reference section when it is put before the URL. The title will not be seen with the text, it will only appear in the references section if there is one.
*Example: <nowiki><ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref></nowiki>
*Result: (See the References section below.)<ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref>

How to add a reference section at the end of an article:
Put <nowiki>== References ==</nowiki> to create the heading. Then on the next line put <nowiki><references/>. </nowiki> Every page that includes citations should have a references section at the bottom.
*Example:
<nowiki>== References ==</nowiki>

<nowiki><references/></nowiki>
*Result: See below, at the bottom of the page.

*Result: (See the References section below.)<ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref>

How to add a request for a citation:
*Add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> after the section that needs a citation.

==References==
<references/>

==Fan mail==
I like your approach and your comments. I was neither homeschooled nor have I homeschooled my kids, but I was drawn to this site because I was intrigued by the idea of its being a resource where high-school-age kids could learn by writing articles, and by the idea of a resource aimed at that age group. The site has, um, multiple facets and that doesn't seem to be its most conspicuous facet, but I think it's still there, and I try to write with that audience at least partly in mind. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:54, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah, you're cool :) (what he said, plus more) [[User:Human|Human]] 22:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
==[[Billy Sunday]]==
Tooting my own horn... [[Billy Sunday]] was on the requested articles list, so I wrote it, and I found the topic quite interesting and think the article came out well. Since you'd said you enjoyed [[Mother's Day]], I thought I'd mention this one, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of evolution ==

If you want to help with the references, please write it and paste it in my talk page. I will improve the article with your name in the summary.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:31, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Engineer ==

Please see: [[Engineer]] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:24, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Feminism ==

[[Feminism]] has been unlocked. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:46, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Invitation to join Wikiproject:News==
Hsmom, since you have suggested grammar fixes to news items in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. [[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]] the Guidelines. 
Your grammar suggestions have been very helpful. I think they would be more helpful if you made grammar fixes to the articles BEFORE they're posted to the Main page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==May I just say...==

...that I find all of your edits on Talk:Main Page to be absolutely lovely and helpful. They are probably the most informed, level-headed and intelligent suggestions and viewpoints I've seen on here for a while. Many of the tenets you seem to promote in your posts have gotten me blocked here many times, however, but keep up the good work:) [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 13:13, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== Scabies article & Plagiarism ==

I could be wrong, but wouldn't the CDC info. on health issues be considered public domain? There's no copyright information on the website as far as I can see, so it should be fine to copy the information word-for-word as long as it is noted that is how the information was obtained and a link provided to the CDC page. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, yep. Here we go: [[Public domain]]: "Two examples of material in the public domain are United States government works (technically the copyright is held collectively by the American public)..." The CDC would fall under that. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:33, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

This covers other edits you have made (e.g. Tourette syndrome article). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:It was not at all clear in the article that the entire thing had been copied word-for-word from the CDC site. If you are quoting long sections of text, you need to show that with quotation marks or other formatting to make it clear which parts are quoted and which parts are original. While the CDC site was named as a source, it was not indicated that the CDC page had been lifted word-for-word. In addition, a good article will draw upon several sources. Also, just because a site doesn't have a copyright notation does not mean it is in the public domain (although I agree that government works are probably public domain). Bottom line - would you accept this kind of work from a student? I wouldn't. It's dishonest. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, I agree, but I think there is a better fix than simply removing the information completely. Seems like overkill. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:42, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
::I'll see what I can do with them. I need a project anyway. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, the better fix would be to either quote the entire thing with proper attribution (which is still not ideal, IMHO), or re-write each of the articles. If you have time, go for it. I'm somewhat concerned, however, that there may be more medical articles that have been plagiarized. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:48, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Take a look at the scabies article now. As long as the medical articles are categorized, it should be easy to check them all. Other than that, I don't know if there's a way to check which pages link to websites like the CDC. But like I said, I needed a project, so I'll do this. Cheers and God bless! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Hmmm. Taking the info from another site and rephrasing it sentence-by-sentence doesn't really improve things. It certainly wouldn't fly in a decent high school class. If the article includes only information from one other site, I think it's better to just go ahead and quote it, making it clear that it is quoted (by using quotation marks, etc.) and properly citing the source. Then it's clear that you are not trying to pass someone else's work off as your own. Ideally a minimum of information will be quoted, with the reader being encouraged to read the rest of the original information at the original source. You might enjoy this lovely article about plagarism.<ref>[http://www.pahomeschoolers.com/newsletter/issue78b.htm]</ref> --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:02, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a template to flag articles suspected of (or known to be) plagiarism? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:12, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, after thinking about it a bit, I think that such a template would indeed be helpful. Of course, ideally the article would be fixed, but people don't always have the time to completely re-write an article when they notice it has been plagiarized, so using the template would be a quick option. I assume that would then generate a list of articles with suspected plagiarism? That would be useful too. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Mex ==

Thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:32, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

==Citations==
This was placed in the reason line when you inserted the "fact" template in [[Elephant]]: ''Could we at least get a credible citation for this? 'Cause it's word-for-word from another site. Which would be plagiarism. Which is deceitful and morally wrong.'' I agree with you that plagarism is morally wrong, but I've also noticed you placed a lot of similar lines in articles that you've identified as plagarism without even telling us where they came from at all. If it is plagarism, show us the source so it can be removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:33, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:In most of the cases I've found (and I'm beginning to suspect there are a horrifying number of plagiarized articles here), I've re-written the article to include the source, to provide proper attribution, and to minimize the amount of material lifted from any one source. In this particular case however, I Googled the sentence from the article and found an abundance of sites which included the sentence word-for-word. The first several sites I reviewed were not credible sources and thus were not appropriate to cite. I did not have time to review all of the potential sources and determine whether there was a credible one or not. I hope that whoever put this sentence in the article in the first place did indeed get it from a credible site - hopefully they have this article on their watchlist and will provide the source. If not, someone else will have to either find a source or remove the sentence. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:50, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
::If you see something that is plagarised, and it's clear that it is, immediately remove it. Go to the talk page, explain what you did and provide the source where it came from. The point I made above is that anyone just cannot say that such-and-such is plagarized without stating the source; all that would be is "my word against your's". If the article is public domain and has no attribution tag at the bottom or a statement such as "text incorporated from...", cite that on the talk page as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:11, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
:::<edit conflict>Thanks - I'll try to promptly remove any plagiarism I find, and I'll be careful about noting the source in my edit comments. Frankly, I often don't have time to discuss each one in detail on the talk page - I've added the notes below that should cover most situations, and I'll try to make the edit comments clear. One question - what is to be done about images that have no information about their source? I've come across several articles with pictures taken from another site without attribution, but I'm not sure how to address this. Shouldn't all images include the source and some kind of statement as to their copyright status?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:18, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are a few things here that you're possibly unaware of for the moment. The first thing is that all intellectual property created by indivuduals working directly for the U.S. government is public-domain; we can use them here as per this page: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Guidelines#Copying_from_other_sources]. But they have to be attributed as to where it came from, and the tag below has to be used on the page with the main source placed within it. Another reason this public domain stuff is here (such as the several bird articles your deleted) is to provide a guide for the editor to make improvements and/or additions that are just not in the original.

::::Pictures must be treated the same way; all should have a licence tag on it; all must identify exactly who created it, the year it was created; who or what entity owns it, and whether or not it's public domain. Because we have so many images on the site it would not be possible to go through and check every one. What you could do is to go to the image talk page, find out who uploaded it, and remind that person that the copyright or other is in question and corrections need to be made. See [[Fair use]] for further details, and you can also go to [[user:Karajou/tag template]] for more examples.

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] []}}}.
|}

Here's some examples that I did with regard to some of your questions regarding proper attribution:
*Photos that are public domain and/or U.S. Government: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Bighornsheep.JPG][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Passenger_Pigeon_062.jpg][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:ExtPassgreatauk2-jja.jpg][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:0617302.jpg][http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:0821601.jpg]
*Articles from the ''Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships'', U.S. State Dept, Naval Historical Center: [http://www.conservapedia.com/USS_Grunion_%28SS-216%29][http://www.conservapedia.com/Gambia][http://www.conservapedia.com/Iowa-class_battleship][http://www.conservapedia.com/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29]

Thanks! I really like your templates - they are very nice. I will take a look at all of your examples, though it may take a few days to go through them. I have been here for a while but I am definitely still learning!

* [http://www.conservapedia.com/USS_Grunion_%28SS-216%29] - Unfortunately, I do have some concerns about this example. This article states at the bottom that "Article incorporates some text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, a work in the public domain." Unfortunately, I don't think this is adequate. When you quote from another source, you need to indicate ''which'' text is quoted, either with quotation marks or by indenting the quoted text. (This is especially important in a wiki, because later editors need to know which text is quoted and which is not so they can edit accordingly.) You also need to include a reference tag - the statement at the bottom is a good one, but it should be put in reference format. If the source is on-line, and this one is, then you need to provide a link to the source - there is no link in this article to the source material. And ideally, you need to provide an in-text reference, like "According to the US Navy Historical Center's Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, ...". I also noticed that there is information about the picture on the source page that was not included on the Conservapedia picture page: "Grunion (SS-216), off Groton, Connecticut, 20 March 1942.", and "USN photo # N-0000X-001." I think it would be wise to note this on the picture page, so that users know as much as possible about the photo.
Government articles are a great place to look for basic information when you're writing a new article. However, an article that consists solely of several paragraphs of information taken word-for-word from another site is plagiarism, even if the source article is in the public domain. (Something can be plagiarism without being a copyright violation. Everything that is legal is not necessarily ethical.) When writing a new article, the best approach is to look at a variety of sources, and integrate the information (of course including citations) into an original article. It is more work, of course, and takes longer, but it results in a better article and avoids any problems with plagiarism. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

===Response===
If at all possible, can we have an expectation of you improving the articles after you remove the plagarism? You left this line in one: "According to the US Geological Survey, Double-crested Cormorants are seabirds." A line like that belongs in ''Dick and Jane'', not here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:14, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:Well, I didn't want to leave absolutely nothing on the page. I understand that it's annoying when what appeared to be a very nice article is removed. However, once discovered, we cannot let plagiarism remain. I honestly don't have the time (or the background) to research a large number of seabirds and write articles about them. I understand that the stub that I've left is not ideal. However, it is accurate and includes a reference, in-text attribution, and quotation marks around the quoted material, which is more than can be said for what was there before. I didn't plagiarize the article in the first place, and I'm afraid I can't take responsibility to undertake a total re--write. Hopefully another editor will have the time and knowledge to do so. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:27, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::It's just a minor pet-peeve; I've hated ''Dick and Jane'' since the second grade! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:36, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Oh, I think they're kind of cute! But I do know what you mean - you were probably reading way beyond the Dick and Jane level by second grade and they probably made you read it anyway! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

==About my Plagiarism Edits==
Plagiarism is the act of passing someone else's work off as your own. It is deceitful and thus morally wrong.
I have been finding many pages which include plagiarism. In some cases, I will not have the time and/or the expertise to re-write the article, nor will I have the time to provide a detailed explanation on the article's talk page. Nonetheless, plagiarism should be removed promptly. Since I won't have the space to provide details about plagiarism in my edit summaries, I am providing further information here.
In general, I will deal with plagiarism I find by:
* Removing the plagiarized material.
* Including the apparent source of the material in my edit summary.
* Including "see my talk page" in the edit summary (if there is room).
I consider the following situations to be plagiarism:
* Material that has apparently been copied word-for-word from another site, without attribution of any kind.
* Material that has apparently been copied word-for-word from another site, without quotation marks indicating which material is a direct quote. (Often, this includes articles which consist entirely of several paragraphs of information taken from a single source.)
* Articles consisting solely of large amounts of text copied from a single source.
* Material that has been paraphrased from another site without attribution.
Note that:
* When you copy information word-for-word from another source, you need to ''both'' indicate which text is quoted (by using quotation marks or setting it off from the rest of the text in blockquote form) ''and'' provide a citation using reference tags. Ideally, you would also provide in-text attribution (e.g. "according to so-and-so").
* A citation, quotation marks, and ideally in-text attribution need to be provided ''even if the document from which you are quoting is in the public domain''. If you quote from a public-domain source, such as a US government agency's web site, you need to show where the quote came from. The reader needs to know where the information originally came from.
* If you paraphrase information from another source, ''you still need to provide a citation''. Obscuring the source of the information by paraphrasing is not an appropriate way to get around the need for citations.
* Large sections of text should not be copied, even if a citation is provided and quotation marks are used. For example, it is not appropriate to create a Conservapedia article about a particular bird or animal by copying an entire article about the creature from another web site, even if you cite the web site as a source.
An online encyclopedia written as a wiki is not particularly useful if references are not cited. Students who use any wiki encyclopedia should not rely on it as a primary source for their work; at best it provides a starting point for further research. Because of this, it is especially important to cite sources. Students need to be able to follow up on what they read here, and to verify the information by reading the credible sources we provide. It is important for them to understand where the information came from - who did the study or wrote the opinion or what-have-you - so that they can bring into their understanding of the information any inherent bias or point of view the original authors may have. In addition, citing sources helps to minimize errors and helps readers to quickly identify information that may have changed or been updated since the article was written. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

'''Can I cut-and-paste a whole article from another site?''' 
I believe that this would be unethical plagiarism. You can quote a snippet of information from another site - just be sure to include quotation marks (or set it apart from the text) to indicate which words are yours and which came from the other site, provide a reference (including site title, author, URL, and ideally date of retrieval), and ideally provide some in-text attribution. However, just putting quotation marks around the entire section does not make it ethical to copy large amounts of text from a single source. It is unethical to take an article written by someone else on another site (especially a commercial one), and copy the entire thing into an article here. When you do this, you are taking traffic away from the original site. On a commercial site, the author (or the site owner) makes an income from their writing via the ads on the site. The income is usually based on the number of pageviews and other site statistics. When you copy the entire article here, you eliminate the need for the reader to click through to the original site, thus depriving the author of appropriate compensation for their work. It's stealing, and the original author is losing income because of it. Even if the site is created by a government agency, and therefore is in the public domain, when you take traffic away from their web site, they lose pageviews, which ultimately could affect their funding and in turn the existence of the writers' jobs. Remember, the government agency is employing writers and in some cases photographers to actually create the content on their site. The appropriate way to use another author's material is to quote '''part''' of it, with a reference to the rest. You might say "Author Jane Smith, in her article ''This and Such'', argues that "whatever the quote is". <nowiki><ref>Jane Smith, ''This and Such'', retrieved 01/01/08 [URL]</ref></nowiki> As a basic guideline, if you are cutting and pasting something without integrating the material into the existing article, then you are probably plagiarizing. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:56, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

===Already noted===
I refer you to this exchange by a troll and the founder of this website: 
<nowiki>== Copied material? ==</nowiki>

''With the sourcing of [[arthritis]], [[arthralgia]], etc... I am curious as to if this conflicts with the first Conservapedia commandment:''
''# Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work.''

''While this appears to be in the public domain, what value does it have here besides pumping up the page count? These pages are often orphans - nothing linking to them, and no links from them. If this is just a start for more complete articles, do you think that the ongoing contest should be adjusted to make an improvement of existing articles worth more than creating another article that is similar in quality? The value of a wiki is in the interconnectivity of the articles - you go from one to another to another and browse and read rather than hitting on and ending there to do a new search. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:48, 2 July 2007 (EDT)''

'':We paid for work on government websites. It's ours already. It's not just public domain, but it is also bought and paid for by the public. '''So it's fine to copy unbiased material from such sites.''' Of course the entries can and should then be improved. But it helps having a start, and having a succinct explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)'' Emphasis added END QUOTE This was found [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive17#Copied_material.3F here]. I'm posting this to save you trouble both by trying to find plagiarism of '''.gov''' websites and to avoid getting "in dutch" with the Owner. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]]

== Paragraph quote ==

Is <nowiki>{{cquote}}</nowiki> template preferable to <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki>? --LiamG, 12:35, 11 October 2008

:I am not an expert in wiki markup, nor am I well-versed in Conservapedia's style standards. I'm still learning, and I'm putting notes about what I learn on my user page, in part to remind myself how to do things. I think either of the two approaches are basically fine. Personally, I like the way cquote shows the big blue quotation marks, which make it very clear that the section is a quotation. Using blockquote will set the text apart, but you've got to include some words of attribution before the quote (which of course you should do with the cquote too). I think cquote is less confusing if multiple paragraphs are quoted, because it's clearer where the quote starts and ends. But again, I'm still learning, so there may be an even better approach out there! (I'll add how to blockquote to my list - thanks for the reminder.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::My personal view is that cquote should only be used to draw special attention to a particular quote rather than encapsulate a whole article. It tends to be overused in a lot of articles and to my mind makes the page look ugly. Normal quotes are fine in the vast majority of cases. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:09, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Maybe we should for this to be addressed in the "Manual of Style"? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 17:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:::BrianCo - I agree that a quote of a sentence or two doesn't need the fancy style of the cquote markup. Like you said, normal quotes are fine in the vast majority of cases. Longer quotations should of course be used sparingly; in my opinion only when they are really significant, in which case the cquote markup would be OK, I think. Certainly it should be the rare case that an entire article would be a quote from a single source! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:01, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== surface mining ==

Hi, I wrote a new short article and referenced it to a mining website. If you have time please have a look. [[surface mine]] [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:04, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== copying from US Gov sites ==

Hsmom, we own material on US government sites. We paid for it as taxpayers, and it is public domain. Word-for-word copying from them is perfectly acceptable. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it is acceptable if it is properly indicated as a quotation and cited, right? Otherwise, aren't we being deceitful by presenting someone else's work as our own? And copying so much of a single site, word-for-word, page after page, even including the pictures, without indicating that it is quoted directly from another site, and without adding any of the Conservapedia editor's own words, seems dishonest to me. It may be legal, if the material is in the public domain, but it still seems unethical to me. I'm uncomfortable with encouraging students to do this kind of copying, when instead they could read several sites on a particular subject and then create their own nice little article about it. It takes a bit more time, of course, but not much, and they learn so much more from doing it. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:25, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:By the way, I think you made an excellent point the other day in the Trainspotting discussion, but I haven't had a chance to mention it yet! Weekend laundry is taking up my time! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:28, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your Trainspotting feedback, and I certainly recognize the demands of laundry and other chores that need to be done!

::As to copying from US government sites, I appreciate your point of view. I would have said the same thing a few years ago. But now I'm uncomfortable with any view of US government work that is other than the fact that we, as taxpayers, own it and paid for it. No attribution is required for that. If we hired and paid someone to write something for us, we would not have to attribute the work to him. Ditto for US govt. works. Indeed, I even filed a law brief once opposing an attempt by someone to prevent copying of a legal requirement. We own laws, we own court opinions, and we own US govt works. (Students aren't graded on this copying, by the way.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::"We, as taxpayers, own it and paid for it." Do you mean that the ''taxpayers'' own the material, or that ''everyone'' owns the material because the 'taxpayers' have presented it as a gift? Could I, as an American, copy and paste British government materials without citation?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 20:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Following this logic, Andy, would you approve of articles in the ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons'' using CDC statistics and information from NIH-funded research without proper citation? I doubt it. Just because something does not violate copyright law doesn't make it not plagiarism. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:11, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The situation is not as simple as that, Andy. You as American taxpayers paid for it; I as an Australian did not. Because it's in the public domain, I can legally use it, but I can't say that I paid for it. So that means two different rules depending on what nationality we are. Conservapedia itself is based in America, but its contributors are not all American, so given that Conservapedia articles are a joint effort by both Americans and non-Americans, where does that leave the principle of "we paid for it, so we own it"? It's more like "some of us paid for it, so some of us own it, but without going through the history of who added what, one would not know if it was written by someone who 'owned' it or not". (Of course that doesn't affect the ''legal'' situation, but it does affect the ''ethical'' aspect.)
::: If we hired and paid someone to ghost-write an autobiography, for example, then although the hired writer does most of the work, we have the final say and it reflects what ''we'' want. But if we hire and pay someone to write something that is ''their'' words, then it is unethical to claim it as our own. It should be obvious which case U.S. Government publications are most like. When we own the copyright of someone else's written work, that does not include the author's natural rights to have his name on it.
::: And then we have Commandment 2 that says that all copied works must be attributed. And that's much simpler than having different rules for different nationalities.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Also, if this is still an educational project, not expecting students to learn how to properly cite references is missing a huge educational opportunity, not to mention risking teaching behavior that would get them in serious trouble (and rightfully so) in any university. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:43, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::Corry - also, how to research. I think just "copy paste" doesn't require that the student read what he is writing. My teachers are old fashioned, and make us use real books most of the time, grins, cause we actually have to type out what we are "copying" (making us do lots less of it, I think). The intent of a article should be that you've read several sites and you state in your own words, what you've learned. That's the heart of both good research and good writing, isn't it?--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:22, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, that's true, JeanJacques. However, some people do not have that talent, and having gov sites to copy from is very helpful to improving this site. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 15:21, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:This is an important skill that goes beyond just research- using different sources to synthesize a viewpoint. This is a skill that some may lack, and that is exactly why it must be practiced.

:Does anybody else feel that we should make a debate page for this? This is important, and I feel like we should move off of Hsmom's talk page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::Bethany, whilst government sites might well offer useful information which is readily available, simply copying and pasting it is of no use to the person doing the pasting. I remember seeing Aschlafly write "don't read a book, write a book" somewhere and although I am not sure what you are supposed to write about if you have not read about it, the same principal applies to editing a wiki. Simply pasting in somebody else's work is not only lazy, but also unethical, if the original author is not credited, even if it is a government, or public domain, site. To be fair, you would not like it if you found out I had taken something you had written and posted it under my name, would you?
::Besides, the beauty (and half the fun) of editing a wiki is doing the research. I am neither American, nor do I know a great deal about the finer elements of American history, but I was able to put together an article on [[Thomas E. Dewey]] (who, admittedly, I thought created the Dewey decimal system, which is why I looked him up in the first place) and I learnt a great deal from doing that. It is probably not a great article on him and equally true, there are people who might lack the skill to research and write an article, but what better way to learn that skill than by trying it - and beauty number two of a wiki is even if they do struggle with their early attempts, there are editors on here who will be able to improve their entries and offer guidance.
::But to simply copy and paste for the sake of copying and pasting should be frowned on, more so if it is unattributed - regardless of the source. (Unfortunately, it only takes a quick look through some of the entries in the Dictionary category, to see just what a horror story blindly copying and pasting entires can precipitate.) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Konnichiha!'']] 17:06, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Bethany - writing a good article is not a talent, it is a skill that can be learned. Any student who intends to go to college, or to have a white-collar job, or to homeschool their own children, or to help their children prepare for college, should take the time to learn this skill. It comes harder to some than to others, but it is well worth the time it takes to learn. Not only will it make you a better writer, it will make you a more critical reader - you'll be better at asking "where does this information come from" and "who expressed this opinion" and "is this a credible source" - all important skills for any good citizen. Like [[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]] said, a wiki is a great place to learn, because there are lots of other people who can improve your article once you write it, and you can learn by observing the changes they make. Simply copying and pasting test from another site is pointless. It creates another article here, sure, but waters down the quality of the articles and devalues the site's reputation. It's no good to proudly say Conservapedia has such and such number of articles, if you've given the opposition reason to say "yeah, but many of them are just copied from somewhere else". And worse - if you've copied material from other sources without indicating that it is quoted material and where it came from, then you are opening yourself and Conservapedia up for accusations of plagiarism. I can see [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s point about US citizens owning government-generated material, but frankly I feel that the majority of college-educated people would consider it plagiarism regardless, and once you've been labeled a plagiarist, that label is almost impossible to get rid of.
:::Bethany, I encourage you to try to write an article yourself. Pick a topic you know something about. Nothing too broad like "The Revolutionary War" - something more specific, like a particular animal, or a favorite hobby like Irish dancing. Read a few books or magazine articles about it. You don't have to read an entire book - maybe you can find a book that has a few pages about your topic. A librarian can be very helpful with this. Then put the books aside and think about what you think are the most important nuggets of information. Write a phrase about each one on a strip of paper. Now think about how to arrange them - what order makes sense? Move the papers around until you like the order. Now write a sentence or two about each phrase. When you've done this, you've got the body of your article. Write a brief introduction, and perhaps a concluding sentence, and the text is done. Now go back and think about where the facts came from. Put in your references, and you're done! The first one you do may be hard, but you'll get better with practice. You'll get much more satisfaction from writing your own article than from copying someone else's words. And you'll make a much more valued contribution to Conservapedia. It's not the number of articles that's important, it's the quality - and I have confidence that you can write a good article once you've had a bit of practice. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:31, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Thank You==
...for the compliments [[User talk:Aschlafly|here]]. It is nice to see someone who agrees with me and is willing to support their ideas. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)

== Disability article ==

Hi, I created a [[Disability]] article from wanted pages. I am afraid its a bit of a pigs breakfast though. If you have time could you give it a look ? I really appreciate it. I have more to add , mainly specific disabilities and links for them. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
==1000 edits==
Congrats. Can I be nosy and ask how you count? --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 23:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Sure! When I click on "my preferences" at the top of the page, it tells me. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Ah, I have a long way to go to reach your status. You can be a roll model (actually, you are for when I disagree with someone, and want to say so, but do not want to be petty and argumentative over it. Thanks for that, by the way).--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 23:44, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Refs==

Hi, mom! Nice work [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kenya&curid=18546&diff=566338&oldid=542824&rcid=617502 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:09, 22 November 2008 (EST)
: Thanks! Gotta get some sewing done now though... --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:11, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Underline ==

I looked up the wikicode for underline. It's <nowiki>your text here</nowiki>. Hope that helps. Keep up the excellent work.
:Thanks JohnD! I love learning new wiki code! Will put it to work right away!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== United States Department of Agriculture Terms ==

Via ''random page'', I stumbled on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ridge_roughness&diff=prev&oldid=334972 Ridge roughness], and changed it to this version: [[Ridge roughness]]. Then, I looked at some of the other articles on ''Argiculture Terms'': All of them seem to be outrageously mindless copy & paste jobs from the reference, i.e., [http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/glossary.html USDA glossary].
What to do? Frankly, any student looking for these terms were better of visiting the site of the USDA. But as the articles exist on this site, should I try to model them into the one I've done first?
You seem to be a kind of expert on these things, so I'd love to get some input from you.
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]], I'm afraid I don't know. There are quite a few examples of this type of thing, and I agree with you that the reader is better off with the original site, at least as things stand now. You did an excellent job of improving [[Ridge roughness]], but what a lot of work it would be to do all of them! And I'm always wary of an article written by someone who knows little or nothing about the subject at hand. (Not, of course, implying that this is the case with you, but it has often been the case with me in these situations.) [[Ridge roughness]] at least won't hurt anyone - it's the unsourced cut-and-paste medical articles that scare me. I've taken the liberty of adding quotations marks and a <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> template to [[Ridge roughness]]. At least with a stub template it goes on the list of articles that need to be nurtured. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:41, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::Thank you for your answer! No, I'd never heard the term [[Ridge roughness]] before, but I don't think that I can change these articles to the worse ;-) I share your concerns about the medical articles, it would nice to have a couple of M.D.s to look after them. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 22:03, 18 December 2008 (EST)

== Cleaning up the vaccine article ==
Thanks for cleaning up my section. I have to leave things alone for a day to be able to see my grammatical and stylistic errors. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:36, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

2009-01-29T02:01:41Z

ArnoldFriend: /* Policy Issues */

The '''Association of American Physicians and Surgeons''' (AAPS)<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org</ref> is the oldest active [[conservative]] and [[libertarian]] group in the world. Founded in 1943, AAPS is a membership-based physician organization that does not accept funding by corporations or government, thereby ensuring AAPS's independence. It may be the largest physician organization funded virtually entirely by membership dues. Rival organizations, such as the American Medical Association, are funded primarily by revenue from business ventures and payments by pharmaceutical companies.

For over 60 years AAPS has remained dedicated to the preservation of the ethical practice of private medicine. It adheres to the [[Oath of Hippocrates]]. The motto of AAPS is "omnia pro aegroto," which is Latin for "all for the patient." AAPS has about 4,000 members, including members in every state and virtually every specialty of medicine.
__TOC__
==Legal Activity==
AAPS files more legal briefs on behalf of physicians and their patients than most medical societies combined, and is often successful. In 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sided with AAPS and cited its ''amicus curiae'' brief in the first paragraph of the decision. ''Springer v. Henry'', 435 F.3d 268, 271 (3d Cir. 2006). Later in 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with an argument advanced by AAPS in its ''amicus curiae'' brief in overturning a highly publicized conviction and 25-year sentence of Dr. William Hurwitz for treating pain in his patients.

In ''Stenberg v. Carhart'', 530 U.S. 914 (2000), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy frequently cited material provided in a submission by AAPS. In ''United States v. Rutgard'', 116 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir. 1997), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lengthy sentence as urged by an ''amicus curiae'' brief submitted by AAPS. In ''Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, Inc.'', 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002), the ''en banc'' Court of Appeals for the Fifth Court adopted an argument urged by AAPS in establishing that no one may own the law.

==Policy Issues==
AAPS has also been successful on issues of policy. It reviewed the approval data for Wyeth's rotavirus vaccine and declared it to be unsafe before the FDA ultimately came to the same conclusion and pulled it from the market. AAPS is the only entity to have defeated the FDA twice in litigation, in both cases establishing limits on its power.

More recently, AAPS spoke out against the mandate for the [[HPV vaccine]], as it opposes all mandatory vaccines.<ref>[http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/vacresol.htm AAPS Resolution Concerning Mandatory Vaccines]</ref> Subsequently the Texas Medical Association and a broad coalition of organizations also opposed this mandate. In July 2007, Congressman Phil Gingrey cited AAPS on the floor of Congress in support of an amendment subsequently passed by the House of Representatives:<ref>http://gingrey.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=69634</ref>

:Mr. Chairman, my amendment would serve as an incentive for states to keep HPV vaccination programs voluntary, not mandatory. ...

:Excluding children from school for refusal to be vaccinated for a disease spread only by sexual intercourse is a serious, precedent-setting action that trespasses on the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children, as well as on the rights of the children to attend school.

:A mandatory HPV vaccine program improperly and unnecessarily inserts the government into the lives of children, parents, and physicians. In fact, the American College of Pediatricians and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are opposed to any legislation which would require HPV vaccination for school attendance.

The AAPS publishes the [[Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons]].<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/jpands/</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:Conservative Organizations]][[Category:Nonprofits]]

Quackwatch

2009-01-29T01:46:23Z

ArnoldFriend: missed a ' in preview

'''Quackwatch''' is one of the oldest and largest databases of articles concerning medical myths and quackery. Its mission is "to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct."<ref>[http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/mission.html Quackwatch Mission Statement]</ref> Besides monitoring "alternative" medicine for fraud, the site also looks into the wrongdoings of the medical establishment.<ref>[http://www.pharmwatch.org/ Pharmwatch]</ref>

==External links==
[http://www.quackwatch.org/ Quackwatch] Main site

==References==
<references>

Quackwatch

2009-01-29T01:46:03Z

ArnoldFriend: New page: '''Quackwatch'' is one of the oldest and largest databases of articles concerning medical myths and quackery. Its mission is "to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and ...

'''Quackwatch'' is one of the oldest and largest databases of articles concerning medical myths and quackery. Its mission is "to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct."<ref>[http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/mission.html Quackwatch Mission Statement]</ref> Besides monitoring "alternative" medicine for fraud, the site also looks into the wrongdoings of the medical establishment.<ref>[http://www.pharmwatch.org/ Pharmwatch]</ref>

==External links==
[http://www.quackwatch.org/ Quackwatch] Main site

==References==
<references>

Pseudoscience

2009-01-29T01:36:49Z

ArnoldFriend:

'''Pseudoscience''' is theory or speculation which has the trappings and [[rhetoric]] of [[science]], and presented as science, but not generally accepted as valid by the scientific community. Theories are typically classed as pseudoscientific if they fail the [[scientific method]]. Pseudoscientific theories are typically no falsifiable, lack objectivity, and their purveyors show unwillingness to allow neutral outsiders to observe, test, or replicate their findings.

== Falsifiability ==
The most cited element of scientific theory is [[falsifiability]], established by [[philosopher]] [[Karl Popper]]. A falsifiable theory makes predictions, which can be used to test it. Thus, the theory of gravity is falsifiable, as it predicts that an apple held above the ground and released will fall. If it fails the test, it is discarded, and if it passes, it is not proven, but better supported.

== Disproven science ==
The term pseudoscience is also often applied to theories which ''are'' falsifiable and have in fact been falsified and discarded. [[Phrenology]] predicted that psychological traits could be inferred from the shape of the skull, but no actual link was ever found. Various [[astrological]] theories predicted regular planetary effects on the earth and human health, but testing those failed.

The existence of God is thus not considered scientific theory, as no test can possibly be conceived which categorically disproves His existence. The same is the case for [[string theory]], which is a mathematical unification of scientific theory, but makes no predictions. Such things fall outside the realm of science.

== Charlatanism ==
The label of pseudoscience is commonly given to [[charlatans]], who claim abnormal powers and abilities, but refuse to demonstrate them in objective, controlled, monitored environments. For example, [[Uri Geller]] claims to be able to bend spoons without applying pressure to them, but he cannot do it in front of scientists or journalists. Countless conjurers and mediums claim to be able to speak with the dead, but controlled circumstances reveal that they are really only conducting clever psychological tricks.

== Metaphysics ==
Spiritual, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious beliefs are occasionally confused with pseudoscience, as there is often an overlap in rhetoric, and charlatans blur the lines between scientific and philosophical ideas of knowledge.

== Public belief ==
Despite evidence and logic against pseudoscientific theories, many remain popular among the public. Homeopathic medicine is available at most health-food stores and is a multi-billion dollar business, and 31% of Americans believe in astrology.

Notably, twice as many [[Democrats]] believe in astrology as [[Republicans]], showing a strong bent of irrationality and scientific illiteracy among [[liberals]].<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref>

==Examples of pseudosciences==
*[[Animal magnetism]]
*[[Astrology]]
*[[Chiropractic]] (except for lower back pain)
*[[Dianetics]]
*[[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>
*[[Free Energy]]
*[[Graphology]]
*[[Homeopathy]]
*[[Iridology]]
*[[Lysenkoism]]
*[[Mesmerism]]
*[[Orgone therapy]]
*[[Osteopathy]]
*[[Parapsychology]]
*[[Phrenology]]
*[[Psychoanalysis]]
*[[Reflexology]]
*[[Ufology]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Pseudoscience]]

Talk:Pseudoscience

2009-01-29T01:35:57Z

ArnoldFriend:

{{protected|Conservative}}
[[Eugenics]] is a classic example of a pseudoscience. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Graphology too. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This page is all locked up, and contains loads of duplicated nonsense. Someone fix it.

= Consistent formatting and content. =

Please use consistent formatting for the various lists and spaces between the refs. As it stands, the Theory of Evolution link has no bullet item and a space between two refs. Additionally, if the Theory of Evolution is to have external references, please provide external references for all of the other items on the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Why are there external references for Theory of Evolution when there are none for any of the other links? What purpose do these external references serve that cannot be found by looking at the article mentioned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

= Failing removal of the linked resources for evolution, links for the others... =
Can a sysop look over these changes and make the edit? As of yet, Conservative has not responded to either the request to look here, or that of the one made on his talk page. The concern I have is the lack of consistency between the external resources for the page. I honestly believe that non external links should needed for this page (and instead address the issues on the pages they link to), but if they are to be there, they should be there for all of them. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My request to have Conservative on his talk page has been ignored. No one has responded here. The page is locked. Can someone please say "yea" or "nay" to the proposed changes and links on this page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a sysop, and I favor deleting the page. It is just opinion. Why should it even be here? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a person, and I don't favor deleting the page. It is just an opinion, but I think there could be something very important said on the topic. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] you mean not your opinion. You don't seem to be averse to pushing [[Exotheology|blustering opinion]]s of your own. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences==
*[[Astrology]]<ref>http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html</ref>
*[[Dianetics]]<ref>http://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html</ref>
*[[Exotheology]]
*[[Graphology]]<ref>http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm</ref>
*[[Iridology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/iridol.html</ref>
*[[Orgone therapy]]
*[[Parapsychology]]<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm</ref>
*[[Phrenology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/phren.html</ref>
*[[Psychoanalysis]]
*[[Ufology]]

== Example of a field often classified as pseudoscience by conservatives ==
*[[Theory of evolution]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref><ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals==
*[[Intelligent Design]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html</ref>
*[[Creation Science]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/creation.html</ref>
*[[Cryptozoology]]

==References==
<references/>

== Proposed revision ==
The term ''pseudoscience'' is really just an epithet for expressing disapproval of some ideas. There is no good definition that allows objective listing of just what is or is not a pseudoscience. Even the Uri Geller example is unconvincing. Does he pretend to be scientific? If not, then it is not pseudoscience. Geller has done all sorts of public demonstrations, so the fact that he has refused to bend spoons in some situations is not conclusive.

Generating lists of what is or is not pseudoscience is a silly exercise that just reflects the prejudices of the editors. It is just the sort of thing that Wikipedia would do that Conservapedia should avoid. I propose that a short definition be given, and the lists be omitted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Disagree, if this is supposed to be different form Wikipedia we should show how lists of this sort might be created with a liberal bent. Ergo, a list with conservative bias, per CP guidelines and commandments. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:43, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't even see how to create a list with conservative bias. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, leaving 'evolution' on the list might be a good start. (If you don't mind looking silly to both liberals AND conservatives who happen not to treat the Old Testament as a science textbook, that is.) And you can add "global warming", seeing how at least some conservatives seem to think it's a Communist plot to destroy the American economy. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 00:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Okay, let's suppose I think that global warming is a commie plot. Then it might be unscientific, political, fraudulent, destructive, socialist, and I don't know what else, but not necessarily pseudo-scientific. How would I show that it is pseudo-scientific and why would anyone care?
::: If you really think that pseudo-science is a useful term, then why not introduce pseudo-conservative, pseudo-democracy, pseudo-truth, and pseudo-religion? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you show examples of where those terms have been used and in contexts that address the comment by Gulik? "pseudo-science" is a term that is used ''regularly'' as opposed to pseudo-religion which is tautological, and pseudo-truth which is an oxymoron, for starters. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

Why isn't [[Theory of Evolution]] mentioned here? Although I agree it's not as flimsy as, for example, [[phrenology]], it's important to mention it since it's still aggressively promoted by some scientists, without standing on any firm scientific grounds. Although not a '''good''' example of pseudoscience, it's an '''important''' example of pseudoscience. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Calling the theory of evolution a pseudoscience because an EXTREME minority of scientists disaggree is like calling all medical science and knowledge a pseudoscience because some people think new age medicine is more valid. The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution, people can dissaggree with it, but it is supported by testing, and follows the scientific method, unlike intelligent design, which only follows the first two steps. You can choose to not call ID a pseudoscience, but there is no concievable way you could justify calling evolution one.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 09:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:If Evolutionary Biology is on the list of pseudosciences, then Intelligent Design/Creation Science should be right there with it. Regardless of your perception, there is ostensibly strong evidence on both sides, and avid, close-minded supporters on both sides. Neither side is falsifiable or has truly conclusive evidence in their favor. True, they have nice little piles of evidence, but the strongest points in these piles were usually created by the respective side via careful manipulation of the facts at hand. Truth be told, many people on both sides just defend their position because it's all they've known all their lives; their families brought them up with their minds closed and controlled, believing whichever side the parent took, and to a fully ideologically decided adult, the idea that he or she might be wrong is daunting. What I'm saying is, most arguments on both sides of this debate are made out of fear, hatred, and human emotion rather than calm intelligence and scientific yearning. It's a neverending war, and I experience this war everyday in what I see in others, and within myself. This applies to both evolution and creationism, making them both "pseudosciences" by the definition on this page. [[User:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]] 21:03, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Psychoanalysis ==

Can someone provide an explanation as to why this term is on the list? I'm not removing it without asking first, but I don't see how this belongs in the same category as the others. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:02, 11 January 2009 (EST)
: Look into Freudian psychoanalysis (as opposed to modern psychology). It's based upon a lot of very crazy beliefs that are not testable (tripartite separation of the psyche, Oedipal complexes, etc.) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:[edit: agree with Rod] Have you found any proof of psychoanalysis? Or is it just the sex-obsessed maunderings of Freud and his cultist followers? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 12:12, 11 January 2009 (EST) (EST)

::I think there needs to be a distinction between the state of a scientific field at the time of its origins, and the current level state of the art. Early medicine involved techniques like bloodletting and the use of leeches that would be considered bad or pseudoscience today, but we don't regard contemporary medicine by those early practices. In the same light, I would not evaluate the validity of modern-day psychoanalysis by the methods of its first practicioners like Freud, who were taking baby steps by comparison. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:::Psychoanalysis is, almost by definition, based upon an acceptance of Freudian theory. You can't separate 'then' from 'now' in this field. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 12:23, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:::Mike is right. There's a reason why the term psychology is used rather than psychoanalysis. There is no psychoanalytic "science." [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Climate change==
'Anthroprogenic Global Warming' - the greatest con perpetrated by pseudoscientists in recent decades - surely this should have a place. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 12:12, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Chiropractic is a mixed bag just like allopathic medicine and..... ==

I think it is fair to say that chriropractic is a mixed bag when it comes to pseudoscience just like allopathic medicine (medicine practice by MDs) is a mixed bag when it comes to pseudoscience.

I cite the following:

http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/Cost_Effectiveness.shtml

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9272472

Also:

In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."[http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2000journals/may2000/editorial.htm]
Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]

Also:

"Another example is Intermountain Healthcare, a nonprofit health-care system in Utah, where 80 percent of the care is based on evidence. Treatment data is collected by electronic medical records. The data is analyzed by researchers, and the best practices are then incorporated into the clinical process, resulting in far better quality care at a cost that is one-third less than the national average. (Disclosure: Intermountain Healthcare is a member of Mr. Gingrich’s organization.)"[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24beane.html?ref=opinion] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:46, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Rather than dump the entirety of the quackwatch medical database on chiropractic here, I will instead provide a link [http://www.chirobase.org/]. The main reason to list chiropractic in the page on pseudoscience is because its main tenant, that of spinal subluxation, is demonstrable false. The process of cracking the lower back of a person is effective for removing lower back pain, but chiropractic can actually be dangerous when applied to the neck area. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 20:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Thimerosal

2009-01-29T01:31:15Z

ArnoldFriend:

'''Thimerosal''' is a [[mercury]]-containing preservative that has been used in some [[vaccines]] and other products since the 1930's. "Thimerosal consists of 49.6% ethyl mercury, an anti-bacterial, anti-fungal that allows manufacturers to sell the vaccine in large, multi-dose containers without fear of contamination."<ref>http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=685311</ref> [[Mercury]] has long been known to be highly toxic.

In July 1999 the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated from vaccines as a precautionary measure. It has since been removed from all early childhood vaccines.

Today, the government claims that all routinely recommended childhood vaccines manufactured for the [[United States]] [[market]] contain either no thimerosal or only trace amounts. But physicians continued to use vaccines containing thimerosal long after the recommendation of its elimination, in order to clear the old inventory of pharmaceutical companies.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#t</ref>

About 80% of flu vaccines contain thimerosal -- 25 micrograms of [[mercury]] -- as of 2007. As reported in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:<ref>http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=685311</ref>

:"Using the standards set for methyl mercury consumption - the kind that's in fish - an average 130-pound person getting the flu shot would exceed the daily limit by more than four times. A 22-pound baby would get more than 25 times the amount of mercury considered safe. And doctors are recommending that many babies and children get two flu shots this season."

"[T]he EPA limits would result in a maximum daily exposure of 0.9 micrograms of mercury for a twenty-pound child."<ref>http://www.doctorvolpe.com/newsletters/browseUpdates.php?catID=34</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine

2009-01-29T01:29:03Z

ArnoldFriend: /* Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination */ About the San Diego outbreak

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|[[Avian flu]] vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

Since the adoption of mass vaccination programmes, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

==Adverse Events==
Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection. All vaccines can cause illness, but this is commonly a hypersensitivity reaction (similar to an allergic response), not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

A number of vaccination reactions are deemed serious enough to contraindicate further vaccinations of the same type. These include extensive swelling and redness at the injection site, prolonged fever, [[bronchospasm]] and laryngeal [[edema]](narrowing of the airways causing difficulty in breathing), and collapse/seizures with or without unconsciousness and/or encephalitis.<ref>[http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=2067071044 General Practice Notebook - vaccine reactions]</ref>

==Influenza Vaccine==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]". When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated.<ref>{{hnb|Glezen|2004}}</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

===Loss of Herd Immunity in the United States===
In February of 2008, an outbreak of [[measles]] occurred in [[San Diego]]. This outbreak was a result of the loss of herd immunity. Due to the relaxed statutes in [[California]], many children in the San Diego community went unvaccinated. One of these children, a boy, was able to contract measles in Sweden, return to the United States and cause the outbreak. During this time, dozens of children contracted the disease and many were hospitalized with fevers reaching 104<math>^\circ</math>. These hospitalizations included a 3 month old baby who nearly died of dehydration. The parents of the unvaccinated boy were unapologetic for nearly killing the other children, instead feeling their fears of vaccines were sufficient reason to endanger the lives of many. The fear of the [[MMR]] vaccine (a vaccine against [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]]), which no longer has mercury in it, continues to this day, with the vaccine being wrongly accused of causing [[autism]].<ref> [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm]</ref>

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

Bulging or swollen [[fontanelle]]s have been linked with many vaccines commonly given to infants, such as the [[diptheria]]-[[tetanus]] (DPT) vaccine. Many families, out of concern for their child's health, have sought legal justice for the potential health damage.<ref>http://legaljustice4john.com/fontanellebulging.htm</ref>

== See also ==
*[[HPV vaccine]]
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]
===External Links===
*[http://www.909shot.com/ National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)], a non-profit anti-vaccination organization
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/uploads/Compare_Risks.pdf Compare the Risks], A PDF detailing the risks between vaccination and non-vaccination
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/Home.html Stop Jenny McCarthy], A site devoted to fighting vaccine misinformation, contains many vaccine related resources.

==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Evidence of Harm

2009-01-29T01:14:52Z

ArnoldFriend:

'''''Evidence of Harm''''' is a [[book]] by [[David Kirby]] that chronicles the danger of [[mercury]] preservatives in common [[vaccine|vaccines]], and suggests that early childhood vaccination may be a contributing factor to [[autism]]. This thesis has since been disproved in multiple studies. Kirby has gained fame for giving voice to the concerns of thousands of worried parents and standing up to [[Big Science]].

==See Also==
*[http://www.evidenceofharm.com ''Evidence of Harm'',] David Kirby's website.
[[category:Science]]
[[category:Journalism]]

Wounded Knee Massacre

2009-01-28T20:01:40Z

ArnoldFriend: A massacre is not a battle

'''The Wounded Knee Massacre''' occurred on December 29, 1890, when the U.S. Cavalry were ordered to remove some Lakota [[Sioux]] from their reservation in [[South Dakota]] to another reservation in [[Nebraska]].
The attempt to disarm the Indians turned fatal when a dispute over one tribesman's rifle turned into a major exchange of gunfire.

The deaf man had insisted on being paid for his rifle before giving it up. In the ensuing scuffle, the weapon discharged. Other armed Indians pointed their rifles at the soldiers, who then began shooting.

Aggravating the violence was the vengeful mood of the soldiers, some of whom remembered the defeat at [[Little Big Horn]].

In the end, over 150 [[Native Americans]], including women and children, were killed, along with 25 U.S. soldiers, <ref>Barber, Nicola. ''Question and Answer Encyclopedia: The USA''. Bath, UK: Parragon Publishing, 2000.</ref> most of whom were killed by friendly fire.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:United States History]]

Andrew Wiles

2009-01-28T19:58:44Z

ArnoldFriend:

[[Image:Wiles.png|thumb|right|Andrew Wiles]]
'''Andrew Wiles''' is the chair of the [[mathematics]] department at [[Princeton University]][http://www.math.princeton.edu/index.html] whose renown comes from his non-[[elementary proof]] of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Wiles, Andrew}}
[[Category:Mathematicians]]

Talk:Mystery:Was Charles Fefferman Homeschooled?

2009-01-28T19:51:09Z

ArnoldFriend:

Bearing in mind how 'homeschooling' is defined, the chances are Fefferman isn't a product of homeschooling, but rather [[radical acceleration]]. Radical accelerates is the term used to describe gifted students who jump from junior high to college education, bypassing the high school years. The case study "From Eighth Grade to Selective College in One Jump: Case Studies in Radical Acceleration."<ref>http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED061679&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED061679</ref> used both Fefferman and [[Norbert Weiner]] as examples.

Although it's not conclusive, the implication is that both were within the formal schooling system and were rapidly accelerated through it. [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 06:56, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: Good point, and you may be right. But Fefferman was in junior high school for only one year, and there are indications that he was not there in traditional progression with a former elementary school class. Rather, I think Fefferman was placed in that school out of step, and may have had difficulties fitting in perhaps because there were unfamiliar classmates and perhaps even school itself was unfamiliar to him altogether. That points to a possibility (a likelihood?) that Fefferman was homeschooled before his short-lived period in junior high.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I really don't have much at stake in the mystery and feel that contacting a distinguished mathematician like Fefferman for something that I don't find crucial is not something I should do, but if it's keeping you up at night, you can email him at cf@math.princeton.edu. I retrieved the email from Princeton's website, so I'm not putting anything out there that isn't already easily available. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 14:51, 28 January 2009 (EST)

==References==
<references/>

Game of Life

2009-01-28T19:42:53Z

ArnoldFriend:

{{merge|Conway's game of life}}

[[Image:Gospers glider gun.gif|right|thumb|Glider Gun]]
The '''Game of Life''' is a [[cellular automaton]] constructed by mathematician [[John Conway]] and popularized by [[Martin Gardner]]. The game starts with an infinite lattice of [[squares]]. Any cell is either has a [[bacterium]] (or is '''alive''') or does not have a bacterium (is '''dead''') and only a finite number start alive. The 8 surrounding squares of each cell make up its neighbors. At each iteration of the game the states of cells change based on the following rules:
# Any living cell with one or no neigbors becomes too lonely and dies.
# Any living cell with four or more neigbors becomes overcrowded and dies.
# Any living cell with two or three neighbors stays alive.
# Any dead cell that has exactly three neighbors becomes alive.

Each round (or generation) of the game occurs simultaneously. That is, each of the four rules is applied to each square at the same time.

The Game of Life is [[Turing complete]] and started off research into [[cellular automata]].

==External Links==

[http://www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns/ A Game of Life Simulator] (uses Javascript)
[[category:mathematics]]
[[Category:Computer Science]]

Continuum

2009-01-28T19:40:18Z

ArnoldFriend: Undo revision 615409 by ArnoldFriend (Talk) didn't see the link to linear order above

Mathematically, '''continuum''' can refer to the [[Real_line|real line]], its [[Cardinality|cardinality]] <math>\mathfrak{c}</math>, or any [[Continuous|continuous]] [[Connected_(topology)|connected]] [[Dense_subset|dense]] [[Linear_order|linear order]]. Generally, when mathematicians say "the continuum", they are referring to one of the first two possibilities (context clarifies which one). The [[Continuum_hypothesis|Continuum Hypothesis]] conjectures that there is no set of cardinality bigger than that of the [[natural number]]s <math>\aleph_0</math>, but smaller than the cardinality of the set of the real numbers <math>\mathfrak{c}</math>.

The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) [[Continuous|continuous]] set studied by mathematicians. No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order. Since the [[Complex_number|complex numbers]] add the [[Imaginary_number|imaginary number]], i, to the real line, this is one reason they have no natural linear order.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Continuum

2009-01-28T19:39:41Z

ArnoldFriend:

Mathematically, '''continuum''' can refer to the [[Real_line|real line]], its [[Cardinality|cardinality]] <math>\mathfrak{c}</math>, or any [[Continuous|continuous]] [[Connected_(topology)|connected]] [[Dense_subset|dense]] [[Linear_order|linear order]]. Generally, when mathematicians say "the continuum", they are referring to one of the first two possibilities (context clarifies which one). The [[Continuum_hypothesis|Continuum Hypothesis]] conjectures that there is no set of cardinality bigger than that of the [[natural number]]s <math>\aleph_0</math>, but smaller than the cardinality of the set of the real numbers <math>\mathfrak{c}</math>.

The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) [[Continuous|continuous]] set studied by mathematicians. No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense [[linear order]]. Since the [[Complex_number|complex numbers]] add the [[Imaginary_number|imaginary number]], i, to the real line, this is one reason they have no natural linear order.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Kernel (geometry)

2009-01-28T19:37:39Z

ArnoldFriend:

The '''kernel''' in [[geometry]] is the set of all points ''a'' such that for all points ''b'' inside a polygon ''P'', the segment ''ab'' lies entirely within ''P'' <ref>http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7305116-claims.html</ref>.

In [[abstract algebra]], the '''kernel''' of a [[function]] between two [[group_(mathematics)|group]]s is the set of all members of the first which map to the identity of the second. Similarly, the '''kernel''' of a mapping in [[linear algebra]] from one [[vector space]] to another is the set of vectors mapped to the zero [[vector]].

==See also==
*[[operation system kernel]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Geometry]]
[[Category:Algebra]]
[[Category:Computer Science]]

Pseudoscience

2009-01-28T19:29:48Z

ArnoldFriend:

'''Pseudoscience''' is theory or speculation which has the trappings and [[rhetoric]] of [[science]], and presented as science, but not generally accepted as valid by the scientific community. Theories are typically classed as pseudoscientific if they fail the [[scientific method]]. Pseudoscientific theories are typically no falsifiable, lack objectivity, and their purveyors show unwillingness to allow neutral outsiders to observe, test, or replicate their findings.

== Falsifiability ==
The most cited element of scientific theory is [[falsifiability]], established by [[philosopher]] [[Karl Popper]]. A falsifiable theory makes predictions, which can be used to test it. Thus, the theory of gravity is falsifiable, as it predicts that an apple held above the ground and released will fall. If it fails the test, it is discarded, and if it passes, it is not proven, but better supported.

== Disproven science ==
The term pseudoscience is also often applied to theories which ''are'' falsifiable and have in fact been falsified and discarded. [[Phrenology]] predicted that psychological traits could be inferred from the shape of the skull, but no actual link was ever found. Various [[astrological]] theories predicted regular planetary effects on the earth and human health, but testing those failed.

The existence of God is thus not considered scientific theory, as no test can possibly be conceived which categorically disproves His existence. The same is the case for [[string theory]], which is a mathematical unification of scientific theory, but makes no predictions. Such things fall outside the realm of science.

== Charlatanism ==
The label of pseudoscience is commonly given to [[charlatans]], who claim abnormal powers and abilities, but refuse to demonstrate them in objective, controlled, monitored environments. For example, [[Uri Geller]] claims to be able to bend spoons without applying pressure to them, but he cannot do it in front of scientists or journalists. Countless conjurers and mediums claim to be able to speak with the dead, but controlled circumstances reveal that they are really only conducting clever psychological tricks.

== Metaphysics ==
Spiritual, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious beliefs are occasionally confused with pseudoscience, as there is often an overlap in rhetoric, and charlatans blur the lines between scientific and philosophical ideas of knowledge.

== Public belief ==
Despite evidence and logic against pseudoscientific theories, many remain popular among the public. Homeopathic medicine is available at most health-food stores and is a multi-billion dollar business, and 31% of Americans believe in astrology.

Notably, twice as many [[Democrats]] believe in astrology as [[Republicans]], showing a strong bent of irrationality and scientific illiteracy among [[liberals]].<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref>

==Examples of pseudosciences==
*[[Animal magnetism]]
*[[Astrology]]
*[[Chiropractic]] (except for lower back pain)
*[[Dianetics]]
*[[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>
*[[Graphology]]
*[[Homeopathy]]
*[[Iridology]]
*[[Lysenkoism]]
*[[Mesmerism]]
*[[Orgone therapy]]
*[[Osteopathy]]
*[[Parapsychology]]
*[[Phrenology]]
*[[Psychoanalysis]]
*[[Reflexology]]
*[[Ufology]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Pseudoscience]]

Waterboarding

2009-01-18T17:54:54Z

ArnoldFriend: /* Controversy over use in the War on Terror */

[[Image:Waterboard.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A wall-painting found at a Vietnamese POW camp illustrating waterboarding being used against an American prisoner]]
'''Waterboarding''' is a method of interrogation which simulates the sensation of drowning. Its use by American forces against terrorism suspects has been called controversial by some, particularly by (but not limited to) [[leftists]]. Opponents of the practice call it "[[torture]]" and on this basis argue that it is illegal. Supporters of the practice acknowledge its coercive nature but say it is not torture and therefore not illegal.

The practice dates back to the time of the Spanish Inquisition in the 1500s. A tightly bound prisoner has porous cloth placed over his mouth and nose. Water is poured over his face in such a manner as to convince the prisoner that he is drowning.

==Legal issues in the 20th century==

In 1901, Major Edwin Glenn was court-martialed and sentenced to 10 years hard labour for waterboarding an insurgent in the [[Philippines]] during the [[Spanish-American War]].<ref name="guardian">http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html</ref><ref>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870</ref> In 1947, Yukio Asano - a Japanese officer - was charged with war crimes and received 15 years hard labour for waterboarding a US civilian. It was declared illegal by US generals in Vietnam and a US soldier was the subject of an investigation, and later cleared, when ''The Washington Post'' (21.1.1968) published a front page photograph of him supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html</ref><ref name="guardian" />

== Controversy over use in the [[War on Terror]] ==

According to Chapter 18, section 2340 of the United States Legal Code, torture is defined as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering."<ref>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html</ref>
The [[United Nations]] Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment classifies torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."<ref>http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm</ref>

The US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in [[San Diego]], [[California]] uses waterboarding demonstrations on its students. On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." ''The article said the practice was "fairly common" in part because "those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury.''" <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html Washington Post: Waterboarding Historically Controversial]</ref>

Opponents of the practice call it "[[torture]]" and want official definitions of [[torture]] ''changed'' so as to outlaw the technique.<ref>http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm</ref> One notable critic of waterboarding is Senator[[John McCain]], himself a victim of torture. Senator McCain believes that it is highly inappropriate and unnecessary. <ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/politics/main3441067.shtml</ref> Writing in ''NewsWeek'' in 2005, Senator McCain wrote: “To make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture”, and said it should remain outlawed. <ref>[http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005\12\08\story_8-12-2005_pg4_13 ‘Torture’ takes on new meaning in post-9/11], [[Reuters]], December 8th, 2005</ref>

Defenders of the practice deny that the suffering it causes is severe enough as to amount to torture, and in any case, used against America's enemies, it has proved to be highly effective. Joseph Farah is an American author, journalist, and editor-in-chief of the conservative website WorldNetDaily said:

<blockquote>
"Americans are simply losing their ability to distinguish right from wrong.

I don't know how else to put it. Up is down, day is night, left is right and right is wrong.

A good illustration of my thesis is the growing political consensus around the idea that the U.S. should stop using any effective interrogation techniques that make our terrorist enemies uncomfortable – even those involved in planning acts of mass destruction and annihilation.

For instance, armchair generals are increasingly referring to "waterboarding" as torture and saying it must be stopped in all cases.

I have no doubts waterboarding is a very unpleasant experience. It must be so because it is considered 100 percent effective and usually induces cooperation within 30 seconds.

The technique of waterboarding involves pouring water on the head of a prisoner with the purpose of triggering a gagging reflex and the panic of imminent drowning.

It was used successfully to learn about terrorist operations planned by two of al-Qaida's top operatives – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, involved in the planning of the 9/11 attack, and Abu Zubaida, another leader of the terrorist organization.

Apparently both of these mass killers endured many hours of coercive interrogations without talking. But they sung like canaries after a few seconds of waterboarding.

'''In both cases, there is reason to believe planned terrorist attacks were foiled as a result of this technique."'''<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59481 WorldNet Daily: Waterboarding is not torture]</ref>
</blockquote>

Waterboarding has served a "valuable" purpose and does not constitute torture, former Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] told a House committee. Testifying on the Bush administration's interrogation rules before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft defended the technique while answering a question from Rep. Howard Coble, R-North Carolina.

"Waterboarding, as we all know, is a controversial issue. Do you think it served a beneficial purpose?" the congressman asked.

"The reports that I have heard, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, indicate that they were very valuable," Ashcroft said, adding that CIA Director George Tenet indicated the "value of the information received from the use of enhanced interrogation techniques -- I don't know whether he was saying waterboarding or not, but assume that he was for a moment -- the value of that information exceeded the value of information that was received from all other sources." <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/ashcroft.waterboarding/ John Ashcroft: Waterboarding serves 'valuable' purpose and does not constitute torture]</ref>

According to news reports:

<blockquote>
"And when it comes to outright torture, the CIA does not believe it produces reliable results and has never used it, reports Ronald Kessler, chief Washington correspondent of [[Newsmax]].com.

The three terrorists who were subjected too waterboarding are Abu Zubaydah, Osama bin Laden’s chief of operations; Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole; and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

In these cases waterboarding and other coercive techniques, such as forcing prisoners to stand for hours, succeeded in extracting intelligence that led to the capture of key al-Qaida operative planning terrorist attack against Americans.

'''Despite the media’s focus on waterboarding, it is in reality a “non issue,” said Kessler, author of the book “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack.”'''

'''“It hasn’t been used since 2003 and won’t be used again. The media is using it as an excuse to bash... President Bush.'''

''“Waterboarding was employed on only three terrorists who were not cooperating, and the information they ultimately provided helped stave off attacks that could have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people.”''<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Waterboard_Not_Torture/2007/12/10/56046.html NewsMax Inside Cover: Waterboarding NOT Torture]</ref>
</blockquote>

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is an acknowledged expert on this matter. In the magazine ''National Review'' he stated:<ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhkM2YyZmE5MThjZGNlN2IyMGI4MmE3MWM1OWQ5MjA=&w=MQ== National Review; Waterboarding and Torture]</ref>
{{cquote|Again, we do not know the details of waterboarding as practiced (if, as reported, it is or has been practiced) by the CIA. Yet, we know generally that waterboarding is very rough stuff. It is not especially painful physically and causes no lasting bodily injury; yet, it is intended to create the sensation of drowning in a person who is bound and temporarily suffocated. Administered by someone who knows what he is doing, there is presumably no actual threat of drowning or suffocation; for the victim, though, there is clearly fear of imminent death and he could pass out from the deprivation of oxygen.

The sensation is temporary, not prolonged. There shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to it repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture. But what about doing it once, twice, or some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive?

'''Reasonable minds can and do differ on this. Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we’ve seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils. The Washington Post and Sen. Edward Kennedy have pointed to a World War II era war crimes prosecution by the U.S. against a Japanese soldier who used what was described as “water torture” on an American civilian. But they’ve failed to note that this was far from the only conduct at issue; the soldier was also charged with having engaged, over a sustained period of time, in “beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; … burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward.” The case hardly stands for the proposition that isolated instances of waterboarding would be torture.'''

Moreover, American military and intelligence services reportedly use (or, at least, have used) waterboarding in their counter-interrogation training programs. Congress carved no exception into torture law for such exercises. '''''Consequently, a conclusion that waterboarding is torture would be tantamount to a finding that our own services are committing a heinous felony, the equivalent of a war crime, against our own operatives — something I believe it is fair to say Congress cannot possibly have intended.'''''}}

=== Consequences of Waterboarding ===
Due to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques, Susan J. Crawford, the Bush administration official in charge of the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay has declared that Mohammed al-Qahtani was tortured. Because of this, she has dismissed all charges against him and has declared that she will not allow prosecutors to re-file the charges Crawford, who previously served in the Reagan administration as the Pentagon Inspector General under Dick Cheney, said
<blockquote>
I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it..<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html Interview with Susan Crawford]</ref>
</blockquote>

== Examples of terrorists prosecuted as a result of information gained by waterboarding==
: ''Please add to this list''
== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: War]]
[[Category: Instruments and methods of torture]]

Waterboarding

2009-01-18T17:53:37Z

ArnoldFriend: /* Controversy over use in the War on Terror */ Added bit about dismissal of charges again al-Qahtani because of torture. Source is Washington Post unfortunately, but they did the interview

[[Image:Waterboard.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A wall-painting found at a Vietnamese POW camp illustrating waterboarding being used against an American prisoner]]
'''Waterboarding''' is a method of interrogation which simulates the sensation of drowning. Its use by American forces against terrorism suspects has been called controversial by some, particularly by (but not limited to) [[leftists]]. Opponents of the practice call it "[[torture]]" and on this basis argue that it is illegal. Supporters of the practice acknowledge its coercive nature but say it is not torture and therefore not illegal.

The practice dates back to the time of the Spanish Inquisition in the 1500s. A tightly bound prisoner has porous cloth placed over his mouth and nose. Water is poured over his face in such a manner as to convince the prisoner that he is drowning.

==Legal issues in the 20th century==

In 1901, Major Edwin Glenn was court-martialed and sentenced to 10 years hard labour for waterboarding an insurgent in the [[Philippines]] during the [[Spanish-American War]].<ref name="guardian">http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1933315,00.html</ref><ref>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870</ref> In 1947, Yukio Asano - a Japanese officer - was charged with war crimes and received 15 years hard labour for waterboarding a US civilian. It was declared illegal by US generals in Vietnam and a US soldier was the subject of an investigation, and later cleared, when ''The Washington Post'' (21.1.1968) published a front page photograph of him supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html</ref><ref name="guardian" />

== Controversy over use in the [[War on Terror]] ==

According to Chapter 18, section 2340 of the United States Legal Code, torture is defined as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering."<ref>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html</ref>
The [[United Nations]] Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment classifies torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."<ref>http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm</ref>

The US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in [[San Diego]], [[California]] uses waterboarding demonstrations on its students. On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." ''The article said the practice was "fairly common" in part because "those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury.''" <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html Washington Post: Waterboarding Historically Controversial]</ref>

Opponents of the practice call it "[[torture]]" and want official definitions of [[torture]] ''changed'' so as to outlaw the technique.<ref>http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/06/usdom13130.htm</ref> One notable critic of waterboarding is Senator[[John McCain]], himself a victim of torture. Senator McCain believes that it is highly inappropriate and unnecessary. <ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/politics/main3441067.shtml</ref> Writing in ''NewsWeek'' in 2005, Senator McCain wrote: “To make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture”, and said it should remain outlawed. <ref>[http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005\12\08\story_8-12-2005_pg4_13 ‘Torture’ takes on new meaning in post-9/11], [[Reuters]], December 8th, 2005</ref>

Defenders of the practice deny that the suffering it causes is severe enough as to amount to torture, and in any case, used against America's enemies, it has proved to be highly effective. Joseph Farah is an American author, journalist, and editor-in-chief of the conservative website WorldNetDaily said:

<blockquote>
"Americans are simply losing their ability to distinguish right from wrong.

I don't know how else to put it. Up is down, day is night, left is right and right is wrong.

A good illustration of my thesis is the growing political consensus around the idea that the U.S. should stop using any effective interrogation techniques that make our terrorist enemies uncomfortable – even those involved in planning acts of mass destruction and annihilation.

For instance, armchair generals are increasingly referring to "waterboarding" as torture and saying it must be stopped in all cases.

I have no doubts waterboarding is a very unpleasant experience. It must be so because it is considered 100 percent effective and usually induces cooperation within 30 seconds.

The technique of waterboarding involves pouring water on the head of a prisoner with the purpose of triggering a gagging reflex and the panic of imminent drowning.

It was used successfully to learn about terrorist operations planned by two of al-Qaida's top operatives – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, involved in the planning of the 9/11 attack, and Abu Zubaida, another leader of the terrorist organization.

Apparently both of these mass killers endured many hours of coercive interrogations without talking. But they sung like canaries after a few seconds of waterboarding.

'''In both cases, there is reason to believe planned terrorist attacks were foiled as a result of this technique."'''<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59481 WorldNet Daily: Waterboarding is not torture]</ref>
</blockquote>

Waterboarding has served a "valuable" purpose and does not constitute torture, former Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] told a House committee. Testifying on the Bush administration's interrogation rules before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft defended the technique while answering a question from Rep. Howard Coble, R-North Carolina.

"Waterboarding, as we all know, is a controversial issue. Do you think it served a beneficial purpose?" the congressman asked.

"The reports that I have heard, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, indicate that they were very valuable," Ashcroft said, adding that CIA Director George Tenet indicated the "value of the information received from the use of enhanced interrogation techniques -- I don't know whether he was saying waterboarding or not, but assume that he was for a moment -- the value of that information exceeded the value of information that was received from all other sources." <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/ashcroft.waterboarding/ John Ashcroft: Waterboarding serves 'valuable' purpose and does not constitute torture]</ref>

According to news reports:

<blockquote>
"And when it comes to outright torture, the CIA does not believe it produces reliable results and has never used it, reports Ronald Kessler, chief Washington correspondent of [[Newsmax]].com.

The three terrorists who were subjected too waterboarding are Abu Zubaydah, Osama bin Laden’s chief of operations; Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole; and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

In these cases waterboarding and other coercive techniques, such as forcing prisoners to stand for hours, succeeded in extracting intelligence that led to the capture of key al-Qaida operative planning terrorist attack against Americans.

'''Despite the media’s focus on waterboarding, it is in reality a “non issue,” said Kessler, author of the book “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack.”'''

'''“It hasn’t been used since 2003 and won’t be used again. The media is using it as an excuse to bash... President Bush.'''

''“Waterboarding was employed on only three terrorists who were not cooperating, and the information they ultimately provided helped stave off attacks that could have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people.”''<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Waterboard_Not_Torture/2007/12/10/56046.html NewsMax Inside Cover: Waterboarding NOT Torture]</ref>
</blockquote>

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is an acknowledged expert on this matter. In the magazine ''National Review'' he stated:<ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhkM2YyZmE5MThjZGNlN2IyMGI4MmE3MWM1OWQ5MjA=&w=MQ== National Review; Waterboarding and Torture]</ref>
{{cquote|Again, we do not know the details of waterboarding as practiced (if, as reported, it is or has been practiced) by the CIA. Yet, we know generally that waterboarding is very rough stuff. It is not especially painful physically and causes no lasting bodily injury; yet, it is intended to create the sensation of drowning in a person who is bound and temporarily suffocated. Administered by someone who knows what he is doing, there is presumably no actual threat of drowning or suffocation; for the victim, though, there is clearly fear of imminent death and he could pass out from the deprivation of oxygen.

The sensation is temporary, not prolonged. There shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to it repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture. But what about doing it once, twice, or some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive?

'''Reasonable minds can and do differ on this. Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we’ve seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils. The Washington Post and Sen. Edward Kennedy have pointed to a World War II era war crimes prosecution by the U.S. against a Japanese soldier who used what was described as “water torture” on an American civilian. But they’ve failed to note that this was far from the only conduct at issue; the soldier was also charged with having engaged, over a sustained period of time, in “beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; … burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward.” The case hardly stands for the proposition that isolated instances of waterboarding would be torture.'''

Moreover, American military and intelligence services reportedly use (or, at least, have used) waterboarding in their counter-interrogation training programs. Congress carved no exception into torture law for such exercises. '''''Consequently, a conclusion that waterboarding is torture would be tantamount to a finding that our own services are committing a heinous felony, the equivalent of a war crime, against our own operatives — something I believe it is fair to say Congress cannot possibly have intended.'''''}}

Due to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques, Susan J. Crawford, the Bush administration official in charge of the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay has declared that Mohammed al-Qahtani was tortured. Because of this, she has dismissed all charges against him and has declared that she will not allow prosecutors to re-file the charges Crawford, who previously served in the Reagan administration as the Pentagon Inspector General under Dick Cheney, said
<blockquote>
I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it..<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html Interview with Susan Crawford]</ref>
</blockquote>

== Examples of terrorists prosecuted as a result of information gained by waterboarding==
: ''Please add to this list''
== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: War]]
[[Category: Instruments and methods of torture]]

Theodore Roosevelt

2009-01-18T17:36:44Z

ArnoldFriend: Fixed broken ref tag, added to trivia

{{President
|image=Theodore roosevelt.jpg
|seq=26
|term_start=September 14, 1901
|term_end=March 4, 1909<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~sharonday7/Presidents/AP060301.htm</ref>
|party=Republican
|vp=None
|vp_dates=1901-1905
|2vp=Charles W. Fairbanks
|2vp_dates=1905-1909
|previous=William McKinley
|next=William Howard Taft
|office2=vice
|seq2=25
|term_start2=March 4, 1901
|term_end2=September 14, 1901
|pres2=William McKinley
|previous2=Garret Hobart
|next2=Charles W. Fairbanks
|birth_date=October 27, 1858
|birth_place=New York, New York
|death_date=January 6, 1919
|death_place=Oyster Bay, New York
|spouse=Alice Hathaway Lee
|spouse2=Edith Kermit Carow
|religion=Dutch Reformed
}}

'''Theodore Roosevelt''' was the 26th [[President of the United States of America]], 1901-1909, and leader of the Republican party and (in 1912-16), the Progressive Party.

==Personality and values==
Roosevelt is best known for his remarkable personality and commitment to democratic process. He was strongly committed to law and order, active leadership, civic duty, and individual self-responsibility. He was more concerned with the process of change than its direction. Roosevelt redefined American masculinity. He became a cowboy himself and the world soon identified America with cowboy values of courage and initiative, and hardihood in meeting outdoor challenges such as herding, hunting, and exploration. He strongly endorsed motherhood and criticized women who had careers and neglected motherhood. (Few Americans paid heed to his urgings that America needs a higher birth rate.)<ref> See "Theodore Roosevelt on Motherhood and the Welfare of the State," ''Population and Development Review,'' Vol. 13, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 141-147 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972126 online]</ref>
==Family==
He suffered from asthma as a boy but was able to work through it with the assistance of exercise.
==Early career==
He directed both the [[New York Police Department]]<ref>Roosevelt is the only president born in [[New York City]], but [[Herbert Hoover]] and [[Richard Nixon]] lived there when they were elected.</ref> and later, the [[Navy Department]]. He was appointed civil service commissioner by President [[Benjamin Harrison]].
==War with Spain, 1898==
When the [[Spanish-American War]] started he resigned his assistant secretaryship in the Navy and became a rough rider.
==Governor of new York==
A war hero, Roosevelt was elected governor of New York as a Republican in 1898. The party bosses distrusted him, and they forced his nomination as vice president on [[William McKinley]] in 1900. Roosevelt campaigned energetically and was elected.
==President==
When President McKinley was fatally shot by an [[anarchist]] in 1901, Roosevelt automatically became President, and was reelected against a challenge by the Democratic candidate Alton B. Parker in [[United States presidential election, 1904|1904]].
[[Image:Tr2006.jpg|thumb|300px|''Time'' July 3, 2006]]

==1912 election==
When Roosevelt's term was up he supported Republican candidate and then Secretary of War [[William Howard Taft]], but later he expressed disapproval of Taft's handling of the presidency and ran against him. He lost the Republican nomination to Taft but ran as an independent on the Bull Moose Progressive party. Both he and Taft lost to Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] in the [[United States presidential election, 1912|election of 1912]].<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt]] By Zachary Kent, Chicago Press</ref> While campaigning in 1912, Roosevelt was shot before giving in a speech in [[Milwaukee]]. The bullet lodged in a copy of the speech located in his breast pocket, saving his life. He gave the speech anyway that day, beginning the speech with the famous line, "I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose."
==Exploration==

After leaving office, Roosevelt took a trip along the [[Amazon River]] and wrote a book about his experience, ''Through the Brazilian Wilderness''. While in [[South America]], Roosevelt contracted [[malaria]] and nearly died. At one point, he requested that his expedition leave him behind. His son, Kermit, helped nurse him back to help, and Theodore credited Kermit with saving his life.
==Conservation==
More than any president before or since, Roosevelt insisted that conservation of natural resources be high on the agenda. As a world-class hunter and explorer, he mobilized support among American hunters, fishermen and outdoorsmen. he promoted both the national park system and the national forest system.

In the early 20th century there were three main positions. The laissez-faire position held that owners of private property--including lumber and mining companies, should be allowed to do anything they wished for their property. The conservationists, led by Roosevelt and his ally [[Gifford Pinchot]], said that was too wasteful and inefficient. In any case, they noted, most of the natural resources in the western states were already owned by the federal government. The best course of action, they argued, was a long-term plan devised by national experts to maximize the long-term economic benefits of natural resources. The third position, led by the Sierra Club, held that nature was almost sacred, and that man was an intruder. It allowed for limited tourism (such as hiking), but opposed automobiles in national parks. It strenuously opposed timber cutting on most public lands, and vehemently denounced the dams that Roosevelt supported for water supplies, electricity and flood control. Especially controversial was the Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite National park, which Roosevelt approved, and which supplies the water supply of San Francisco. To this day the Sierra Club and its allies want to dynamite Hetch Hetchy and restore it to nature.
==Race and Ethnicity==
Roosevelt was keenly sensitive to the issues surrounding race and ethnicity, particularly the heated debated on immigration restriction. He considered himself Dutch, not Anglo-Saxon . He welcomed the vitality of new immigration, while holding that America's first responsibility was to its literate, native-born, working poor. In balancing these competitive goals, the president backed legislation that limited the immigration of poverty- and disease-stricken people regardless of ethnicity. He blocked harsh anti-Japanese efforts in California, but negotiated an informal agreement whereby Japan would no longer send immigrants. During World War I he attacked certain "hyphenated Americans," especially German-Americans and Irish-Americans, saying they put loyalties to their homeland above American interests.<ref> The German-Americans did not support Germany, but did want the U.S. to remain neutral. The Irish Catholics were so hostile to Britain that they did not want the U.S. to support it.</ref>

==Patriotism==
Roosevelt once declared:<ref>Theodore Roosevelt, "The Children of the Crucible," 14 Annals of America 1916-1928, 129, at 130 (1968).</ref>

:''We must have but one [[American flag|flag]]. We must also have but one [[English|language]]. That must be the language of the Declaration of Independence, of Washington’s Farewell address, of Lincoln’s Gettysburg speech and second inaugural. We cannot tolerate any attempt to oppose or supplant the language and culture that has come down to us from the builders of this Republic.''

In the last year of his life Roosevelt was quoted in the [[Kansas City Star]] newspaper about the need for truth in regards to the Presidency of the USA

:''The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.''
==Conservative or liberal?==
Metaphorically, there were 15 different Roosevelts; conservatives admire 10 of them, liberals admire 10, with some overlap. Conservatives are more apt to admire his patriotism, masculinity and military achievements, his stress on national greatness, his buildup of the nation's military forces, his resolution of the 1902 Coal Strike without forcing business to recognize the unions, his attacks on hyphenated Americans (people with divided loyalty in wartime), and his bold histories of the frontier. Liberals are more likely to admire his trust-busting and hostility to big business, his promotion of liberal programs in 1907-8 and 1912, and his break with the GOP in 1912 when he denounced it as too conservative.

On conservation issues, high on TR's agenda, his optimal use policy has largely been adopted by American business, while the Sierra Club and related groups reject Roosevelt's policies.

Everyone admires his amazingly dynamic style and willingness to confront the issues of the day by bringing everyone to the negotiating table, his settlement of the war between Japan and Russia (which led to Roosevelt's winning the Nobel peace prize), and his building of the Panama Canal (though liberals complain he was too rough with Colombia).

== Trivia ==
The Teddy Bear is named for Theodore Roosevelt. After it was reported that Roosevelt had refused to shoot a bear on a hunting expedition a toy shop owner placed a sign next to a toy bear in his shop window announcing that this was "Teddy's Bear". The name stuck.

Roosevelt was not sworn in on a Bible. He remains the only president in history to do so.<ref>[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html Library of Congress Presidential Inauguration Precedents and Notable Events]</ref>

== Notes ==
<references/>
==Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Brands, H.W. ''T.R.: The Last Romantic'' (1998), scholarly biography [http://www.questia.com/read/98669157?title=T.R.%3a%20The%20Last%20Romantic online edition]
* Chessman, G. Wallace. ''Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Power,'' (1969), short biography by scholar
* Cooper, John Milton ''The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt.'' (1983), well-written a dual scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Warrior-Priest-Woodrow-Theodore-Roosevelt/dp/0674947517/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220396273&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dalton, Kathleen. ''Theodore Roosevelt: A Strenuous Life.'' (2002), full scholarly biography
* Harbaugh, William Henry. ''The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt.'' (1963), full scholarly biography
* Keller, Morton, ed., ''Theodore Roosevelt: A Profile'' (1967) excerpts from TR and from historians.
* McCullough, David. ''Mornings on Horseback, The Story of an Extraordinary Family. a Vanished Way of Life, and the Unique Child Who Became Theodore Roosevelt.'' (2001) popular biography to 1884
* Morris, Edmund. ''The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt'', to 1901 (1979); vol 2: ''Theodore Rex'' 1901–1909. (2001); Pulitzer prize for Volume 1. Biography; unusually well-written and well-researched
* O'Toole, Patricia. ''When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt after the White House.'' (2005). 494 pp.
* Pringle, Henry F. ''Theodore Roosevelt'' (1932; 2nd ed. 1956), full scholarly biography [http://www.questia.com/read/270595?title=Theodore%20Roosevelt%3a%20A%20Biography online 1st edition]
* Putnam, Carleton ''Theodore Roosevelt: A Biography, Volume I: The Formative Years'' (1958), only volume published, to age 28; written by prominent conservative

===Scholarly studies ===
* Barsness,John A. "Theodore Roosevelt as Cowboy: The Virginian as Jacksonian Man." ''American Quarterly,'' Vol. 21, No. 3 (Autumn, 1969), pp. 609-619 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2711937 in JSTOR]
* Blum, John Morton ''The Republican Roosevelt.'' (1954). Influential essays that examine how TR did politics
* Burton, David H. ''Taft, Roosevelt, and the Limits of Friendship,'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/112015842?title=Taft%2c%20Roosevelt%2c%20and%20the%20Limits%20of%20Friendship online edition]
* Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country.'' (2004). 323 pp; popular account [http://www.amazon.com/1912-Roosevelt-Debs-Election-Changed/dp/0743273559/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220396215&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Cutright, Paul Russell. ''Theodore Roosevelt: The Making of a Conservationist'' (1985)
* Dorsey, Leroy G., and Rachel M. Harlow, "'We Want Americans Pure and Simple': Theodore Roosevelt and the Myth of Americanism," ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs,'' Volume 6, Number 1, Spring 2003, pp. 55-78 [http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhetoric_and_public_affairs/v006/6.1dorsey.html in Project Muse]
* Ellsworth, Clayton S. "Theodore Roosevelt's Country Life Commission." ''Agricultural History'', Vol. 34, No. 4 (Oct., 1960), pp. 155-172 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3741109 in JSTOR]
* Dyer, Thomas G. ''Theodore Roosevelt and the Idea of Race'' (1980)
* Fehn, Bruce. "Theodore Roosevelt and American Masculinity." ''Magazine of History'' (2005) 19(2): 52–59. Issn: 0882-228x Fulltext online at Ebsco. Provides a lesson plan on TR as the historical figure who most exemplifies the quality of masculinity.
* Friedenberg, Robert V. ''Theodore Roosevelt and the Rhetoric of Militant Decency'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/read/71082317?title=Theodore%20Roosevelt%20and%20the%20Rhetoric%20of%20Militant%20Decency online edition]
* Gerstle, Gary. "Theodore Roosevelt and the Divided Character of American Nationalism," ''The Journal of American History,'' Vol. 86, No. 3, (Dec., 1999), pp. 1280-1307 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2568615 in JSTOR]
* Gosnell, Harold F. ''Boss Platt and His New York Machine: A Study of the Political Leadership of Thomas C. Platt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Others'' (1924) [http://www.questia.com/read/9489049?title=Boss%20Platt%20and%20His%20New%20York%20Machine%3a%20A%20Study%20of%20the%20Political%20Leadership%20of%20Thomas%20C.%20Platt%2c%20Theodore%20Roosevelt%2c%20and%20Others online edition]
* Gould, Lewis L. ''The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.'' (1991), standard history of his domestic and foreign policy as president
** Gatewood, Willard B. "The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. by Lewis L. Gould" ''Reviews in American History,'' Vol. 20, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 512-517 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2702868 in JSTOR]
* Havig, Alan. "Presidential Images, History, and Homage: Memorializing Theodore Roosevelt, 1919-1967 ". ''American Quarterly,'' Vol. 30, No. 4 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 514-532 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2712298 IN jstor]
* Johnson, Arthur M. "Theodore Roosevelt and the Bureau of Corporations". ''The Mississippi Valley Historical Review,'' Vol. 45, No. 4 (Mar., 1959), pp. 571-590 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1888711 in JSTOR]
* Millard, Candice. ''River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey''. (2005), exploring the Amazon
* Mowry, George. ''The Era of Theodore Roosevelt and the Birth of Modern America, 1900–1912.'' (1954) general survey of era
* Mowry, George E. ''Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement''. (2001) focus on 1912
* Mowry, George E. "Theodore Roosevelt and the Election of 1910," ''The Mississippi Valley Historical Review,'' Vol. 25, No. 4 (Mar., 1939), pp. 523-534 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1892499 in JSTOR]
* Oyos, Matthew M. "Theodore Roosevelt, Congress, and the Military: U.S. Civil-Military Relations in the Early Twentieth Century," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 30, 2000 [http://www.questia.com/read/5001752826?title=Theodore%20Roosevelt%2c%20Congress%2c%20and%20the%20Military%3a%20U.S.%20Civil-Military%20Relations%20in%20the%20Early%20Twentieth%20Century online edition]
* Powell, Jim. Bully Boy: The Truth About Theodore Roosevelt's Legacy (Crown Forum, 2006). Denounces TR policies from conservative/libertarian perspective
* Rhodes, James Ford. ''The McKinley and Roosevelt Administrations, 1897-1909'' (1922) [http://www.questia.com/read/6404794?title=The%20McKinley%20and%20Roosevelt%20Administrations%2c%201897-1909 online edition]
* Scheiner, Seth M. "President Theodore Roosevelt and the Negro, 1901-1908," ''The Journal of Negro History,'' Vol. 47, No. 3 (Jul., 1962), pp. 169-182 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2716500 in JSTOR]
* Slotkin, Richard. "Nostalgia and Progress: Theodore Roosevelt's Myth of the Frontier," ''American Quarterly,'' Vol. 33, No. 5, (Winter, 1981), pp. 608-637 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2712805 in JSTOR]
* Testi, Arnaldo. "The Gender of Reform Politics: Theodore Roosevelt and the Culture of Masculinity," ''The Journal of American History,'' Vol. 81, No. 4 (Mar., 1995), pp. 1509-1533 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2081647 in JSTOR]
* Watts, Sarah. ''Rough Rider in the White House: Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Desire.'' 2003. 289 pp.

===Foreign and military affairs===
* Beale Howard K. ''Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power.'' (1956). standard history of his foreign policy
* Buchanan, Russell. "Theodore Roosevelt and American Neutrality, 1914-1917," ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 43, No. 4 (Jul., 1938), pp. 775-790 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1842528 in JSTOR]
* Burton, David H. "Theodore Roosevelt: Confident Imperialist" ''The Review of Politics,'' Vol. 23, No. 3 (Jul., 1961), pp. 356-377 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1405440 in JSTOR]
* Burton, David H. "Theodore Roosevelt's Social Darwinism and Views on Imperialism," ''Journal of the History of Ideas,'' Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1965), pp. 103-118 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708402 in JSTOR]
* Gould, Lewis L. ''The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.'' (1991), standard history of his domestic and foreign policy as president
* Holmes, James R. ''Theodore Roosevelt and World Order: Police Power in International Relations.'' 2006. 328 pp.
* Marks III, Frederick W. ''Velvet on Iron: The Diplomacy of Theodore Roosevelt'' (1979)
* McCullough, David. ''The Path between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870–1914'' (1977).
* Neu, Charles E. "Theodore Roosevelt and American Involvement in the Far East, 1901-1909," ''The Pacific Historical Review,'' Vol. 35, No. 4 (Nov., 1966), pp. 433-449 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3636977 in JSTOR]
* Oyos, Matthew M. "Theodore Roosevelt and the Implements of War," ''The Journal of Military History,'' Vol. 60, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 631-655 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2944659 in JSTOR]
* Ricard, Serge. "The Roosevelt Corollary." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(1): 17–26. Issn: 0360-4918 [http://www.questia.com/read/5017146446?title=The%20Roosevelt%20Corollary online edition]
* Stillson, Albert C. "Military Policy Without Political Guidance: Theodore Roosevelt's Navy," ''Military Affairs,'' Vol. 25, No. 1 (Spring, 1961), pp. 18-31 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1984220 in JSTOR]
* Tilchin, William N. and Neu, Charles E., ed. ''Artists of Power: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Their Enduring Impact on U.S. Foreign Policy.'' Praeger, 2006. 196 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/113233998?title=Artists%20of%20Power%3a%20%20Theodore%20Roosevelt%2c%20Woodrow%20Wilson%2c%20and%20Their%20Enduring%20Impact%20on%20U.S.%20Foreign%20Policy online edition]
* Tilchin, William N. ''Theodore Roosevelt and the British Empire: A Study in Presidential Statecraft'' (1997)

===Primary sources===
* Auchincloss, Louis, ed. ''Theodore Roosevelt, The Rough Riders and an Autobiography'' (Library of America, 2004) ISBN 978-1-93108265-5; ''Theodore Roosevelt, Letters and Speeches'' (Library of America, 2004) ISBN 978-1-93108266-2
* Brands, H.W. ed. ''The Selected Letters of Theodore Roosevelt.'' (2001)
* Butt, Archie. ''The Letters of Archie Butt, Personal Aide to President Roosevelt,'' (1924) [http://www.questia.com/read/6560284?title=The%20Letters%20of%20Archie%20Butt%2c%20Personal%20Aide%20to%20President%20Roosevelt online edition]
* Harbaugh, William ed. ''The Writings Of Theodore Roosevelt'' (1967). A one-volume selection of Roosevelt's speeches and essays.
* Hart, Albert Bushnell and Herbert Ronald Ferleger, eds. ''Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia'' (1941), Roosevelt's opinions on many issues; online version at [http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/]
* Morison, Elting E., John Morton Blum, and [[Alfred D. Chandler, Jr.]], eds., ''The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt'', 8 vols. (1951–1954). Very large, annotated edition of letters from TR.
* Roosevelt, Theodore (1999). ''[http://www.bartleby.com/55/ Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography]''. online at Bartleby.com.
* Roosevelt, Theodore. ''The Works of Theodore Roosevelt'' (National edition, 20 vol. 1926); 18,000 pages containing most of TR's speeches, books and essays, but not his letters; a CD-ROM edition is available; some of TR's books are available online through [http://www.bartleby.com/people/RsvltT.html Project Bartleby]
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/r#a729 Theodore Roosevelt books and speeches on Project Gutenberg]
* Roosevelt, Theodore. "Theodore Roosevelt on Motherhood and the Welfare of the State," ''Population and Development Review,'' Vol. 13, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 141-147 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972126 in JSTOR]

{{USPresidents}}
{{USVicePresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Roosevelt, Theodore}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States|Roosevelt, Theodore]]
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Roosevelt, Theodore]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace|Roosevelt, Theodore]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[category:Spanish-American War]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Supernova

2009-01-17T17:57:48Z

ArnoldFriend:

[[Image:Crab vlt big.jpg|right|thumb|The Crab Nebula]]
A '''supernova''' is a large stellar explosion that releases a tremendous amount of energy and destroys the star in which it originated. There are two types of supernovas, called, easily enough, type I and type II

==Type I==

==Type II==
A type II supernova is a stellar explosion involving a [[star]] at the end of its life, when its nuclear fuel is exhausted and it is no longer supported by the release of nuclear energy. This is one of the most powerful events in the universe. It often causes stars that are not normally visible to the naked eye to become apparent in the night sky due to the extreme amount of light given off in the explosion. If the star is particularly massive, then its core will collapse and in so doing will release a huge amount of energy. This will cause a blast wave that ejects the star's envelope into interstellar space. The result of the collapse may be, in some cases, a rapidly rotating neutron star that can be observed many years later as a radio pulsar.

==Observed Supernovas==
While many supernovae have been seen in nearby galaxies, they are relatively rare events in our own galaxy. The last to be seen was Kepler's star in 1604. This remnant has been studied by many X-ray astronomy satellites, including ROSAT. There are, however, many remnants of Supernova explosions in our galaxy, that are seen as X-ray shell like structures caused by the shock wave propagating out into the interstellar medium. Another famous remnant was observed in 1054, when Chinese astronomers recorded a supernova so bright that it was visible during the day. This supernova is believed to be the one reported by [[Marco Polo]]. The explosion left behind a [[pulsar]] and a huge cloud of gas and dust known as the [[Crab Nebula]], which still can be seen today with its pulsar rotating 30 times a second and emitting X-rays in a fashion similar to a lighthouse. [http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/supernova_worldbook.html].

==External links==
[http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/supernova_worldbook.html NASA - Supernova]

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Supernova

2009-01-17T17:54:20Z

ArnoldFriend:

[[Image:Crab vlt big.jpg|right|thumb|The Crab Nebula]]
A '''supernova'' is a large stellar explosion that releases a tremendous amount of energy and destroys the star in which it originated. There are two types of supernovas, called, easily enough, type I and type II

==Type I==

==Type II==
A type II supernova is a stellar explosion involving a [[star]] at the end of its life, when its nuclear fuel is exhausted and it is no longer supported by the release of nuclear energy. This is one of the most powerful events in the universe. It often causes stars that are not normally visible to the naked eye to become apparent in the night sky due to the extreme amount of light given off in the explosion. If the star is particularly massive, then its core will collapse and in so doing will release a huge amount of energy. This will cause a blast wave that ejects the star's envelope into interstellar space. The result of the collapse may be, in some cases, a rapidly rotating neutron star that can be observed many years later as a radio pulsar.

==Observed Supernovas==
While many supernovae have been seen in nearby galaxies, they are relatively rare events in our own galaxy. The last to be seen was Kepler's star in 1604. This remnant has been studied by many X-ray astronomy satellites, including ROSAT. There are, however, many remnants of Supernova explosions in our galaxy, that are seen as X-ray shell like structures caused by the shock wave propagating out into the interstellar medium. Another famous remnant was observed in 1054, when Chinese astronomers recorded a supernova so bright that it was visible during the day. This supernova is believed to be the one reported by [[Marco Polo]]. The explosion left behind a [[pulsar]] and a huge cloud of gas and dust known as the [[Crab Nebula]], which still can be seen today with its pulsar rotating 30 times a second and emitting X-rays in a fashion similar to a lighthouse. [http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/supernova_worldbook.html].

==External links==
[http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/supernova_worldbook.html NASA - Supernova]

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Waterboarding

2009-01-17T17:51:07Z

ArnoldFriend:

Common fallacies

2009-01-17T17:35:43Z

ArnoldFriend:

'''Common fallacies''' are arguments that have a [[logical fallacy]] inherent in them, yet are still commonly accepted by people who:

*have difficulties with abstract thinking
*are young students, or are adults unwilling to reconsider opinions they formed as students
*exercise their free will to embrace fallacies without concern for whether they are flawed

Examples of common fallacies are:

*a theory should be accepted until a better alternative is found
*rates of recession, decay or growth observed today are somehow constant for extrapolation backwards in time
*higher taxes must produce more revenue for the government
*fewer guns must reduce the rate of crime
*choice is somehow meaningful regardless of whether it is informed
*human thought can answer any question

(please add and improve)
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Common_fallacies&action=edit
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Quote Mining

2009-01-14T21:55:24Z

ArnoldFriend: Redirecting to Selective citation

#REDIRECT [[selective citation]]

Selective citation

2009-01-14T21:54:44Z

ArnoldFriend: New page: '''Selective Citation''' is the practice by which holocaust deniers distort the work of historians by quoting them out of context in order to use their words in the op...

'''Selective Citation''' is the practice by which [[Holocaust_denial|holocaust deniers]] distort the work of historians by quoting them out of context in order to use their words in the opposite manner they were intended.

An excellent example of this can be found in the writings of Germar Rudolf, who wrote
<blockquote>The tendency in recent historiography seems to be more and more to abandon the gas chambers, for which the sources are "at once rare and unreliable", as Prof. Arno J. Mayer put it.</blockquote>
When what Arno J. Mayer actually wrote was
<blockquote>Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable.. .there is no denying the many contradictions, and ambiguities in the existing sources. These cannot be ignored, although it must be emphasized strongly that such defects are altogether insufficient to put in question the use of gas chambers in the mass murder of Jews at Auschwitz.</blockquote>
While the exact words that Mayer wrote were used by Rudolf, the meaning was completely reversed.<ref>[http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-deniers-distort-their-sources.html]</ref>

Another example can be seen in the attempts by deniers to discredit the testimony of Abraham Bomba, a barber at Treblinka.<ref>[http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/07/bradley-smiths-selective-citation-of.html]</ref>

The entire trend is recognized in Samuel Moyn's book ''A Holocaust Controversy''.<ref>Moyn, Samuel, ''A Holocaust Controversy'' UPNE 2005 p. 67</ref>

Occasionally the term [[Quote_Mining|quote mining]] has be used to refer to this practice.

<references/>

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-01-14T21:31:15Z

ArnoldFriend: /* New liberal words */

Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. Over the course of a century, that amounts to 100,000 new words. Since the [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] was published in 1611, perhaps a half a million new English words have been developed.

A small percentage of those new words are tremendously powerful. Here are some examples developed since the King James Version was published:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1965
|
|-
|American dream
|1911 (OED)<ref>OED refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|
|-
|bailout
|1951
|The verbal form ''to bail out'' (in a figurative sense, which is meant here) dates from the 1580s. The literal sense is somewhat earlier. <ref>OED, ''bail, v1''</ref>
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine [[charity]] is the best approach;
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|[[Essay:Liberal hysteria|hysteria]]
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|me-too
|1881
|
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated at the [[liberal]] [[University of Madison-Wisconsin]] to enforce liberal orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of liberals.<ref>But see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not *politically correct</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|victimization
|1840
|
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|the second most recent entry; a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms ==

The rate of generation of conservative terms is increasing:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|5
|-
|1700s
|3
|-
|1800s
|12
|-
|1900s
|16
|-
|}

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|the opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|runaway jury
|
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier?
|
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|[[term limits]]
|
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com includes it with an origin date of 1861[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit]
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|denier of the effectiveness of [[abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer
|
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|}

== New liberal words ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|
|-
|"[[Big Bang theory|Big Bang]]"
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1832
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|[[People are animals|people are animals]]
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1936
|According to some sources, the term originally comes from Chairman Mao
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] without logical meaning
|-
|[[racism]]
|
|If you don't support Barack Obama, you are guilty of....
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics when the truth is exposed about a liberal candidate.
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|[[RADAR|radar]]
|1940
|Acronym of "Radio Detection and Ranging"; inclusion here being challenged on talk page
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-18T18:45:36Z

ArnoldFriend:

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

{{hide|- I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.}}{{unsigned|Rpond}}

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for comprimise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Kurt Vonnegut

2008-11-18T17:21:32Z

ArnoldFriend:

Thanks for the unlock. I added some bits about Galapagos and removed the misquote about Atheists in foxholes. I think the bit about white supremacists, as much as he may have said it, is not necessary to the article. It doesn't add anything- we know he's an Atheist from his presidency of the Humanist society and his jokes about heaven at a funeral. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 12:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Given that the liberal vandalism happened over a year ago, can we unlock this? I'd like to add a bit about Cat's Cradle [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:04, 2 November 2008 (EST)

==Old, disrespectful discussion==

Andrew, this is embarrassing. Just about every article that you have started has stupid errors in it, typos, grammatical problems, etc. This site isn't just mocked for the ridiculous world views that are being put on open display, but the weakness of the writers. The sad thing is that its founder is one of the weakest writers here.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 14:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

that was mean to say. you could of said it nicer. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::so it goes --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 21:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I was surprised to hear the Kurt Vonnegut said “there are no atheists in foxholes”. So I looked at the link given to support that quote, only to discover that the full quote was, “The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front." ” The context makes it clear that the character speaking (which we probably should not equate to Kurt Vonnegut as it comes from Hocus-Pocus which is not his most biographical novel) does not believe the truth of the claim “there are no atheists in foxholes”—the chaplain doesn’t know the truth of the front, which is where the foxholes are.
If the site wants a quote to show that Vonnegut was respectful of religion, you could replace it with the quote from his last collection of essays, "if I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: 'The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music.'" (Quoted at NPR’s remembrance of Vonnegut here [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9554280] )--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

More recently Vonnegut wrote something much more pointed, which I tried to include as a counterpoit in this article '''However, in later writings Vonnegut referred to conservative Christians as "not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” " I <ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=38_0_4_0_C</ref>'''
I was immediately deleted and the article locked. I won't speculate on the reasons for this, but I do think this distortation is a diservice to Vonnegut's legacy and obviously contra-factual. Why include one but not the other. [[User:NothingVentured|NothingVentured]] 19:27, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== "See, even ATHEIST Kurt Vonnegut said there were no atheists in foxholes! Take a hint, non-believers!" ==

Reginod, NothingVentured - You are correct. Kurt Vonnegut has been ''deliberately'' misquoted in this article to portray him as "respectful to those with faith," when in fact he's a noted critic and satirist of religion in general and Christianity in particular. This entry's obvious deceptions clearly show exactly what Conservapedia is: an intentional distortion of the truth, or more simply put, lies.

What's particularly laughable is the need of the editors to somehow dilute the fact of his avowed atheism by inserting a made-up claim of Vonnegut being "respectful of those with faith." Its almost an admission that being "with faith" is a form of disability or mental hindrance which the faithless must patronize. One has to think that somehow Kurt Vonnegut's mainstream celebrity status combined with his vocal atheism are a threat to Conservapedia and its cadre of weak-willed admins. Their solution? Lie about what Vonnegut said, and offer it as a tacit lesson to other atheists: You should follow this example and be "respectful" to people "with faith," by patronizing their irrational, unfounded, and ridiculous beliefs, because [Christian] religious beliefs are sacred, and should be accorded more respect than any other beliefs, regardless of merit.

Its no surprise that this article can't be edited. The truth about Kurt Vonnegut is too damaging to Conservapedia's purpose of Christian evangelism through disinformation. --[[User:TheDecider|TheDecider]] 19:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Don't edit war. Explain how it was "offensive", "disrespectful" and/or taken out of context. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Ed, the complete Atheist in Foxholes quote is this: "The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front."" The quote comes from Hocus Pocus. I'm ok with leaving in the white suppremecist quote if you deem it worthy, but I feel that the foxholes quote needs work, as it's quoting him quoting someone he disagrees with. Also, I noticed you deleted my bit about ''Galapagos.'' Why? [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 12:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Casualty Figures are Incorrect ==

It has since surfaced that the casualty figures for the Dresden firebombing were greatly inflated by David Irving, who has recently been revealed as a Nazi-sympathizer, whose books on the subject were considered the definitive source on the Dresden raids for the 70's and 80's. I believe the revised death toll is between 20,000-40,000, and I'm positive that it's below 80,000 dead. As such, it should be changed as it is currently misinformation.--[[User:NeoCon4Life|NeoCon4Life]] 16:24, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*NeoCon/Liberal, I am growing weary of seeing post after [[Deceit|deceitful]] post of yours! I invite you to make quality non-talk edits to this, the fastest growing educational website on the Net! This is not Wikipedia! Do not make unsubstantiated gossipy comments here! Thank you. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Kurt Vonnegut

2008-11-18T17:04:38Z

ArnoldFriend:

Thanks for the unlock. I added some bits about Galapagos and removed the misquote about Atheists in foxholes. I think the bit about white supremacists, as much as he may have said it, is not necessary to the article. It doesn't add anything- we know he's an Atheist from his presidency of the Humanist society and his jokes about heaven at a funeral. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 12:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Given that the liberal vandalism happened over a year ago, can we unlock this? I'd like to add a bit about Cat's Cradle [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:04, 2 November 2008 (EST)

==Old, disrespectful discussion==

Andrew, this is embarrassing. Just about every article that you have started has stupid errors in it, typos, grammatical problems, etc. This site isn't just mocked for the ridiculous world views that are being put on open display, but the weakness of the writers. The sad thing is that its founder is one of the weakest writers here.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 14:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

that was mean to say. you could of said it nicer. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::so it goes --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 21:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I was surprised to hear the Kurt Vonnegut said “there are no atheists in foxholes”. So I looked at the link given to support that quote, only to discover that the full quote was, “The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front." ” The context makes it clear that the character speaking (which we probably should not equate to Kurt Vonnegut as it comes from Hocus-Pocus which is not his most biographical novel) does not believe the truth of the claim “there are no atheists in foxholes”—the chaplain doesn’t know the truth of the front, which is where the foxholes are.
If the site wants a quote to show that Vonnegut was respectful of religion, you could replace it with the quote from his last collection of essays, "if I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: 'The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music.'" (Quoted at NPR’s remembrance of Vonnegut here [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9554280] )--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

More recently Vonnegut wrote something much more pointed, which I tried to include as a counterpoit in this article '''However, in later writings Vonnegut referred to conservative Christians as "not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” " I <ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=38_0_4_0_C</ref>'''
I was immediately deleted and the article locked. I won't speculate on the reasons for this, but I do think this distortation is a diservice to Vonnegut's legacy and obviously contra-factual. Why include one but not the other. [[User:NothingVentured|NothingVentured]] 19:27, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== "See, even ATHEIST Kurt Vonnegut said there were no atheists in foxholes! Take a hint, non-believers!" ==

Reginod, NothingVentured - You are correct. Kurt Vonnegut has been ''deliberately'' misquoted in this article to portray him as "respectful to those with faith," when in fact he's a noted critic and satirist of religion in general and Christianity in particular. This entry's obvious deceptions clearly show exactly what Conservapedia is: an intentional distortion of the truth, or more simply put, lies.

What's particularly laughable is the need of the editors to somehow dilute the fact of his avowed atheism by inserting a made-up claim of Vonnegut being "respectful of those with faith." Its almost an admission that being "with faith" is a form of disability or mental hindrance which the faithless must patronize. One has to think that somehow Kurt Vonnegut's mainstream celebrity status combined with his vocal atheism are a threat to Conservapedia and its cadre of weak-willed admins. Their solution? Lie about what Vonnegut said, and offer it as a tacit lesson to other atheists: You should follow this example and be "respectful" to people "with faith," by patronizing their irrational, unfounded, and ridiculous beliefs, because [Christian] religious beliefs are sacred, and should be accorded more respect than any other beliefs, regardless of merit.

Its no surprise that this article can't be edited. The truth about Kurt Vonnegut is too damaging to Conservapedia's purpose of Christian evangelism through disinformation. --[[User:TheDecider|TheDecider]] 19:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Casualty Figures are Incorrect ==

It has since surfaced that the casualty figures for the Dresden firebombing were greatly inflated by David Irving, who has recently been revealed as a Nazi-sympathizer, whose books on the subject were considered the definitive source on the Dresden raids for the 70's and 80's. I believe the revised death toll is between 20,000-40,000, and I'm positive that it's below 80,000 dead. As such, it should be changed as it is currently misinformation.--[[User:NeoCon4Life|NeoCon4Life]] 16:24, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*NeoCon/Liberal, I am growing weary of seeing post after [[Deceit|deceitful]] post of yours! I invite you to make quality non-talk edits to this, the fastest growing educational website on the Net! This is not Wikipedia! Do not make unsubstantiated gossipy comments here! Thank you. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Kurt Vonnegut

2008-11-18T17:02:02Z

ArnoldFriend: The quote, sourced though it might be, is pretty offensive. It's not necessary in order to show his atheism. Also removed the incomplete quote about foxholes, and added bit about Galapagos

'''Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.''' (1913 – 2007) was a prolific writer whose most prominent work, ''Slaughterhouse-Five'' (1969), is based on his personal experiences as a [[prisoner of war]] trapped in the [[Allied]] bombing of [[Dresden]] in [[World War II]]. He then wrote many more novels, of which ''Breakfast of Champions'' (1973) was the most commercially successful though not as acclaimed by critics.

Vonnegut described himself as an [[atheist]],<ref>Some question whether Kurt Vonnegut was an atheist. He has described himself as a "[[secular humanist]]," and the majority of secular humanists are atheist or agnostic.</ref> and in 1992 won the "Humanist of the Year" award.<ref>http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Kurt_Vonnegut_Jr.</ref> He attributed his atheism to having studied anthropology.

Vonnegut's contempt for Christianity did not stop him from roundly mocking evolution in his novel ''Galapagos'', which described the "evolution" of humans into seal-like creatures and their increased happiness in their evolution into lesser creatures. This rejection of the evolutionist view of of humans as the zenith of their tree of life, shows how he still realized how bankrupt the ideas of evolution were, despite his atheism.

Of German descent, Vonnegut was captured by the Germans during the [[Battle of the Bulge]] in World War II in 1944. Taken to Germany as a prisoner of war, Vonnegut was then stuck in an underground meat locker with his fellow prisoners during the firebombing of Dresden on February 13, 1945. 135,000 Germans died in that attack, the same number who perished when the [[atomic bomb]]s were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ''combined''. Afterwards, Vonnegut and his fellow prisoners were left to dig corpses out of the ruins. The phrase "so it goes" is used throughout ''Slaughterhouse-Five'' when discussing death.

Robert Scholes gave this review of the ''Slaughterhouse-Five'' in the New York Times Book Review:<ref>http://www.vonnegutweb.com/sh5/index.html</ref>

:Be kind. Don't hurt. Death is coming for all of us anyway, and it is better to be Lot's wife looking back through salty eyes than the Deity that destroyed those cities of the plain in order to save them. ... Slaughterhouse Five is an extraordinary success. It is a book we need to read, and to reread.

Vonnegut's timing was perfect, as America in 1969 was struggling with the [[Vietnam War]] and other issues relevant to the book, such as [[ecology]], [[consumerism]] and claims of overpopulation.

Vonnegut's last book, ''Man Without a Country'' is a scathing criticism of the Bush administration and current U.S. foreign policy.

Vonnegut died on April 11, 2007 from brain injuries he received in a fall almost five weeks earlier.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Authors|Vonnegut, Kurt]]

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-11-18T05:11:30Z

ArnoldFriend: formatting

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
==The Mountain Meadows Massacre==
Should something about that be included in the controversy?
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/
That's a reference, but if that's not what you guys want, you can find myriads more by just putting "Mountain Meadows Massacre" into Google. [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 19:44, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey==
I said they "depicted the Mormons as 'bad guys'" but really that's putting it mildly. On checking these books again, "rabid anti-Mormonism" would probably be more like it. But I am reluctant to quote the passages that would support that view, as they are so virulent that I think even quoting them would be inappropriate. I think they're so "way out" as to be funny, but I expect a Mormon might not see it that way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Cut from article:
::The Mormons, like other small denominations, have been the target of discrimination. Mormons are depicted as "bad guys" in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1890 novel, ''A Study in Scarlet,'' and Zane Grey's 1912 ''Riders of the Purple Sage.''

:Novels don't prove discrimination. This cheapens the claim.

:Anyway, I read ''Riders'' last year, and the Mormons in it were depicted as mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people as well as a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot. I seem to recall a saintly lady, who befriended the downtrodden and helpless, as being a Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oops, on the other hand I forgot about the bishop's conspiracy and cruelty.
::*The Mormons are represented as a sinister, powerful force of evil, and in this respect, the comparison with earlier myth - 'conventional captivity plot' - is again noticeable. Their sadistic cruelty, for example - as depicted in the foiled attempt at whipping Venters. Or another passage which mentions the gratuitous blinding of Lassiter's horse. [http://roddocs.org/zanegrey.html]

::My question is whether ZG was using the novel to tar all Mormons with one brush, or more to illustrate what can happen when ANY faction turns fanatic. I must learn more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
They are depicted really barbarously in ''A Study in Scarlet,'' as rapists, liars, and murderers.... about as negative depection as you could have.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:14, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " ==

Re the statement:
:though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.
I '''really''' want to see a source citation for this before putting it in the article. What, exactly, did the church say in their own words? And was it, in fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to one of the small splinter groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

My suspicion is that they did not say "Mormons are not Christians" or anything close to it. They probably said something that some other group ''interpreted'' to mean "Mormons are not Christians." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Well, you may be right. I can't find the exact reference, but it is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints made it clear that they did not want to be affiliated with Christianity during the 70s, when Christianity was not very popular, but now that Christianity has become popular again, LDS Evangelists or Outreachers or whatever you call the people who stop you on the street to talk about Mormonism often say very early in their talk that "Mormons are Christians, too", when in the 70s they would not, and would make it a point to say that Mormonism was not Christianity. So, perhaps saying that they said "Mormons were not Christians" was a gross oversimplification, and for that I apologize, but the sentiment is similar. [[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

---

I think the reason people use the quote "Mormons aren't Christians" is because "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren't Christians" is too hard to say with a straight face.

Seriously, though, what the church said was that Mormons aren't PROTESTANTS. They consider protestants to be reformers, and that Joseph Smith was a RESTORER. They like Protestants, and consider Martin Luther and other reformers to have been inspired by God, but consider their church was a restoration of the same church that Christ set up on the earth, not a protest against the catholic church or simply an attempt to set up a church they felt was closer to what Christ wanted.

But saying you aren't a protestant isn't the same thing as saying you aren't Christian.[[User:JustMe|JustMe]] 12:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Question about scripture:==
Is the KJV of the Bible really the one used for scripture? Didn't Joseph Smith do some minor re-translating of certain passages of a Bible, and that version is used? (I may be mistaken that it's authoritative as scripture, though.) If it is the preferred translation of the Scripture, then that can't really be called the KJV, right? (Also, out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible do LDS for whom English is not their native language use? I hope that they don't try to translate the KJV into another language.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, the Church uses the KJV of the Bible. There is a version published by the Church which includes ''footnotes'' to JST (Joseph Smith Translation) verses and ''footnotes'' for references to other LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price but the main text is the unchanged KJV.
: I don't know about other languages - something for me to reasearch. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a statement from someone in the church "The goal of the typical Bible society, usually a collaboration of numerous different Christian denominations, has been to take a translated Bible to every people—a work which deserves our praise and gratitude. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make translations of the Bible itself at this point, but chooses carefully a translation available in a particular language for use among its members who speak that language." [http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7717aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 8, The Power of the Word,” Ensign, Sep 1982, 64] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I didn't realize that the Joseph Smith just added footnotes. I thought he had actually re-translated or re-written certain passages. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Let me clarify this issue. Joseph Smith did indeed re-translate certain verses. Those re-translated verses do NOT appear in the KJV text. They appear as footnotes in the version published by the Church. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== The Mormon problem. ==

Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko.
:I've never seen anything in Mormon literature about "gods from outer space". And Mormons certainly are not polytheists, and neither are Muslims. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right? Are they not all gods? (And if not, do they not believe that Jesus is divine?) At least, this is my understanding of LDS teaching. Am I mistaken? (I don't think the original commenter was calling Muslims polytheists. He was calling Muhammad a fraud.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::''They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right?'' Yes, we believe that Heavenly Father (God the Father) and Jesus Christ (The Son of God) have glorified, perfected bodies of flesh and bones; the Holy Ghost is also part of the Godhead but is a personage of Spirit in the form of a man.
:::''Are they not all gods?'' Yes. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes they are not all gods, or yes they are all gods? That's a bit of a confusing answer (to a poorly-phrased question, I guess). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 12:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yes, they are all gods. "The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven." [LDS.org Gospel Topics:Godhead] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If there are three gods, and they are each separate beings, how is that not polytheism? (Or, at least, it's not "certainly" not polytheism, since it does appear to be polytheistic, lacking some equivocation about how they're not really all god, or not really three distinct persons.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 15:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I was always just taught that the Trinity were three forms of the same being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::"They are distinct beings, but They are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God." [LDS.org ''In These Three I Believe'' by President Gordon B. Hinckley] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 15:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"? That Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the "god" of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was then appointed by a counsel of other "gods" in the heavens to his high position as the "god" of planet Earth. The Mormon's god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world... See also http://www.carm.org/lds/ldsprogression.htm That isn't really "Christianity", is it? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:45, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::''What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"?'' You are presenting an incredibly simplistic viewpoint on the Subject. You are also going into detail about things God has only touched lightly upon. There is some 'fact' to what you speak of. But the details about it are not going to happen as you presented them. No one "earn's" their 'godhood'. After all we can do we still fall short of the necessary "perfection" to return to God's presence. Christ's atonement "makes up the difference", to coin a phrase. We are "saved" by the grace and power of Christ's atonement. There is a different phraseology used by the LDS faith and otheres as to what it means to be "saved". As far as what God has in mind for all of his children, please read Romans 8: 16-17.
::::::::::The LDS faith is not "polytheisitc". We worship God the Eternal Father. We direct our prayers to him in His Son's name, Jesus Christ. That is "monotheism" defined. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost being separate beings and members of the "Godhood" does not mean they are the "God's" that should be worshiped. Jesus laid the foundation when he organized his followers. He instructed them to pray to the Father in his name. All that we do should be done in the name of Jesus, directed to the glorification of our Father in Heaven.

(reset indent)
According to ''Mormon Doctrine'' "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." Joseph Smith: " "God himself, the Father of us all was once a man like us." (''History of the Church''). On salvation through Christ: "Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph [Smith] his prophet, and Brigham his successor, and you shall be saved. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young). Your comments are deliberate obfuscation. Also, the recent edits to the article, such as the extermination order, fail to mention the reason why it was issued, that Smith had raised a militia in Missouri that was attacking non-mormon settlers. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Origins of the church==

Cut from intro;

:, who claimed to have received a revelation of the Father -God-and his son, Jesus Christ 1820. Years later, he also claims to have recieved further instruction from the Angel Moroni

I see no need for jabs like this. Anyway, he started the church after a long and fruitless search for the "true" religion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not a "jab". Smith claimed he saw God and Jesus in 1820, and claims that three years later, he was visited by the angel Moroni who told him about the golden plates.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the cut Ed. I totally agree. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite]] 14:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

When I read this stuff, I thank god I'm an atheist.

==Presentation of Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
It seems to me a little tendentious to lead off with the opinions of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Courtesy seems to me to requires call for a short summary of the Mormons' position on this first. Then we can proceed to the views of the (relatively liberal) Methodists and the (relatively conservative) Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptists.

(And I have to wonder whether, in this matter, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod truly speaks for "the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States," but if they said it I guess we can quote it). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Word of Wisdom==
The main article was changed to "Church members follow a law of health known as the Word of Wisdom that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, caffeine in general, and illegal drugs."
Hoji reverted my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=175993 added caffeine without removing coffee and tea, as all three are correct]. All three are NOT correct. I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for over 30 years and I know that the Word of Wisdom does NOT include caffeine. Some Church members observe the practice of avoiding caffeine, but it is not Church doctrine. See this reference for the Church's official position.[http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7a45055b23710110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1f476db0580a1110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Obey the Word of Wisdom]. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 16:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:From my interactions with a Mormons (I live in an area with a large number of Mormons), I have always been told that caffeine is to be avoided, and drinks like Mountain Dew, Coke, Pepsi, etc. are out of the question. I am not a professional on the issue, though, and this was probably a community-specific regulation. You know more than I do about this, Crocoite, and I'll trust your judgement from now on. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the correction Hoji. I'm not a General Authority of the Church, but we can use the discussion page to clarify issues for the main article. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 22:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It has been suggested by Leaders of the LDS Church that caffeine should be avoided. Like people of all religions, different Mormons have interpreted those statements in different ways. Officially, (letter of the law kind of thing), Caffeine is not forbidden, and is technically not part of the Word of Wisdom. However, as it is a suggestion by LDS Church leaders, many (could I say most?) Mormons do not drink caffeine. [[User:Tirrian|Tirrian]] 18:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== redo ==

After reading this article, I would say a rewrite is in order. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:this article says nothing about the schism. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:37, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, a rewrite is in order. Rather than edit warring on the article, can we please draft up sections here on talk? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah! Someone finally says something intelligent. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 19:17, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==Page Improvement; Article Neutrality; Information Sources; Offensive Content==

I am a lifelong member of the LDS church. I just found out about this website and was curious to see what the entry for my church looked like. Although I don't have time to do a complete rewrite, I do heartily agree that some serious work is needed, and I have spent a few minutes correcting some typos and trying to add some accurate information.

Although I understand that the creators of ''conservapedia'' apparently have some issue with ''Wikipedia'', one aspect of that website I hope they (and its contributors) respect is ''Neutral Point of View''. The accurate and unbiased description of a religion's beliefs should be allowed without disrespect and meanness. I may disagree with the beliefs of other religions, but I do not believe that gives me the right to mock or ridicule those beliefs simply because they are different than my own.

I caution the usage of and reference to "non-Mormon" websites as primary sources for explanations of LDS beliefs. Although they can be useful for comparisons of understanding and response, sole reliance on such sources can lead to the perpetuation of myths, increased misunderstanding, and outright prejudice. Often, the outside point-of-view can result in a description of beliefs so altered that even members of the church would not recognize it as their own. I have corrected several occurrences in this article, including the erroneous assertions that Mormons "do not believe in the diety of Christ" (?!) and that Mormons "believe in salvation through works". Where a group openly proclaims its beliefs, the honest scholar will allow the group to do so and may ''respond'' to them but will never ''misrepresent'' them.

The scriptural references I included are in no way an attempt to "prove" LDS beliefs, but rather are simply to indicate to the reader one of the sources of those beliefs, understanding that it is perfectly reasonable that one may have alternate beliefs or interpretations of the same.

Finally, although I understand the original author's intent to point the reader to both supporting and opposing views, I found the "Mormon" and "Anti-Mormon" subheadings under the External Links section to be quite offensive. If consistency is a desirable characteristic of ''conservapedia'', this would necessitate adding an "Anti-Semitic" section to the Judaism article, which I (and I hope many others) would also find offensive. If a contributor would like to write an article about those who criticize the LDS church, or the criticism itself, then please take the time to do so, and provide a link to that page, and allow this page to be about the church itself.[[User:Doady|Doady]] 17:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Doady, I am a convert to the church and I don't like the tone of this article either. Your comments are like music to my ears. Keep in mind though, at Conservapedia, we don't try to take a NPOV. There will be articles from a Conservative POV. And [[Wikipedia]] doesn't really have a NPOV - they just advertise that. WP articles have a [[liberal bias]] that we don't allow here [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

:Unfortunately this article has been edited by anti-Mormons and it is difficult to accurately portray the church. I encourage you to continue your improvements to this article and others here. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia smears the religious again ==

I am here because of wikipedia's prejudicial treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members. Case in point is its article on Fawn Brodie, a woman who was the niece of one of the Church's presidents and yet still managed to apostatize and become one of the most embittered and destructive "anti-mormons" of all time. Simply put, wikipedia's article on her refers almost exclusively to another apostate in the citation of its sources, and has plenty of improvable comments that are derogatory toward Latter Day Saints. I have attempted several times to correct language in the article that I felt was unnecessarily negative or misleading. Every time I made a correction, even if it was nothing more than to clear up an obvious grammatical error, every single time the page was reverted back to its previous condition by the next day at the latest.

If wikipedia is going to present itself as an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, they ought not to shut down attempts by people like me to purge articles of bigotry and lies. I went so far as to make posts on the discussion page for the article, explaining my changes. One of the moderators claimed to sympathize and agreed that some of the wording was prejudicial sounding, but told me that my corrections were not good enough to stand as they were. I’m talking about correcting comments that did not have citations and therefore should have been afforded no more consideration than my corrections of them.

I have also stumbled upon two separate articles in wikipedia that contained nude photographs, and many more containing obscenities. It would not be hard to photoshop those photographs to the point that you could tell the person was nude but not have to see their privates. While it may not be possible to police the entire internet for pornography, surely a wikipedia page with its own moderator(s) could be bothered to keep their own page free of filth.

Consequently, I have independently come to the conclusion that wikipedia is not a quality encyclopedia, and that if you seek to remove anti-Christian bigotry from it, or have traditional American sensibilities, your voice doesn’t count.

Then I heard about conservapedia. I decided to check it out and find out if a Latter Day Saint could expect a fair shake here. I am glad to say that most of what I am seeing here about the Church and its members is fair and correct. In fact, my only complaint is that the articles are too short. That’s understandable given the relatively short time conservapedia’s been around. And at any rate it’s a far better option than moderator protected bigotry under the banner of a encyclopedia that you can edit.

This brings me to my last point. Since conservapedia is succeeding where wikipedia is cravenly failing, I decided to join. I intend to add my knowledge to it, particularly but not only in the areas of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have one request: please be patient with me if my edits aren’t up to the standard. I am just starting out here and while I do not intend to break any posting rules, I can’t guarantee that in my rookie state I won’t overlook something. Thank you for your consideration.--[[User:ChetGustavson|ChetGustavson]] 16:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Racism ==

Right up until 1978 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't allow black men in to the priesthood and it didn't allow black men and women to take part in the most important temple services. Even now the Church refuses to repudiate its racist past and has even been accused of trying to cover it up. Surely this is worth mentioning in the controversy section? {{unsigned|RM}}

== African Americans... ==

Claim is fully sourced. Please do not remove w/out discussion or a source for counter-claims. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 20:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:Those sources do NOT support your claim. There are no references to specific verses in the Book of Mormon that substantiate your claim. In addition there is this quote:
<blockquote>In the twentieth century, various Church leaders continued to offer possible reasons why a race of people was prohibited from holding the priesthood. One explanation, carried over from the previous century, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain, the first murderer, and therefore were denied the priesthood because of lineage. Another theory held that blacks were less valiant in the premortal existence and therefore had certain spiritual restrictions placed upon them during mortality (132). Priesthood denial was perceived to be one of these spiritual restrictions. But by mid-century, President David O. McKay stated, "There is not now, and there never has been, a doctrine in this Church that the negroes are under a divine curse. . . . It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed". </blockquote>
:Your edits are not fully sourced and have been reverted. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:12, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:(written before edit conflict)
:Actually, it's not. There's nothing I can see in either source to say that the Book of Mormon was the basis for the ban on blacks being priests. But now that there are sources, I can alter it rather than simply delete it. You are welcome to alter it back if you can provide evidence of the Book of Mormon part of the claim (and a reference to just ''where'' in the Book of Mormon this is said would seem to be appropriate also). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I don't get it. Weren't blacks excluded from the Mormon priesthood in early times? If it wasn't a [[doctrine]] per se, then it was a policy anyway: whether official or unofficial.

The point is that the practice has ended because, as their leadership claims, God told [[revelation|revealed to them]] that the practice was wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

==Material added by Ultimahero==
Ultimahero is an anti-Mormon who is adding a mixture of false, and true unsourced material to this article. Unless I see some sources for these edits, they will be deleted. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Which ones are false? I can source them all. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:52, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

# Both Jesus and Lucifer offered a plan for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
# Many Gods. (Mormon Doctrine, page 163; Book of Abraham 4:3)
# The Father has a body of flesh and bones. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 38.)
# Mother Goddess. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 143; Mormon Doctrine, page 516.)
# God and Mary had relations to produce Jesus’ physical body. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, page 115; Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 547; Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18; First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, page 150.)
# The Bible is corrupted. (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church; 1 Nephi 13:28.)
# All other Christian denominations are apostate. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 1, pages 5-6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 171, 1855; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 167, 1858.)
# God resides near a star called Kolob. (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, page 428.)
# God used to be a man on another planet. (Mormon Doctrine, page 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, page 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 333.)
# God became a God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345)
# Joseph Smith must approve of one for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 670; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:289)
# Levels of Heaven. (Mormon Doctrine, page 348)
# Prophets are needed. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 444-445.)

(I obtained all of the above sources from http://www.mrm.org/, and http://www.carm.org/index.html.)

I also removed a link to Mormon in the second paragraph, because the word “Mormon was referring to the Mormon people, and the link was to the Mormon Prophet. So the link made no sense.

The only thing I can’t source at this moment is about the fact that blacks were cursed for their neutrality. But give me some time and I’ll try to find it again. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:32, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Start with these:

:*Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They beleive that they must have Joseph Smith Jr.'s approval to get into heaven."
:*Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus' physical body."
:*African Americans and the Priesthood -> "Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse. According to Mormon Theology, those spirit children which did not side with Satan or God in the pre-existence, but instead decided to remain neutral, were cursed with black skin."

:These are obvious false statements to me.
:*First, you are using anti-Mormon sources.
:*Second, Mormon Doctrine and Journal of Discourses are not valid references. You need to read this reference. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldsdoct.htm Differentiating between valid LDS doctrine & opinions of its past leaders]
<blockquote>"A common anti-Mormon attack technique used by many conservative Protestants is to take a single past statement by a Mormon leader and treat it as a formal LDS doctrine that is binding on all LDS members today. In reality, there are many beliefs expressed by early LDS leaders that have been abandoned and are no longer recognized by the present-day church. Some, in fact, have never accepted as valid."</blockquote>
:I'm also going to involve another administrator here, because I'm upset with your anti-Mormon edits. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

“They must have Joseph Smith’s approval to get into Heaven.” On October 9, 1859, Brigham Young said, "From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are -- I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent" (Journal of Discourses 7:289).

Young clearly taught that you must have the consent of Joseph Smith to get into Heaven. Now, whether or not the Mormon church still accepts this is a different issue, and if you can show me documentation where they have denied or denounced this teaching, then great. I’ll gladly concede it and withdraw that point. But the fact is that Brigham Young was one of the most influential leaders of the LDS, and I have provided documentation as to his teaching on it. It’s up to you to give documentation to the counter.

“They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus’ physical body.” I’m aware that this is a debated issue within the Mormon church. But I gave sources on it being taught by: Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, as well as the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve. Again, whether the LDS church still holds to this is debatable. But it was officially taught by influential leaders in good standing with the church. So, again, provide me documentation that the church today denounces these things and I’ll be more than happy to remove them.

I already stated that I don’t have the documentation for the “blacks were neutral and were cursed with black skin.” I’ll try to find, but if you wish to remove it, then that’s fair enough for now. Although, just to note, I didn’t add the quote “Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse.” This was already there, I added the sentence following it.

Now, as far as “Anti-Mormon Sources”, that’s not true. Granted, those websites may not agree with Mormon theology, but they are simply quoting Mormon writers and prophets. The sources in question are the Mormon men who wrote these things. The websites merely provide the documentation. So, unless your own prophets and writing are “Anti-Mormon”, then they’re not Anti-Mormon sources.

They are valid references. They are things that were taught by the leaders and prophets in the Mormon church. Mormons believe that prophets are still around today and whatever they reveal is the word of God, just as legitimate as the official theology. Again, if the quotes in question have been denounced by modern prophets then that’s fine. Give mw documentation and I’ll gladly remove them.

I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders. But, fine. If you wish to involve another administrator, then by all means, please do. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:27, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:*(interrupting) You said, ''I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders.'' Neither is true. You are making '''primarily''' anti-Mormon edits. And you are not "simply quoting" but using old position statements as if they were still in force. The burden of proof is on you (not Dean) to show that any nasty-sounding information is true. Dean need not document a denunciation: on the contrary, you need to document an avowal. Failure to do so will result in reverted edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I agree with you that it's inaccurate for him to describe his edits as "non anti-Mormon". They are, but there's nothing wrong with that ''as long as they are true''. I don't agree that the burden of proof is on Ultimahero to show that they are still in force. If Ultimahero has claimed that they were once the case, then the onus is on him to show that they were. If someone else claims that they no longer are, then the onus is on that person to show that they no longer are. To put it another way, if, hypothetically, President Bush says that Iran is evil ''and has never recanted that'', then what evidence can be produced to show that he still believes that? If he's never recanted it, then that is actually a ''lack of evidence'' that he has recanted it, and nobody can cite a ''lack'' of evidence. Rather, if someone thing's that he's recanted it, then the onus is on ''that'' person to show that he has. Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that it's still the case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

While it is proper to bring up differences of opinion, as much as possible any discussion should be done with the utmost of respect realizing that this is a sensitive area and that good people can have differing points of view. Perhaps it would be appropriate to put together a small section touching upon various beliefs held by the Mormon Chuch during its journey, but also acknowledging that the same beliefs are not held today (where that is true) and keeping the focus on the beliefs of the Mormon Church as they currently stand. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:17, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, and this will be a lot of work, but to be a '''trustworthy''' source of information on the LDS church, we'll have to do just that. In addition, if there are '''modern''' controversies about what the historical beliefs and practices were, then we might do well to adopt the NPOV policy of another (larger) online encyclopedia.

:This will require supporters and opponents '''both''' to tone down their combative rhetoric; I'm not saying that either side has been more hostile than the other; both sides need to be sympathetic to the other for the process to work. Both sides need to be open to allowing the opposing side to make its case or present its views.

:I've had a lot of contact with Mormon missionaries throughout my life and have always found them sincere and forthright in explaining their beliefs. Whether I agree with those beliefs or not, I feel it's important for me to '''learn''' what those beliefs are; even more valuable to '''understand''' why they hold those beliefs and how those beliefs affect their lives. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:47, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

No, my edits are not “Anti-Mormon”. I’m quoting Mormon prophets and presenting what they taught. I’m simply quoting men like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith (All Presidents of the Mormon Church) as well as many other Mormons in good standing with the LDS church. I’m not adding anything to there quotes, nor attempting to establish new doctrine based on them. I’m not insulting Mormons or calling them names. I’m just quoting them. So unless those men (Smith, Young, etc.) are anti-Mormon, then my edits cannot be anti-Mormon, because it’s coming from their mouths. If someone were to come to me and say, “Well, Jesus taught ‘X’,” I would not call that anti-Christian. That’s just reiterating what the beliefs are.

And I have given ample documentation as to these teachings. I didn’t just make baseless claims, I backed them up. Now if these teaching were denounced, then please provide my the documentation and show me. I’m not aware of any retraction by the LDS church on these issues. But I’m certainly eager to learn. If there is something there, show me. We do know that the Mormons have changed positions over the years. They once taught polygamy, now they don’t. So maybe they have changed here as well. But you have to understand that it is now up to you to provide documentation to the counter. I adequately demonstrated how these doctrines exist, so must show if there has been some change on these positions.

I have no doubt in my mind that Mormon's sincerely believe what they do. I have no doubt that there are numerous Mormons who are genuinly good, in a human sense of the word. And I in no way am trying to be confrontational or argumentitive. I am merely trying to adding things in that Mormons have beleived historically, and to factually contribute. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I readded my material about the differeces in beleives. If there is documentation that these positions are no longer held, I'll be more than happy to withdraw them. Otherewisw, it seems unfair to leave them out when I can show that they have been taught. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:59, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the way you have presented information. For instance the additional information on what Mormons believe, if I understand it correctly, comes from beliefnet, a site that is not Mormon. There may be further explanation of the Mormon religion that is not included. And while I can understand that you weren't pleased that your original work was simply removed, you should also be respectful of the fact that Dean is an elder in the Mormon Church, and as such, is intimately knowledgable of current Mormon teachings and beliefs. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"Beliefnet"? I don't know what that is, and certainly didn't use it for my material. Now, I quoted Mormon leaders on their positions.(Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.) So these men would certainly know what Mormoln doctrine is. Now, as I've said, there may indeed be furtehr explanation that is left out. But it is now up to the objector to provide the evidence that these things aren't taught. It makes no sense to leave my material out based on the fact that it's "possible" that counter-material exists somewhere. If it's there, show me, and I'll be gladly agree that it gets taken out. But you must show me first. And I do respect that DeanS has been in the church a long time. But that doesn't mean that he knows more than anyone else about it. There are many people who don't know what they beleive. (I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to Dean, just that it's generally true.) So if he or you or anoyone can document these things not being taught, then fine. Otherwise you have no leg to stand on. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:References shouldn't just be on the talk page. I want to see you incorporate the reference information that you have here, including any quotes, into reference forms on the article. I see belief.net predated you. Not having followed this article, I was unaware of that. Since there were no references on the main page and that was the last source quoted, I assumed that was your source. As far as Dean not knowing what his church teaches, please. I don't know whether or not you are religious yourself, but I am a regular church attender and it would be very difficult for me not to know what my church teaches when I hear sermons week in and week out. If Dean says that is a misrepresentation of Mormon belief, then what he says the Mormon Church believes will be included into the article as well. And don't tell me that he doesn't know any better. If he has been an active member for many years and never heard these things, then it's not something they actively believe or else he would have heard it. I would imagine the truth will fall somewhere in the middle. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::L.T., many "anti-cult" advocates will claim that a church they hate lets most members believe one thing while having stronger teachings for the more deeply initiated. You don't get to hear about the stronger more "authentic" teachings until you get into some sort of inner circle. They seem to think this is common knowledge and that the burden of proof is on the church to demonstrate that they don't "keep two sets of books" theologically. This is nonsense and won't be tolerated here.

::I'll say this one last time, and those who refuse to accept it can just go join another project: we trust Dean to tell us what his church teaches. The burden of proof is on non-Conservapedians (such as our recent visitor U.H.) to prove that obscure or outdated teachings are current and valid. One more word out of line and he's gone - I have no more time for this nonsense. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure he's making that insinutation Ed, but certainly in either case as an elder Dean would be "in the know". I am also aware that sometimes churches, especially in their early history, can go through change. We shouldn't ignore Mormon history, but we also shouldn't force that to be current Mormon view when the present might be quite different. And of course, any discussion that takes place here should be held with respect for those who follow this belief whether or not the people stating their views are Mormons or not. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I specifically said that I wasn’t necessarily implying that Dean didn’t know what he was talking about. It’s just that in general a lot of religious folks don’t know what they believe. (If you keep up with things and study as you’re supposed to, then you probably will be well learned. But most people don’t read their Bibles like they should, which leads to ignorant church members, and this is what I was getting at.) Also, an individual church might teach many things that go against the mainstream denomination. So it just depends. Ultimately, I’m not saying that Dean knows everything or nothing. I don’t know what his knowledge level is. I’m not commenting on that. Again, Dean, or anyone saying this isn’t Mormon belief, needs to give adequate source material to support that claim. Someone whose been in the Mormon church before could say that Mormonism teaches that God is a purple unicorn, and we would not accept this based solely on the fact that the said individual attends an LDS church. (I know that’s a ridiculous example, I’m just trying to demonstrate the point by exaggerating to an extreme.) I don’t doubt for one second that Dean is an intelligent, honest man. But he stills needs to source the info, like the rest of us do.

I don’t “hate” the Mormons or their church, Ed Poor. I do indeed think that Mormonism is a false religious system, yes. But I don’t hate them. Most Mormons that I’ve met are genuinely nice folks. It’s just their theology that I have a problem with. Next, I’m not a “recent” visitor. I’ve been here contributing for many months now. Now I have shown that Mormons have taught this in the past. I’ve well documented it. Is it still taught? I don’t know of any current Mormons leadership which has disavowed the teaching or said that they now don’t follow it. (Which they have done in the past on other issues, so I’m assuming that they’ll be consistent.) Finally, I didn’t know that I was “out of line”. I’m just providing material that is factual, as far as I know. If anyone can show me to the contrary, I will support it being taken out. I’m not sure what you want. I’m not trying to be rude or call names, and I’m being as factual as I can. So I don’t know what else can reasonably be expected of me.

Learn Together, I certainly hope that I have not given the impression of disrespect towards Mormons. I’m not at all trying to disrespect them, and hope I haven’t come across that way. I simply am presenting things that are historically true. If they aren’t currently taught, then I would think that certainly some church council or Mormon President would be available somewhere that has denounced them. I just haven’t seen any of that, so I can’t assume that they have. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You show disrespect toward Mormons when you assume that old teachings are current. You have proof that LDS '''used to''' teach or practice certain things. You offer no proof that they still do. You merely argue that the existence of old stuff should be taken as evidence of its currency. That is not a trustworthy argument.

:On the contrary, if the old stuff is current, it should be '''very easy''' to show that it is. Your refusal to make any effort to do so, combined with your repeated argument of having no need to do so, disqualifies you as a writer on this topic.

:You are hereby banned from this article and this discussion page. You may bring up issues related to LDS on any other talk page where it has already been addressed. I value you as a writer, but not on this issue, until you agree to adhere to my concept of [[burden of proof]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:57, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::He has provided "proof." the question is whether things have changed. It is logical to assume that they have not, unless there is proof of a change. How is he supposed to prove that it ''hasn't'' changed. If there is nothing to say that it has, then he will not have anything to find, and you will continue to say that he has no proof. The burden of proof here lies with those who are trying to prove that it ''has'' changed. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:16, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, I think it's pretty evident that you can't ask someone for evidence that something hasn't changed as a criteria to accept their initial evidence. That was a bit silly. I don't think we should just sweep away the information provided, but I do think we should use our own resources to help us construct the article in a way that is true to both the history and the current philosophy of the beliefs of the Mormon Church. I believe we want the article to read in a respectful fashion and where there are differences between traditional Christianity and Mormon beliefs, these differences should be presented in a non-judgmental way. Hopefully we can all agree on this. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:49, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: That is a wonderful sentiment Learn Together. Striving for an article that addresses religious topics in a respectful fashion where the differences between Christian and whatever that other religion are is treated in a non-judgmental way would go a long ways to increasing the reputability of Conservapedia. Is there any chance that [[atheism]] and [[agnosticism]] could be unlocked? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:30, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Editorial standards==

My position (as a site administrator) is that a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are. If there is a dispute between church critics and church members about "what is currently taught", then I say we have to go with what Dean (aka Crocoite) has said - whatever it is; I'm not going into detail right now, but I will if need be.

I have no doubt that early Mormon doctrine and practices involve a significant number of things that most modern Christians would repudiate. [[Polygamy]] is the most obvious one; race discrimination against blacks is also important. If Dean says LDS no longer accept these, that's good enough for me. Same for any other point '''unless''' clear proof is shown that contradicts what Dean has reported.

I intend to truncate the article severely, removing any disputed information. The burden of proof is "ultimately" on church detractors (pun intended). We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.

Scientific theories change. It was not much longer ago than the early days of LDS that biologists and doctors believed all sorts of crazy things about infection. The [[germ theory of disease]] is less than a century and a half old. There is [[plate tectonics]] to explain [[continental drift]], and all sorts of new ideas in physics.

Although some churches keep their theology static, others do indeed change. I trust contributor Dean to report these changes faithfully. We are all about trust here, and if anyone is going to contradict a sysop speaking about his own church, he'd better bring solid proof. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You may trust a member of the church, but I don't think that as an '''encyclopedia''', we should just take someone’s word. I'm not saying that Dean is untrustworthy, but rather that we need documentation to whatever is put in. To remove material without sourcing it would be a "poor" (see, I can be clever, too) way to do things.

:The fact is I have given sufficient documentation on the what is taught. Unless someone can give documentation to the counter, then the facts should remain. Polygamy is a great example. You said that the LDS church once taught it, and now doesn't. That's true. And it can be well documented that they stopped this practice and disavowed the teaching. So why can’t someone give sources on all these other facts, if they are no longer taught? The burden of proof is on the person saying that something has changed. It's not on me to show it's remained the same. Ho do you prove that things haven't changed? If they haven't changed, then by definition there would be no new info to cite. But if it has changed, then there should be things to point to and source.

:I don't distrust Dean. But you don't simply trust an encyclopedia just because it says something. You expect it to back it's claims up with documentation and sources. If it doesn't, then it's worthless. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:"''... a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are.''": I believe that this is assuming too much. I couldn't tell you all the details of my denomination's official stances on things, and I'm quite sure that my minister would have different views that the denomination on some points, so I wouldn't expect to learn all those positions from his preaching.
:"''We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.''": Neither can we assume that it's changed. In fact, if it was said last week, we can't assume that it's still maintained ''this week''! But in both cases, the onus is on the person claiming that it's change to show that.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

== Non-encyclopedic Material Here ==

It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", and the entire [[provocateur]]-like section here is going to be deleted. There are obvious reasons for this, but I'll give just one reason: it leads to bigotry against a group of people.

This is a fair warning to provide some time for discussion before the deletion occurs. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:As far as my knowledge goes, the page never claims that Mormon are or are not Christians. I could be wrong, but I don’t see that anywhere. There is a section on what positions various Christian denominations hold. Also, there's a section claiming, "Mormon beliefs that are different from traditional Christianity”, and it goes on to list the differences. But all of these things are factual and can be sourced. I understand that it doesn’t make everyone feel good, but are we not allowed to talk about things that are true just because they might upset someone? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why is it inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not Christian? Surely ''if'' it is not Christian, it is correct and proper to say so? And how is it okay to say this of an ''individual'' (such as Barack Obama) but not of a church?
: Further, why does it necessarily lead to bigotry? It's possible to respectfully disagree with Islam, Hinduism, atheism, etc., without being bigots, so why not with Mormonism?
: On many of the pages that I tend to frequent, to do with the creation/evolution issue, editors put in pro-evolutionary/anti-creationary material, and as long as it's factual and civil, I let it stand and point out the problems, rather than censor it by removing it. Why can't this article be handled in the same way?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I would like to ask you to reconsider. If there is some way in which the information needs to be rewritten in order to be respectful to the Mormon Church then I say we do that. I also do not believe we should take a position on what is right or wrong, but simply present factual differences. But since above all else we endeavor to show truth, then I don't believe simply removing the knowledge of differences is the way we should go. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:01, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree, I believe that we need to take a stand for what is right. As for the issue of whether or not the Mormon church is Christian, read Galatians 1:8-9. I cannot agree with calling a church "Christian" if they add to the Gospel. As for the material, If it is factual, it should stay. I don't think that it is disrespectful to Mormons. The info is '''MUCH''' more accurate and encyclopedic than a large portion of the Barck Obama article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I've read the above comments, but there's no getting around the fact that describing an entire church as "non-Christian" is inappropriate for this type of site. Such claims lead to contradictions, falsehoods, bias, and invite ulterior motives (like people who have axes to grind against a particular church). At a minimum, Christianity is a personal choice and it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed.

That said, the sincerity of a particular politician's claim (like Obama's claim) about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.

So the bottom line is don't rant and rave here about how you don't think someone else's church is Christian. I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Again, though, I don't know of anywhere that the article makes the implicit claim that "Mormons aren't Christians". It just shows differences between the LDS church and Christianity. All are sourced facts. What's wrong with fact? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:44, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable. The statements in the entry are not from the Mormon Church itself and were probably developed or promoted by someone who dislikes that church for some emotional or perhaps even closeminded reason. We're not going to allow such an inherently unreliable approach to be taken here. Find a Mormon Church leader to tell us what its doctrine is, if that's what you want. But you haven't done that, and I doubt you will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive when I say this, but you didn't read the previous discussions on this talk page, did you? I never cited a bunch of non-Mormons as to what the LDS church believes. I quoted Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, (all Mormon Presidents) as well as other Mormons in good standing with their church. I've given documentation about what these men believe from their own mouths. They are the ones making the claims about their doctrines and theology. So, unless Mormon leaders are an unreliable source for Mormon doctrine, then I think that they should suffice. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: This issue has become muddled. It appears that the following has occurred:
:# Ultimahero created a debate page "Debate: Are Mormons Christians?", and argued for the affirmative. An hour later Ultimahero was blocked for "violat[ing the] 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk" and the debate was deleted on the grounds that it was "posted by account that has been blocked, no other debaters". The debate was recreated by other editors (which, if nothing else, showed that others ''did'' want to debate it) and several times, and deleted again each time for various reasons (including that it was "non-encyclopedic", which is odd given that ''all'' Conservapedia debates are "non-encyclopedic" by virtue of them being debates, which encyclopedias don't have).
:# Ultimahero then started editing this article, ''but made no claim that Mormonism was not Christian''.
:# Skipping various other discussions, Andy then claims that "It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", ''despite this not being what Ultimahero had done in this article''.
:# While Ultimahero addresses the point that the article doesn't claim that Mormonism is not Christian, three administrators disagree that it's wrong ''in principle'' to claim that a given body is not Christian. That's not to say that it's ''not'' Christian. In order to decide that, one needs to determine what "Christian" means. It's clear that Mormonism is not an Islamic cult, nor a Hindu cult, and arguably it is a ''Christian'' cult. So really, whether it is Christian or not is not the issue. The issue is whether that question can even be ''discussed''.
: So we have two distinct issues being mixed up here. Now, on to specific responses to Andy's comments:
:"''it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed''": I don't think anybody is suggesting labelling the individuals in the religion as non-Christian, but (potentially) labelling ''the religion itself'' as non-Christian. Are you happy to label the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and the Ku Klux Klan as "Christian"?
:"''...a ... politician's claim ... about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.''": ''If'' the evidence about a religion is abundant and self-serving and contradicted by other evidence, why should the same not apply to an organisation?
:"''...don't rant and rave here...''": Excuse me? Are you accusing three of your administrators of "ranting and raving"? (I'm not counting Ultimahero, because he wasn't arguing that point.) Rather, we are making reasoned arguments, and getting an insult in return.
:"''I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.''": As I've already pointed out, people already do criticise my beliefs (including "ranting and raving"), and I respond with reasoned arguments, not censorship. Why is this particular belief protected?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Just as a side note, the page on [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] says this:

"They use the Bible as their holy book, including the New Testament, but draw conclusions that do not match mainstream Christian thought, including denying the Trinity and denying the divinity of Christ".

So, why is it okay to make the claim that the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] are considerably different than mainstream Christianity (which is substantiated by showing their denial of the Trinity and the deity of Christ), but it's not okay to make the same claim about the LDS church, even though they would deny both the Trinity and the deity of Christ as well? (Mormons would say that they affirm those beliefs, but they define both differently and actually hold views that are indeed against mainstream, historical, orthodox Christianity.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:43, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] has done nothing to deserve being blocked. He is not in violation of the 90/10 rule, and has violated no other rule. He should be unblocked. As for his position, there is nothing wrong with it, and I agree with him. If you are going to block him for it, (even though we do '''''not''''' block ideologically) you may as well block me too. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:16, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

If that is not encyclopedic, then much of the Barack Obama article is worse. Should I go clean it up? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, Obama is attempting to President and acquire power over all Americans. What he says, what he believes, and if and how he lies to advance his goals are relevant and should not be deleted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:: So factual information about the mormon church is irrelevant because it might be offensive to some people, but extremely questionable material is Ok in the Obama article because he is running for president? That doesn't make sense. If Mormons are just Christians like everyone else, then why do they try to convert us? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Yes, Tim, we should clean up the Barack Obama article. After all, he's only trying to be the President of ''America'' and have power over ''living Americans'' for ''four to eight years'', whereas the Mormon church is trying to be the presiding ''world'' religion and have power over ''all living and dead humans'' for ''all of history''. (That may be a rather loose description, but no looser than the claim about Obama.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Stating what the differences are between two groups is not "bashing" them. There is such a hypocrisy here. Like it has been mentioned before, we can leave everything in on the Barack Obama page, even though there's a lot of questionable material there, but this page, which is factual and has been sourced, can't remain because it's "bashing"? Well anytime you make a comment that isn't flattering it could be called "bashing". (Even if the statement’s true.) This is simply taking facts out because someone doesn’t like them. That’s all this amounts to. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

==Comparison with the mainstream==

Churches like JW and LDS are on the outskirts of traditional American Christianity. Certainly a large proportion of American Christians consider them '''non-Christian''' due to theological differences over the [[Trinity]] and so forth. It is against site policy to directly label them "non-Christian", though, so let us as writers working under a common leader agree how to collaborate.

I suggest we continue to categorize Mormons in the [[:Category:Christian Denominations]] while courteously informing our readers of any documented disputes over whether LDS is Christian or not. The point is not to hide the dispute, but to refrain from "pointing a provocative finger". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:If the information that shows the differences between the Mormon faith and traditional Christianity is to be removed, then how will our readers know that there is a difference at all? Say there's a difference but not be allowed to say what it is? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::How much doctrinal difference is allowed from [[traditional Christianity]] before a denomination is considered a [[sect]], a [[heresy]], or *shudder* a [[cult]]? And who decides? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Let me start by saying are you aware you changed the subject? I was not asking for any classification of what is a cult and who decides, only the right to be allowed to bring up differences from traditional Christianity without judgement. That being said, generally the doctrine of the trinity is considered to be a core doctrine. Christ as fully God and fully man dying for the sins of the world and through His sacrifice all can be saved. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:21, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Whilst Conservapedia might not want to take a position by labelling them as "non-Christian", how is labelling them "Christian" any more acceptable? That's still taking a position, and one that many Conservapedia supporters find objectionable.

"Cult" has a pretty-clear definition, so to suggest that it is hard to determine if a group is a cult is incorrect. I see that our article on that needs some work, though.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't believe we should take a stand either way. Conservapedia is a resource for all conservatives, and Mormons as a group are very conservative. The difficulty, of course, is that many other conservatives do not have the same view as Mormons do in regard to their relationship with Christianity. I believe we should allow the differences to speak for themselves, but do not apply labels declaring one way or the other what category the Mormon faith should fall into. I don't see that as being our place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only that, but the Bible itself makes it very clear that there are certain things one must believe in order to be a Christian. (The deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, etc.) Cultic groups and non-Christian churches will deny these teachings. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:32, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Controversial Material==

Look, I understand that this stuff creates a lot of controversy. But, the fact is I can source all of these things from Mormon leaders themselves. No, if can find me a source to the counter, then that's fine. But if you can't, then you have no leg to stand on. Simply removing it because it hurts somebody’s feelings is a poor excuse to make those edits. Prove the point, or let it go. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:07, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:I understand your frustration, but we don't edit war here. While I would like to see your information reinstated and looked at in more detail by those who have more intimate knowledge of the Mormon faith, you must also understand that it's not vandalism to remove it and it wasn't wise to put that in the title line. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Oh, but it was vandalism. Lets be honest here. If I went to another page, lets say the [[Atheism]] page or something on [[Liberals]], and I went to a section that was completely factual, fully sourced and perfectly relevant, and I just removed it without any good basis. What would that be called? Vandalism! So of course it was vandalism if it’s done here. Oh, but I forgot, we don’t look at it that way. Vandalism is not based on '''what''' is done, rather '''who''' does it. If someone else removes perfectly factual, relevant, and sourced material, it’s vandalism. But if an admin does it, then it’s “constructive editing”. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Once again, a wonderful sentiment. Could you please unlock the atheism page? Apparently, finding quotes of various historic figures and attributing them to the entirety of a group is not appropriate. Likewise, contributions from someone who is familiar with the subject matter rather than someone who has an axe to grind (so to speak) would go a long ways to moving articles from being hatchet jobs (pun intended) to something isn't completely one sided. Above, there was the comment of "Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable," - that is assuming, of course, that atheism is a religion. I understand that Conservapeida wishes to be a source of knowledge, but when articles are so one obviously one sided it leaves people looking for information other sites that may not be in agreement with Conservapedia. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Unless the sysop who protected the article is no longer available, only that sysop can unlock it. You'll have to bring it up with him. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:08, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, it is obvious to me that you have an ax to grind against the Mormon Church. Why aren't you ranting and raving about how the Democratic Party once supported slavery for blacks? No, you've singled out the Mormon Church without explanation or justification. It's not doing you any good and it's not fair to treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner. Give it a rest and ask yourself why you don't complain in a similar manner about the Democratic Party and countless other institutions. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
: He wasn't ranting and raving. Again I point out that if it's not fair to "treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner", why are so many entities, such as Barack Obama, treated in such a blatantly one-sided manner? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:28, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, no offense, but when you say things like that you show your utter ignorance on the subject. I have an “ax to grind against the Mormon church”? I’ve “singled out the Mormon church without explanation or justification”? Really? That’s come as news to me. Makes me wonder why I spent all that time debating Atheists, homosexuals, people who doubt the Bible, Liberals, etc. I‘ve also been debating about the Roman Catholic Church while working on this page. (Just check my edit history.) Seems to me that my interest is debating anyone who isn’t Christian. So please don’t make claims that demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==The removed link==

I'm sure that someone will ask why I removed the link about "Why Protestants agree with Mormons", so I'll quickly explain. The link in question did a very poor job of relating the two theologies, and quite frankly, misrepresented and misunderstood Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ. It's one thing for Mormons to try to show the parallels between themselves and Christians, but we shouldn't misrepresent one another. I do not agree with LDS teachings, but I certainly would not wish to present incorrect info about them. So I simply do not wish for the Christian side to be misunderstood with that link in question. [[User:JimmyP|JimmyP]] 23:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:You say the link "misrepresented and misunderstood Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ" but you don't say how it does that. Please explain. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:41, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: Please use the talk page and wait for the reply before removing an important information. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:21, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

What? No one has objected. I would be more than happy to talk with anyone about it, but no one has said anything. What's wrong with making a change then letting discussion take place if it is necessary? There may be no need for discussion on this, so I see no reason to sit back and wait. [[User:JimmyP|JimmyP]] 12:25, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

What does that link have to do with anything? It links to a site about credit card debt. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:12, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Controversy as Christians?==

There is a section devoted to whether or not Mormons are Christians. However, this issue is not actually adressed in the section. Where is the controversy? Don't they have the words "Church of Jesus Christ" in their name? Oh, wait. That is their name. Where's the controversy?

:That the reference to the controversy has been removed does not mean that it does not exist. And I take it you are not being serious with the name, as if names are voted upon by the greater community for inclusion. If you truly believe a name defines an entity, then you may wish to move to a different Democratic nation -- such as North Korea. While it is not the place of this site to say who is right, that there is a controversy is not a matter of debate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:20, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

==History Section==

I started a history section, although it's all about Utah, as the bit about the Church before Utah is in the introduction. I'd like to turn it into a larger history section, hopefully going from the founding up to present day. I'm happy to write about the period from 1847-1890, I'm working off a paper I wrote in college about the "Mormon War" of 1857. My knowledge of the history of the church basically stops with the leaders finally coming out of hiding from federal marshals and issuing the "Manifesto," as this ended the federal government's fight with the Church.

So, I have two requests:

1.) Could someone help out with the history after 1890?

2.) I'm planning on moving the historical bit down from the introduction and into a history section. Could someone suggest an alternate introduction? Or would it be ok to say the same information twice?

I'm also going to source all the facts I put in the section, but it's 12:10 and time for bed now. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 00:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-11-18T05:10:36Z

ArnoldFriend:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
==The Mountain Meadows Massacre==
Should something about that be included in the controversy?
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/
That's a reference, but if that's not what you guys want, you can find myriads more by just putting "Mountain Meadows Massacre" into Google. [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 19:44, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey==
I said they "depicted the Mormons as 'bad guys'" but really that's putting it mildly. On checking these books again, "rabid anti-Mormonism" would probably be more like it. But I am reluctant to quote the passages that would support that view, as they are so virulent that I think even quoting them would be inappropriate. I think they're so "way out" as to be funny, but I expect a Mormon might not see it that way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Cut from article:
::The Mormons, like other small denominations, have been the target of discrimination. Mormons are depicted as "bad guys" in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1890 novel, ''A Study in Scarlet,'' and Zane Grey's 1912 ''Riders of the Purple Sage.''

:Novels don't prove discrimination. This cheapens the claim.

:Anyway, I read ''Riders'' last year, and the Mormons in it were depicted as mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people as well as a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot. I seem to recall a saintly lady, who befriended the downtrodden and helpless, as being a Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oops, on the other hand I forgot about the bishop's conspiracy and cruelty.
::*The Mormons are represented as a sinister, powerful force of evil, and in this respect, the comparison with earlier myth - 'conventional captivity plot' - is again noticeable. Their sadistic cruelty, for example - as depicted in the foiled attempt at whipping Venters. Or another passage which mentions the gratuitous blinding of Lassiter's horse. [http://roddocs.org/zanegrey.html]

::My question is whether ZG was using the novel to tar all Mormons with one brush, or more to illustrate what can happen when ANY faction turns fanatic. I must learn more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
They are depicted really barbarously in ''A Study in Scarlet,'' as rapists, liars, and murderers.... about as negative depection as you could have.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:14, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " ==

Re the statement:
:though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.
I '''really''' want to see a source citation for this before putting it in the article. What, exactly, did the church say in their own words? And was it, in fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to one of the small splinter groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

My suspicion is that they did not say "Mormons are not Christians" or anything close to it. They probably said something that some other group ''interpreted'' to mean "Mormons are not Christians." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Well, you may be right. I can't find the exact reference, but it is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints made it clear that they did not want to be affiliated with Christianity during the 70s, when Christianity was not very popular, but now that Christianity has become popular again, LDS Evangelists or Outreachers or whatever you call the people who stop you on the street to talk about Mormonism often say very early in their talk that "Mormons are Christians, too", when in the 70s they would not, and would make it a point to say that Mormonism was not Christianity. So, perhaps saying that they said "Mormons were not Christians" was a gross oversimplification, and for that I apologize, but the sentiment is similar. [[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

---

I think the reason people use the quote "Mormons aren't Christians" is because "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren't Christians" is too hard to say with a straight face.

Seriously, though, what the church said was that Mormons aren't PROTESTANTS. They consider protestants to be reformers, and that Joseph Smith was a RESTORER. They like Protestants, and consider Martin Luther and other reformers to have been inspired by God, but consider their church was a restoration of the same church that Christ set up on the earth, not a protest against the catholic church or simply an attempt to set up a church they felt was closer to what Christ wanted.

But saying you aren't a protestant isn't the same thing as saying you aren't Christian.[[User:JustMe|JustMe]] 12:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Question about scripture:==
Is the KJV of the Bible really the one used for scripture? Didn't Joseph Smith do some minor re-translating of certain passages of a Bible, and that version is used? (I may be mistaken that it's authoritative as scripture, though.) If it is the preferred translation of the Scripture, then that can't really be called the KJV, right? (Also, out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible do LDS for whom English is not their native language use? I hope that they don't try to translate the KJV into another language.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, the Church uses the KJV of the Bible. There is a version published by the Church which includes ''footnotes'' to JST (Joseph Smith Translation) verses and ''footnotes'' for references to other LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price but the main text is the unchanged KJV.
: I don't know about other languages - something for me to reasearch. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a statement from someone in the church "The goal of the typical Bible society, usually a collaboration of numerous different Christian denominations, has been to take a translated Bible to every people—a work which deserves our praise and gratitude. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make translations of the Bible itself at this point, but chooses carefully a translation available in a particular language for use among its members who speak that language." [http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7717aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 8, The Power of the Word,” Ensign, Sep 1982, 64] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I didn't realize that the Joseph Smith just added footnotes. I thought he had actually re-translated or re-written certain passages. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Let me clarify this issue. Joseph Smith did indeed re-translate certain verses. Those re-translated verses do NOT appear in the KJV text. They appear as footnotes in the version published by the Church. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== The Mormon problem. ==

Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko.
:I've never seen anything in Mormon literature about "gods from outer space". And Mormons certainly are not polytheists, and neither are Muslims. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right? Are they not all gods? (And if not, do they not believe that Jesus is divine?) At least, this is my understanding of LDS teaching. Am I mistaken? (I don't think the original commenter was calling Muslims polytheists. He was calling Muhammad a fraud.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::''They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right?'' Yes, we believe that Heavenly Father (God the Father) and Jesus Christ (The Son of God) have glorified, perfected bodies of flesh and bones; the Holy Ghost is also part of the Godhead but is a personage of Spirit in the form of a man.
:::''Are they not all gods?'' Yes. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes they are not all gods, or yes they are all gods? That's a bit of a confusing answer (to a poorly-phrased question, I guess). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 12:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yes, they are all gods. "The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven." [LDS.org Gospel Topics:Godhead] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If there are three gods, and they are each separate beings, how is that not polytheism? (Or, at least, it's not "certainly" not polytheism, since it does appear to be polytheistic, lacking some equivocation about how they're not really all god, or not really three distinct persons.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 15:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I was always just taught that the Trinity were three forms of the same being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::"They are distinct beings, but They are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God." [LDS.org ''In These Three I Believe'' by President Gordon B. Hinckley] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 15:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"? That Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the "god" of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was then appointed by a counsel of other "gods" in the heavens to his high position as the "god" of planet Earth. The Mormon's god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world... See also http://www.carm.org/lds/ldsprogression.htm That isn't really "Christianity", is it? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:45, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::''What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"?'' You are presenting an incredibly simplistic viewpoint on the Subject. You are also going into detail about things God has only touched lightly upon. There is some 'fact' to what you speak of. But the details about it are not going to happen as you presented them. No one "earn's" their 'godhood'. After all we can do we still fall short of the necessary "perfection" to return to God's presence. Christ's atonement "makes up the difference", to coin a phrase. We are "saved" by the grace and power of Christ's atonement. There is a different phraseology used by the LDS faith and otheres as to what it means to be "saved". As far as what God has in mind for all of his children, please read Romans 8: 16-17.
::::::::::The LDS faith is not "polytheisitc". We worship God the Eternal Father. We direct our prayers to him in His Son's name, Jesus Christ. That is "monotheism" defined. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost being separate beings and members of the "Godhood" does not mean they are the "God's" that should be worshiped. Jesus laid the foundation when he organized his followers. He instructed them to pray to the Father in his name. All that we do should be done in the name of Jesus, directed to the glorification of our Father in Heaven.

(reset indent)
According to ''Mormon Doctrine'' "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." Joseph Smith: " "God himself, the Father of us all was once a man like us." (''History of the Church''). On salvation through Christ: "Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph [Smith] his prophet, and Brigham his successor, and you shall be saved. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young). Your comments are deliberate obfuscation. Also, the recent edits to the article, such as the extermination order, fail to mention the reason why it was issued, that Smith had raised a militia in Missouri that was attacking non-mormon settlers. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Origins of the church==

Cut from intro;

:, who claimed to have received a revelation of the Father -God-and his son, Jesus Christ 1820. Years later, he also claims to have recieved further instruction from the Angel Moroni

I see no need for jabs like this. Anyway, he started the church after a long and fruitless search for the "true" religion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not a "jab". Smith claimed he saw God and Jesus in 1820, and claims that three years later, he was visited by the angel Moroni who told him about the golden plates.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the cut Ed. I totally agree. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite]] 14:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

When I read this stuff, I thank god I'm an atheist.

==Presentation of Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
It seems to me a little tendentious to lead off with the opinions of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Courtesy seems to me to requires call for a short summary of the Mormons' position on this first. Then we can proceed to the views of the (relatively liberal) Methodists and the (relatively conservative) Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptists.

(And I have to wonder whether, in this matter, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod truly speaks for "the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States," but if they said it I guess we can quote it). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Word of Wisdom==
The main article was changed to "Church members follow a law of health known as the Word of Wisdom that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, caffeine in general, and illegal drugs."
Hoji reverted my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=175993 added caffeine without removing coffee and tea, as all three are correct]. All three are NOT correct. I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for over 30 years and I know that the Word of Wisdom does NOT include caffeine. Some Church members observe the practice of avoiding caffeine, but it is not Church doctrine. See this reference for the Church's official position.[http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7a45055b23710110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1f476db0580a1110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Obey the Word of Wisdom]. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 16:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:From my interactions with a Mormons (I live in an area with a large number of Mormons), I have always been told that caffeine is to be avoided, and drinks like Mountain Dew, Coke, Pepsi, etc. are out of the question. I am not a professional on the issue, though, and this was probably a community-specific regulation. You know more than I do about this, Crocoite, and I'll trust your judgement from now on. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the correction Hoji. I'm not a General Authority of the Church, but we can use the discussion page to clarify issues for the main article. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 22:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It has been suggested by Leaders of the LDS Church that caffeine should be avoided. Like people of all religions, different Mormons have interpreted those statements in different ways. Officially, (letter of the law kind of thing), Caffeine is not forbidden, and is technically not part of the Word of Wisdom. However, as it is a suggestion by LDS Church leaders, many (could I say most?) Mormons do not drink caffeine. [[User:Tirrian|Tirrian]] 18:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== redo ==

After reading this article, I would say a rewrite is in order. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:this article says nothing about the schism. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:37, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, a rewrite is in order. Rather than edit warring on the article, can we please draft up sections here on talk? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah! Someone finally says something intelligent. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 19:17, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==Page Improvement; Article Neutrality; Information Sources; Offensive Content==

I am a lifelong member of the LDS church. I just found out about this website and was curious to see what the entry for my church looked like. Although I don't have time to do a complete rewrite, I do heartily agree that some serious work is needed, and I have spent a few minutes correcting some typos and trying to add some accurate information.

Although I understand that the creators of ''conservapedia'' apparently have some issue with ''Wikipedia'', one aspect of that website I hope they (and its contributors) respect is ''Neutral Point of View''. The accurate and unbiased description of a religion's beliefs should be allowed without disrespect and meanness. I may disagree with the beliefs of other religions, but I do not believe that gives me the right to mock or ridicule those beliefs simply because they are different than my own.

I caution the usage of and reference to "non-Mormon" websites as primary sources for explanations of LDS beliefs. Although they can be useful for comparisons of understanding and response, sole reliance on such sources can lead to the perpetuation of myths, increased misunderstanding, and outright prejudice. Often, the outside point-of-view can result in a description of beliefs so altered that even members of the church would not recognize it as their own. I have corrected several occurrences in this article, including the erroneous assertions that Mormons "do not believe in the diety of Christ" (?!) and that Mormons "believe in salvation through works". Where a group openly proclaims its beliefs, the honest scholar will allow the group to do so and may ''respond'' to them but will never ''misrepresent'' them.

The scriptural references I included are in no way an attempt to "prove" LDS beliefs, but rather are simply to indicate to the reader one of the sources of those beliefs, understanding that it is perfectly reasonable that one may have alternate beliefs or interpretations of the same.

Finally, although I understand the original author's intent to point the reader to both supporting and opposing views, I found the "Mormon" and "Anti-Mormon" subheadings under the External Links section to be quite offensive. If consistency is a desirable characteristic of ''conservapedia'', this would necessitate adding an "Anti-Semitic" section to the Judaism article, which I (and I hope many others) would also find offensive. If a contributor would like to write an article about those who criticize the LDS church, or the criticism itself, then please take the time to do so, and provide a link to that page, and allow this page to be about the church itself.[[User:Doady|Doady]] 17:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Doady, I am a convert to the church and I don't like the tone of this article either. Your comments are like music to my ears. Keep in mind though, at Conservapedia, we don't try to take a NPOV. There will be articles from a Conservative POV. And [[Wikipedia]] doesn't really have a NPOV - they just advertise that. WP articles have a [[liberal bias]] that we don't allow here [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

:Unfortunately this article has been edited by anti-Mormons and it is difficult to accurately portray the church. I encourage you to continue your improvements to this article and others here. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia smears the religious again ==

I am here because of wikipedia's prejudicial treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members. Case in point is its article on Fawn Brodie, a woman who was the niece of one of the Church's presidents and yet still managed to apostatize and become one of the most embittered and destructive "anti-mormons" of all time. Simply put, wikipedia's article on her refers almost exclusively to another apostate in the citation of its sources, and has plenty of improvable comments that are derogatory toward Latter Day Saints. I have attempted several times to correct language in the article that I felt was unnecessarily negative or misleading. Every time I made a correction, even if it was nothing more than to clear up an obvious grammatical error, every single time the page was reverted back to its previous condition by the next day at the latest.

If wikipedia is going to present itself as an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, they ought not to shut down attempts by people like me to purge articles of bigotry and lies. I went so far as to make posts on the discussion page for the article, explaining my changes. One of the moderators claimed to sympathize and agreed that some of the wording was prejudicial sounding, but told me that my corrections were not good enough to stand as they were. I’m talking about correcting comments that did not have citations and therefore should have been afforded no more consideration than my corrections of them.

I have also stumbled upon two separate articles in wikipedia that contained nude photographs, and many more containing obscenities. It would not be hard to photoshop those photographs to the point that you could tell the person was nude but not have to see their privates. While it may not be possible to police the entire internet for pornography, surely a wikipedia page with its own moderator(s) could be bothered to keep their own page free of filth.

Consequently, I have independently come to the conclusion that wikipedia is not a quality encyclopedia, and that if you seek to remove anti-Christian bigotry from it, or have traditional American sensibilities, your voice doesn’t count.

Then I heard about conservapedia. I decided to check it out and find out if a Latter Day Saint could expect a fair shake here. I am glad to say that most of what I am seeing here about the Church and its members is fair and correct. In fact, my only complaint is that the articles are too short. That’s understandable given the relatively short time conservapedia’s been around. And at any rate it’s a far better option than moderator protected bigotry under the banner of a encyclopedia that you can edit.

This brings me to my last point. Since conservapedia is succeeding where wikipedia is cravenly failing, I decided to join. I intend to add my knowledge to it, particularly but not only in the areas of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have one request: please be patient with me if my edits aren’t up to the standard. I am just starting out here and while I do not intend to break any posting rules, I can’t guarantee that in my rookie state I won’t overlook something. Thank you for your consideration.--[[User:ChetGustavson|ChetGustavson]] 16:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Racism ==

Right up until 1978 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't allow black men in to the priesthood and it didn't allow black men and women to take part in the most important temple services. Even now the Church refuses to repudiate its racist past and has even been accused of trying to cover it up. Surely this is worth mentioning in the controversy section? {{unsigned|RM}}

== African Americans... ==

Claim is fully sourced. Please do not remove w/out discussion or a source for counter-claims. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 20:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:Those sources do NOT support your claim. There are no references to specific verses in the Book of Mormon that substantiate your claim. In addition there is this quote:
<blockquote>In the twentieth century, various Church leaders continued to offer possible reasons why a race of people was prohibited from holding the priesthood. One explanation, carried over from the previous century, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain, the first murderer, and therefore were denied the priesthood because of lineage. Another theory held that blacks were less valiant in the premortal existence and therefore had certain spiritual restrictions placed upon them during mortality (132). Priesthood denial was perceived to be one of these spiritual restrictions. But by mid-century, President David O. McKay stated, "There is not now, and there never has been, a doctrine in this Church that the negroes are under a divine curse. . . . It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed". </blockquote>
:Your edits are not fully sourced and have been reverted. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:12, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:(written before edit conflict)
:Actually, it's not. There's nothing I can see in either source to say that the Book of Mormon was the basis for the ban on blacks being priests. But now that there are sources, I can alter it rather than simply delete it. You are welcome to alter it back if you can provide evidence of the Book of Mormon part of the claim (and a reference to just ''where'' in the Book of Mormon this is said would seem to be appropriate also). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I don't get it. Weren't blacks excluded from the Mormon priesthood in early times? If it wasn't a [[doctrine]] per se, then it was a policy anyway: whether official or unofficial.

The point is that the practice has ended because, as their leadership claims, God told [[revelation|revealed to them]] that the practice was wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

==Material added by Ultimahero==
Ultimahero is an anti-Mormon who is adding a mixture of false, and true unsourced material to this article. Unless I see some sources for these edits, they will be deleted. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Which ones are false? I can source them all. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:52, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

# Both Jesus and Lucifer offered a plan for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
# Many Gods. (Mormon Doctrine, page 163; Book of Abraham 4:3)
# The Father has a body of flesh and bones. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 38.)
# Mother Goddess. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 143; Mormon Doctrine, page 516.)
# God and Mary had relations to produce Jesus’ physical body. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, page 115; Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 547; Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18; First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, page 150.)
# The Bible is corrupted. (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church; 1 Nephi 13:28.)
# All other Christian denominations are apostate. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 1, pages 5-6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 171, 1855; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 167, 1858.)
# God resides near a star called Kolob. (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, page 428.)
# God used to be a man on another planet. (Mormon Doctrine, page 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, page 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 333.)
# God became a God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345)
# Joseph Smith must approve of one for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 670; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:289)
# Levels of Heaven. (Mormon Doctrine, page 348)
# Prophets are needed. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 444-445.)

(I obtained all of the above sources from http://www.mrm.org/, and http://www.carm.org/index.html.)

I also removed a link to Mormon in the second paragraph, because the word “Mormon was referring to the Mormon people, and the link was to the Mormon Prophet. So the link made no sense.

The only thing I can’t source at this moment is about the fact that blacks were cursed for their neutrality. But give me some time and I’ll try to find it again. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:32, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Start with these:

:*Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They beleive that they must have Joseph Smith Jr.'s approval to get into heaven."
:*Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus' physical body."
:*African Americans and the Priesthood -> "Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse. According to Mormon Theology, those spirit children which did not side with Satan or God in the pre-existence, but instead decided to remain neutral, were cursed with black skin."

:These are obvious false statements to me.
:*First, you are using anti-Mormon sources.
:*Second, Mormon Doctrine and Journal of Discourses are not valid references. You need to read this reference. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldsdoct.htm Differentiating between valid LDS doctrine & opinions of its past leaders]
<blockquote>"A common anti-Mormon attack technique used by many conservative Protestants is to take a single past statement by a Mormon leader and treat it as a formal LDS doctrine that is binding on all LDS members today. In reality, there are many beliefs expressed by early LDS leaders that have been abandoned and are no longer recognized by the present-day church. Some, in fact, have never accepted as valid."</blockquote>
:I'm also going to involve another administrator here, because I'm upset with your anti-Mormon edits. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

“They must have Joseph Smith’s approval to get into Heaven.” On October 9, 1859, Brigham Young said, "From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are -- I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent" (Journal of Discourses 7:289).

Young clearly taught that you must have the consent of Joseph Smith to get into Heaven. Now, whether or not the Mormon church still accepts this is a different issue, and if you can show me documentation where they have denied or denounced this teaching, then great. I’ll gladly concede it and withdraw that point. But the fact is that Brigham Young was one of the most influential leaders of the LDS, and I have provided documentation as to his teaching on it. It’s up to you to give documentation to the counter.

“They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus’ physical body.” I’m aware that this is a debated issue within the Mormon church. But I gave sources on it being taught by: Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, as well as the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve. Again, whether the LDS church still holds to this is debatable. But it was officially taught by influential leaders in good standing with the church. So, again, provide me documentation that the church today denounces these things and I’ll be more than happy to remove them.

I already stated that I don’t have the documentation for the “blacks were neutral and were cursed with black skin.” I’ll try to find, but if you wish to remove it, then that’s fair enough for now. Although, just to note, I didn’t add the quote “Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse.” This was already there, I added the sentence following it.

Now, as far as “Anti-Mormon Sources”, that’s not true. Granted, those websites may not agree with Mormon theology, but they are simply quoting Mormon writers and prophets. The sources in question are the Mormon men who wrote these things. The websites merely provide the documentation. So, unless your own prophets and writing are “Anti-Mormon”, then they’re not Anti-Mormon sources.

They are valid references. They are things that were taught by the leaders and prophets in the Mormon church. Mormons believe that prophets are still around today and whatever they reveal is the word of God, just as legitimate as the official theology. Again, if the quotes in question have been denounced by modern prophets then that’s fine. Give mw documentation and I’ll gladly remove them.

I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders. But, fine. If you wish to involve another administrator, then by all means, please do. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:27, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:*(interrupting) You said, ''I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders.'' Neither is true. You are making '''primarily''' anti-Mormon edits. And you are not "simply quoting" but using old position statements as if they were still in force. The burden of proof is on you (not Dean) to show that any nasty-sounding information is true. Dean need not document a denunciation: on the contrary, you need to document an avowal. Failure to do so will result in reverted edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I agree with you that it's inaccurate for him to describe his edits as "non anti-Mormon". They are, but there's nothing wrong with that ''as long as they are true''. I don't agree that the burden of proof is on Ultimahero to show that they are still in force. If Ultimahero has claimed that they were once the case, then the onus is on him to show that they were. If someone else claims that they no longer are, then the onus is on that person to show that they no longer are. To put it another way, if, hypothetically, President Bush says that Iran is evil ''and has never recanted that'', then what evidence can be produced to show that he still believes that? If he's never recanted it, then that is actually a ''lack of evidence'' that he has recanted it, and nobody can cite a ''lack'' of evidence. Rather, if someone thing's that he's recanted it, then the onus is on ''that'' person to show that he has. Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that it's still the case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

While it is proper to bring up differences of opinion, as much as possible any discussion should be done with the utmost of respect realizing that this is a sensitive area and that good people can have differing points of view. Perhaps it would be appropriate to put together a small section touching upon various beliefs held by the Mormon Chuch during its journey, but also acknowledging that the same beliefs are not held today (where that is true) and keeping the focus on the beliefs of the Mormon Church as they currently stand. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:17, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, and this will be a lot of work, but to be a '''trustworthy''' source of information on the LDS church, we'll have to do just that. In addition, if there are '''modern''' controversies about what the historical beliefs and practices were, then we might do well to adopt the NPOV policy of another (larger) online encyclopedia.

:This will require supporters and opponents '''both''' to tone down their combative rhetoric; I'm not saying that either side has been more hostile than the other; both sides need to be sympathetic to the other for the process to work. Both sides need to be open to allowing the opposing side to make its case or present its views.

:I've had a lot of contact with Mormon missionaries throughout my life and have always found them sincere and forthright in explaining their beliefs. Whether I agree with those beliefs or not, I feel it's important for me to '''learn''' what those beliefs are; even more valuable to '''understand''' why they hold those beliefs and how those beliefs affect their lives. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:47, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

No, my edits are not “Anti-Mormon”. I’m quoting Mormon prophets and presenting what they taught. I’m simply quoting men like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith (All Presidents of the Mormon Church) as well as many other Mormons in good standing with the LDS church. I’m not adding anything to there quotes, nor attempting to establish new doctrine based on them. I’m not insulting Mormons or calling them names. I’m just quoting them. So unless those men (Smith, Young, etc.) are anti-Mormon, then my edits cannot be anti-Mormon, because it’s coming from their mouths. If someone were to come to me and say, “Well, Jesus taught ‘X’,” I would not call that anti-Christian. That’s just reiterating what the beliefs are.

And I have given ample documentation as to these teachings. I didn’t just make baseless claims, I backed them up. Now if these teaching were denounced, then please provide my the documentation and show me. I’m not aware of any retraction by the LDS church on these issues. But I’m certainly eager to learn. If there is something there, show me. We do know that the Mormons have changed positions over the years. They once taught polygamy, now they don’t. So maybe they have changed here as well. But you have to understand that it is now up to you to provide documentation to the counter. I adequately demonstrated how these doctrines exist, so must show if there has been some change on these positions.

I have no doubt in my mind that Mormon's sincerely believe what they do. I have no doubt that there are numerous Mormons who are genuinly good, in a human sense of the word. And I in no way am trying to be confrontational or argumentitive. I am merely trying to adding things in that Mormons have beleived historically, and to factually contribute. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I readded my material about the differeces in beleives. If there is documentation that these positions are no longer held, I'll be more than happy to withdraw them. Otherewisw, it seems unfair to leave them out when I can show that they have been taught. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:59, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the way you have presented information. For instance the additional information on what Mormons believe, if I understand it correctly, comes from beliefnet, a site that is not Mormon. There may be further explanation of the Mormon religion that is not included. And while I can understand that you weren't pleased that your original work was simply removed, you should also be respectful of the fact that Dean is an elder in the Mormon Church, and as such, is intimately knowledgable of current Mormon teachings and beliefs. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"Beliefnet"? I don't know what that is, and certainly didn't use it for my material. Now, I quoted Mormon leaders on their positions.(Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.) So these men would certainly know what Mormoln doctrine is. Now, as I've said, there may indeed be furtehr explanation that is left out. But it is now up to the objector to provide the evidence that these things aren't taught. It makes no sense to leave my material out based on the fact that it's "possible" that counter-material exists somewhere. If it's there, show me, and I'll be gladly agree that it gets taken out. But you must show me first. And I do respect that DeanS has been in the church a long time. But that doesn't mean that he knows more than anyone else about it. There are many people who don't know what they beleive. (I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to Dean, just that it's generally true.) So if he or you or anoyone can document these things not being taught, then fine. Otherwise you have no leg to stand on. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:References shouldn't just be on the talk page. I want to see you incorporate the reference information that you have here, including any quotes, into reference forms on the article. I see belief.net predated you. Not having followed this article, I was unaware of that. Since there were no references on the main page and that was the last source quoted, I assumed that was your source. As far as Dean not knowing what his church teaches, please. I don't know whether or not you are religious yourself, but I am a regular church attender and it would be very difficult for me not to know what my church teaches when I hear sermons week in and week out. If Dean says that is a misrepresentation of Mormon belief, then what he says the Mormon Church believes will be included into the article as well. And don't tell me that he doesn't know any better. If he has been an active member for many years and never heard these things, then it's not something they actively believe or else he would have heard it. I would imagine the truth will fall somewhere in the middle. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::L.T., many "anti-cult" advocates will claim that a church they hate lets most members believe one thing while having stronger teachings for the more deeply initiated. You don't get to hear about the stronger more "authentic" teachings until you get into some sort of inner circle. They seem to think this is common knowledge and that the burden of proof is on the church to demonstrate that they don't "keep two sets of books" theologically. This is nonsense and won't be tolerated here.

::I'll say this one last time, and those who refuse to accept it can just go join another project: we trust Dean to tell us what his church teaches. The burden of proof is on non-Conservapedians (such as our recent visitor U.H.) to prove that obscure or outdated teachings are current and valid. One more word out of line and he's gone - I have no more time for this nonsense. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure he's making that insinutation Ed, but certainly in either case as an elder Dean would be "in the know". I am also aware that sometimes churches, especially in their early history, can go through change. We shouldn't ignore Mormon history, but we also shouldn't force that to be current Mormon view when the present might be quite different. And of course, any discussion that takes place here should be held with respect for those who follow this belief whether or not the people stating their views are Mormons or not. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I specifically said that I wasn’t necessarily implying that Dean didn’t know what he was talking about. It’s just that in general a lot of religious folks don’t know what they believe. (If you keep up with things and study as you’re supposed to, then you probably will be well learned. But most people don’t read their Bibles like they should, which leads to ignorant church members, and this is what I was getting at.) Also, an individual church might teach many things that go against the mainstream denomination. So it just depends. Ultimately, I’m not saying that Dean knows everything or nothing. I don’t know what his knowledge level is. I’m not commenting on that. Again, Dean, or anyone saying this isn’t Mormon belief, needs to give adequate source material to support that claim. Someone whose been in the Mormon church before could say that Mormonism teaches that God is a purple unicorn, and we would not accept this based solely on the fact that the said individual attends an LDS church. (I know that’s a ridiculous example, I’m just trying to demonstrate the point by exaggerating to an extreme.) I don’t doubt for one second that Dean is an intelligent, honest man. But he stills needs to source the info, like the rest of us do.

I don’t “hate” the Mormons or their church, Ed Poor. I do indeed think that Mormonism is a false religious system, yes. But I don’t hate them. Most Mormons that I’ve met are genuinely nice folks. It’s just their theology that I have a problem with. Next, I’m not a “recent” visitor. I’ve been here contributing for many months now. Now I have shown that Mormons have taught this in the past. I’ve well documented it. Is it still taught? I don’t know of any current Mormons leadership which has disavowed the teaching or said that they now don’t follow it. (Which they have done in the past on other issues, so I’m assuming that they’ll be consistent.) Finally, I didn’t know that I was “out of line”. I’m just providing material that is factual, as far as I know. If anyone can show me to the contrary, I will support it being taken out. I’m not sure what you want. I’m not trying to be rude or call names, and I’m being as factual as I can. So I don’t know what else can reasonably be expected of me.

Learn Together, I certainly hope that I have not given the impression of disrespect towards Mormons. I’m not at all trying to disrespect them, and hope I haven’t come across that way. I simply am presenting things that are historically true. If they aren’t currently taught, then I would think that certainly some church council or Mormon President would be available somewhere that has denounced them. I just haven’t seen any of that, so I can’t assume that they have. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You show disrespect toward Mormons when you assume that old teachings are current. You have proof that LDS '''used to''' teach or practice certain things. You offer no proof that they still do. You merely argue that the existence of old stuff should be taken as evidence of its currency. That is not a trustworthy argument.

:On the contrary, if the old stuff is current, it should be '''very easy''' to show that it is. Your refusal to make any effort to do so, combined with your repeated argument of having no need to do so, disqualifies you as a writer on this topic.

:You are hereby banned from this article and this discussion page. You may bring up issues related to LDS on any other talk page where it has already been addressed. I value you as a writer, but not on this issue, until you agree to adhere to my concept of [[burden of proof]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:57, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::He has provided "proof." the question is whether things have changed. It is logical to assume that they have not, unless there is proof of a change. How is he supposed to prove that it ''hasn't'' changed. If there is nothing to say that it has, then he will not have anything to find, and you will continue to say that he has no proof. The burden of proof here lies with those who are trying to prove that it ''has'' changed. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:16, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, I think it's pretty evident that you can't ask someone for evidence that something hasn't changed as a criteria to accept their initial evidence. That was a bit silly. I don't think we should just sweep away the information provided, but I do think we should use our own resources to help us construct the article in a way that is true to both the history and the current philosophy of the beliefs of the Mormon Church. I believe we want the article to read in a respectful fashion and where there are differences between traditional Christianity and Mormon beliefs, these differences should be presented in a non-judgmental way. Hopefully we can all agree on this. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:49, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: That is a wonderful sentiment Learn Together. Striving for an article that addresses religious topics in a respectful fashion where the differences between Christian and whatever that other religion are is treated in a non-judgmental way would go a long ways to increasing the reputability of Conservapedia. Is there any chance that [[atheism]] and [[agnosticism]] could be unlocked? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:30, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Editorial standards==

My position (as a site administrator) is that a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are. If there is a dispute between church critics and church members about "what is currently taught", then I say we have to go with what Dean (aka Crocoite) has said - whatever it is; I'm not going into detail right now, but I will if need be.

I have no doubt that early Mormon doctrine and practices involve a significant number of things that most modern Christians would repudiate. [[Polygamy]] is the most obvious one; race discrimination against blacks is also important. If Dean says LDS no longer accept these, that's good enough for me. Same for any other point '''unless''' clear proof is shown that contradicts what Dean has reported.

I intend to truncate the article severely, removing any disputed information. The burden of proof is "ultimately" on church detractors (pun intended). We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.

Scientific theories change. It was not much longer ago than the early days of LDS that biologists and doctors believed all sorts of crazy things about infection. The [[germ theory of disease]] is less than a century and a half old. There is [[plate tectonics]] to explain [[continental drift]], and all sorts of new ideas in physics.

Although some churches keep their theology static, others do indeed change. I trust contributor Dean to report these changes faithfully. We are all about trust here, and if anyone is going to contradict a sysop speaking about his own church, he'd better bring solid proof. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You may trust a member of the church, but I don't think that as an '''encyclopedia''', we should just take someone’s word. I'm not saying that Dean is untrustworthy, but rather that we need documentation to whatever is put in. To remove material without sourcing it would be a "poor" (see, I can be clever, too) way to do things.

:The fact is I have given sufficient documentation on the what is taught. Unless someone can give documentation to the counter, then the facts should remain. Polygamy is a great example. You said that the LDS church once taught it, and now doesn't. That's true. And it can be well documented that they stopped this practice and disavowed the teaching. So why can’t someone give sources on all these other facts, if they are no longer taught? The burden of proof is on the person saying that something has changed. It's not on me to show it's remained the same. Ho do you prove that things haven't changed? If they haven't changed, then by definition there would be no new info to cite. But if it has changed, then there should be things to point to and source.

:I don't distrust Dean. But you don't simply trust an encyclopedia just because it says something. You expect it to back it's claims up with documentation and sources. If it doesn't, then it's worthless. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:"''... a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are.''": I believe that this is assuming too much. I couldn't tell you all the details of my denomination's official stances on things, and I'm quite sure that my minister would have different views that the denomination on some points, so I wouldn't expect to learn all those positions from his preaching.
:"''We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.''": Neither can we assume that it's changed. In fact, if it was said last week, we can't assume that it's still maintained ''this week''! But in both cases, the onus is on the person claiming that it's change to show that.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

== Non-encyclopedic Material Here ==

It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", and the entire [[provocateur]]-like section here is going to be deleted. There are obvious reasons for this, but I'll give just one reason: it leads to bigotry against a group of people.

This is a fair warning to provide some time for discussion before the deletion occurs. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:As far as my knowledge goes, the page never claims that Mormon are or are not Christians. I could be wrong, but I don’t see that anywhere. There is a section on what positions various Christian denominations hold. Also, there's a section claiming, "Mormon beliefs that are different from traditional Christianity”, and it goes on to list the differences. But all of these things are factual and can be sourced. I understand that it doesn’t make everyone feel good, but are we not allowed to talk about things that are true just because they might upset someone? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why is it inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not Christian? Surely ''if'' it is not Christian, it is correct and proper to say so? And how is it okay to say this of an ''individual'' (such as Barack Obama) but not of a church?
: Further, why does it necessarily lead to bigotry? It's possible to respectfully disagree with Islam, Hinduism, atheism, etc., without being bigots, so why not with Mormonism?
: On many of the pages that I tend to frequent, to do with the creation/evolution issue, editors put in pro-evolutionary/anti-creationary material, and as long as it's factual and civil, I let it stand and point out the problems, rather than censor it by removing it. Why can't this article be handled in the same way?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I would like to ask you to reconsider. If there is some way in which the information needs to be rewritten in order to be respectful to the Mormon Church then I say we do that. I also do not believe we should take a position on what is right or wrong, but simply present factual differences. But since above all else we endeavor to show truth, then I don't believe simply removing the knowledge of differences is the way we should go. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:01, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree, I believe that we need to take a stand for what is right. As for the issue of whether or not the Mormon church is Christian, read Galatians 1:8-9. I cannot agree with calling a church "Christian" if they add to the Gospel. As for the material, If it is factual, it should stay. I don't think that it is disrespectful to Mormons. The info is '''MUCH''' more accurate and encyclopedic than a large portion of the Barck Obama article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I've read the above comments, but there's no getting around the fact that describing an entire church as "non-Christian" is inappropriate for this type of site. Such claims lead to contradictions, falsehoods, bias, and invite ulterior motives (like people who have axes to grind against a particular church). At a minimum, Christianity is a personal choice and it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed.

That said, the sincerity of a particular politician's claim (like Obama's claim) about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.

So the bottom line is don't rant and rave here about how you don't think someone else's church is Christian. I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Again, though, I don't know of anywhere that the article makes the implicit claim that "Mormons aren't Christians". It just shows differences between the LDS church and Christianity. All are sourced facts. What's wrong with fact? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:44, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable. The statements in the entry are not from the Mormon Church itself and were probably developed or promoted by someone who dislikes that church for some emotional or perhaps even closeminded reason. We're not going to allow such an inherently unreliable approach to be taken here. Find a Mormon Church leader to tell us what its doctrine is, if that's what you want. But you haven't done that, and I doubt you will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive when I say this, but you didn't read the previous discussions on this talk page, did you? I never cited a bunch of non-Mormons as to what the LDS church believes. I quoted Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, (all Mormon Presidents) as well as other Mormons in good standing with their church. I've given documentation about what these men believe from their own mouths. They are the ones making the claims about their doctrines and theology. So, unless Mormon leaders are an unreliable source for Mormon doctrine, then I think that they should suffice. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: This issue has become muddled. It appears that the following has occurred:
:# Ultimahero created a debate page "Debate: Are Mormons Christians?", and argued for the affirmative. An hour later Ultimahero was blocked for "violat[ing the] 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk" and the debate was deleted on the grounds that it was "posted by account that has been blocked, no other debaters". The debate was recreated by other editors (which, if nothing else, showed that others ''did'' want to debate it) and several times, and deleted again each time for various reasons (including that it was "non-encyclopedic", which is odd given that ''all'' Conservapedia debates are "non-encyclopedic" by virtue of them being debates, which encyclopedias don't have).
:# Ultimahero then started editing this article, ''but made no claim that Mormonism was not Christian''.
:# Skipping various other discussions, Andy then claims that "It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", ''despite this not being what Ultimahero had done in this article''.
:# While Ultimahero addresses the point that the article doesn't claim that Mormonism is not Christian, three administrators disagree that it's wrong ''in principle'' to claim that a given body is not Christian. That's not to say that it's ''not'' Christian. In order to decide that, one needs to determine what "Christian" means. It's clear that Mormonism is not an Islamic cult, nor a Hindu cult, and arguably it is a ''Christian'' cult. So really, whether it is Christian or not is not the issue. The issue is whether that question can even be ''discussed''.
: So we have two distinct issues being mixed up here. Now, on to specific responses to Andy's comments:
:"''it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed''": I don't think anybody is suggesting labelling the individuals in the religion as non-Christian, but (potentially) labelling ''the religion itself'' as non-Christian. Are you happy to label the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and the Ku Klux Klan as "Christian"?
:"''...a ... politician's claim ... about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.''": ''If'' the evidence about a religion is abundant and self-serving and contradicted by other evidence, why should the same not apply to an organisation?
:"''...don't rant and rave here...''": Excuse me? Are you accusing three of your administrators of "ranting and raving"? (I'm not counting Ultimahero, because he wasn't arguing that point.) Rather, we are making reasoned arguments, and getting an insult in return.
:"''I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.''": As I've already pointed out, people already do criticise my beliefs (including "ranting and raving"), and I respond with reasoned arguments, not censorship. Why is this particular belief protected?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Just as a side note, the page on [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] says this:

"They use the Bible as their holy book, including the New Testament, but draw conclusions that do not match mainstream Christian thought, including denying the Trinity and denying the divinity of Christ".

So, why is it okay to make the claim that the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] are considerably different than mainstream Christianity (which is substantiated by showing their denial of the Trinity and the deity of Christ), but it's not okay to make the same claim about the LDS church, even though they would deny both the Trinity and the deity of Christ as well? (Mormons would say that they affirm those beliefs, but they define both differently and actually hold views that are indeed against mainstream, historical, orthodox Christianity.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:43, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] has done nothing to deserve being blocked. He is not in violation of the 90/10 rule, and has violated no other rule. He should be unblocked. As for his position, there is nothing wrong with it, and I agree with him. If you are going to block him for it, (even though we do '''''not''''' block ideologically) you may as well block me too. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:16, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

If that is not encyclopedic, then much of the Barack Obama article is worse. Should I go clean it up? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, Obama is attempting to President and acquire power over all Americans. What he says, what he believes, and if and how he lies to advance his goals are relevant and should not be deleted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:: So factual information about the mormon church is irrelevant because it might be offensive to some people, but extremely questionable material is Ok in the Obama article because he is running for president? That doesn't make sense. If Mormons are just Christians like everyone else, then why do they try to convert us? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Yes, Tim, we should clean up the Barack Obama article. After all, he's only trying to be the President of ''America'' and have power over ''living Americans'' for ''four to eight years'', whereas the Mormon church is trying to be the presiding ''world'' religion and have power over ''all living and dead humans'' for ''all of history''. (That may be a rather loose description, but no looser than the claim about Obama.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Stating what the differences are between two groups is not "bashing" them. There is such a hypocrisy here. Like it has been mentioned before, we can leave everything in on the Barack Obama page, even though there's a lot of questionable material there, but this page, which is factual and has been sourced, can't remain because it's "bashing"? Well anytime you make a comment that isn't flattering it could be called "bashing". (Even if the statement’s true.) This is simply taking facts out because someone doesn’t like them. That’s all this amounts to. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

==Comparison with the mainstream==

Churches like JW and LDS are on the outskirts of traditional American Christianity. Certainly a large proportion of American Christians consider them '''non-Christian''' due to theological differences over the [[Trinity]] and so forth. It is against site policy to directly label them "non-Christian", though, so let us as writers working under a common leader agree how to collaborate.

I suggest we continue to categorize Mormons in the [[:Category:Christian Denominations]] while courteously informing our readers of any documented disputes over whether LDS is Christian or not. The point is not to hide the dispute, but to refrain from "pointing a provocative finger". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:If the information that shows the differences between the Mormon faith and traditional Christianity is to be removed, then how will our readers know that there is a difference at all? Say there's a difference but not be allowed to say what it is? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::How much doctrinal difference is allowed from [[traditional Christianity]] before a denomination is considered a [[sect]], a [[heresy]], or *shudder* a [[cult]]? And who decides? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Let me start by saying are you aware you changed the subject? I was not asking for any classification of what is a cult and who decides, only the right to be allowed to bring up differences from traditional Christianity without judgement. That being said, generally the doctrine of the trinity is considered to be a core doctrine. Christ as fully God and fully man dying for the sins of the world and through His sacrifice all can be saved. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:21, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Whilst Conservapedia might not want to take a position by labelling them as "non-Christian", how is labelling them "Christian" any more acceptable? That's still taking a position, and one that many Conservapedia supporters find objectionable.

"Cult" has a pretty-clear definition, so to suggest that it is hard to determine if a group is a cult is incorrect. I see that our article on that needs some work, though.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't believe we should take a stand either way. Conservapedia is a resource for all conservatives, and Mormons as a group are very conservative. The difficulty, of course, is that many other conservatives do not have the same view as Mormons do in regard to their relationship with Christianity. I believe we should allow the differences to speak for themselves, but do not apply labels declaring one way or the other what category the Mormon faith should fall into. I don't see that as being our place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only that, but the Bible itself makes it very clear that there are certain things one must believe in order to be a Christian. (The deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, etc.) Cultic groups and non-Christian churches will deny these teachings. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:32, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Controversial Material==

Look, I understand that this stuff creates a lot of controversy. But, the fact is I can source all of these things from Mormon leaders themselves. No, if can find me a source to the counter, then that's fine. But if you can't, then you have no leg to stand on. Simply removing it because it hurts somebody’s feelings is a poor excuse to make those edits. Prove the point, or let it go. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:07, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:I understand your frustration, but we don't edit war here. While I would like to see your information reinstated and looked at in more detail by those who have more intimate knowledge of the Mormon faith, you must also understand that it's not vandalism to remove it and it wasn't wise to put that in the title line. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Oh, but it was vandalism. Lets be honest here. If I went to another page, lets say the [[Atheism]] page or something on [[Liberals]], and I went to a section that was completely factual, fully sourced and perfectly relevant, and I just removed it without any good basis. What would that be called? Vandalism! So of course it was vandalism if it’s done here. Oh, but I forgot, we don’t look at it that way. Vandalism is not based on '''what''' is done, rather '''who''' does it. If someone else removes perfectly factual, relevant, and sourced material, it’s vandalism. But if an admin does it, then it’s “constructive editing”. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Once again, a wonderful sentiment. Could you please unlock the atheism page? Apparently, finding quotes of various historic figures and attributing them to the entirety of a group is not appropriate. Likewise, contributions from someone who is familiar with the subject matter rather than someone who has an axe to grind (so to speak) would go a long ways to moving articles from being hatchet jobs (pun intended) to something isn't completely one sided. Above, there was the comment of "Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable," - that is assuming, of course, that atheism is a religion. I understand that Conservapeida wishes to be a source of knowledge, but when articles are so one obviously one sided it leaves people looking for information other sites that may not be in agreement with Conservapedia. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Unless the sysop who protected the article is no longer available, only that sysop can unlock it. You'll have to bring it up with him. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:08, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, it is obvious to me that you have an ax to grind against the Mormon Church. Why aren't you ranting and raving about how the Democratic Party once supported slavery for blacks? No, you've singled out the Mormon Church without explanation or justification. It's not doing you any good and it's not fair to treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner. Give it a rest and ask yourself why you don't complain in a similar manner about the Democratic Party and countless other institutions. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
: He wasn't ranting and raving. Again I point out that if it's not fair to "treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner", why are so many entities, such as Barack Obama, treated in such a blatantly one-sided manner? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:28, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, no offense, but when you say things like that you show your utter ignorance on the subject. I have an “ax to grind against the Mormon church”? I’ve “singled out the Mormon church without explanation or justification”? Really? That’s come as news to me. Makes me wonder why I spent all that time debating Atheists, homosexuals, people who doubt the Bible, Liberals, etc. I‘ve also been debating about the Roman Catholic Church while working on this page. (Just check my edit history.) Seems to me that my interest is debating anyone who isn’t Christian. So please don’t make claims that demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==The removed link==

I'm sure that someone will ask why I removed the link about "Why Protestants agree with Mormons", so I'll quickly explain. The link in question did a very poor job of relating the two theologies, and quite frankly, misrepresented and misunderstood Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ. It's one thing for Mormons to try to show the parallels between themselves and Christians, but we shouldn't misrepresent one another. I do not agree with LDS teachings, but I certainly would not wish to present incorrect info about them. So I simply do not wish for the Christian side to be misunderstood with that link in question. [[User:JimmyP|JimmyP]] 23:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:You say the link "misrepresented and misunderstood Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ" but you don't say how it does that. Please explain. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:41, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: Please use the talk page and wait for the reply before removing an important information. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:21, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

What? No one has objected. I would be more than happy to talk with anyone about it, but no one has said anything. What's wrong with making a change then letting discussion take place if it is necessary? There may be no need for discussion on this, so I see no reason to sit back and wait. [[User:JimmyP|JimmyP]] 12:25, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

What does that link have to do with anything? It links to a site about credit card debt. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:12, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Controversy as Christians?==

There is a section devoted to whether or not Mormons are Christians. However, this issue is not actually adressed in the section. Where is the controversy? Don't they have the words "Church of Jesus Christ" in their name? Oh, wait. That is their name. Where's the controversy?

:That the reference to the controversy has been removed does not mean that it does not exist. And I take it you are not being serious with the name, as if names are voted upon by the greater community for inclusion. If you truly believe a name defines an entity, then you may wish to move to a different Democratic nation -- such as North Korea. While it is not the place of this site to say who is right, that there is a controversy is not a matter of debate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:20, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

==History Section==

I started a history section, although it's all about Utah, as the bit about the Church before Utah is in the introduction. I'd like to turn it into a larger history section, hopefully going from the founding up to present day. I'm happy to write about the period from 1847-1890, I'm working off a paper I wrote in college about the "Mormon War" of 1857. My knowledge of the history of the church basically stops with the leaders finally coming out of hiding from federal marshals and issuing the "Manifesto," as this ended the federal government's fight with the Church.

So, I have two requests:
1.) Could someone help out with the history after 1890?
2.) I'm planning on moving the historical bit down from the introduction and into a history section. Could someone suggest an alternate introduction? Or would it be ok to say the same information twice?

I'm also going to source all the facts I put in the section, but it's 12:10 and time for bed now. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 00:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-11-18T05:04:20Z

ArnoldFriend: spelling

[[Image:Birmingham temple.jpg|right|Birmingham temple]]
The '''Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,'''<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Style Guide - The Name of the Church] LDS.org</ref> informally known as the '''Mormon Church''', was organized on 6 April 1830 in [[Fayette]], [[New York]], by [[Joseph Smith]]. As the Church grew, new converts gathered in [[Ohio]] and [[Missouri]]. While the Latter-day Saints in [[Kirtland]], Ohio, experienced persecution, those gathered in Missouri were repeatedly driven from town to town by angry mobs. Having been forced from Missouri in 1839, Church members gathered in Illinois and built a thriving city called [[Nauvoo]] in a swampy bend of the Mississippi River. However, within seven years they were again forced from their homes. Led by [[Brigham Young]], these pioneers trekked 1,300 miles (2,092 kilometers) westward to the Salt Lake Valley, to escape persecution, and founded [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]], where the Latter-Day Saint Church continues to be headquartered today. The church has now expanded to more than 12.5 million members.<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=86e6635a56d8f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD LDS Newsroom - Early Church History]</ref><ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Worldwide Church Statistics] LDS.org</ref>

Church members follow a law of health known as the [[Word of Wisdom]] that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and illegal drugs.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89 The Word of Wisdom] Scriptures.lds.org</ref>
The U.S religious landscape survey published in February 2008 shows that [[Mormon]]s have the largest families closely followed by Muslims. <ref> [http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/25/america/25usreligion.php U.S religious landscape survey]</ref>

==Beliefs==
Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe in [[Christ]], and they strive to follow his example. They testify of Christ and their Church bears his name. From the organization of the LDS Church in 1830, the Church's doctrine focused on Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, Jr. wrote in 1842 to ''Chicago Democrat'' editor John Wentworth a statement of Church beliefs. The first of these 13 doctrinal declarations, later called the Articles of [[Faith]], stated the following:<blockquote>“We believe in [[God]] the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the [[Holy Ghost]]."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4ebe76e6ffe0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith] from the October 2002 General Conference</ref></blockquote>

"The Articles of Faith are thirteen statements written by the Prophet Joseph Smith describing some of the basic teachings and ordinances of the Church". <ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1]</ref> <ref>[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/home%20and%20family.htm/gospel%20principles.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0 ''Gospel Principles'', The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah. 1997</ref> 

The LDS website states: <blockquote>"We believe in the Jesus of the [[New Testament]], and we believe what the New Testament teaches about Him. We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know."<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-56-16,00.html Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?] As answered on the LDS Church's website</ref></blockquote>

Members of the church believe that [[God the Father]] and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct glorified beings, that God, the Father of all spirits (even including Lucifer) and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a vision in the spring of 1820 in response to Joseph's prayer requesting to know which of the many local [[Christian]] denominations he should join himself with, and that They told him that he should join with none of them. The reason behind this direction was as follows, according to LDS beliefs: the organization or "church" put in place by Jesus Christ during His ministry both before and after His resurrection was meant to remain as long as there were faithful followers, although there was clear understanding that a "falling away" (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3) or apostasy would take place, destroying for a time this organization (though not destroying faith in Jesus Christ, which did persist). This church organization provided a structure whereby two key components were maintained: the Priesthood, and continuing and direct revelation from the ascended Jesus Christ to His chosen Apostles.

According to LDS beliefs, the Priesthood is the authority given by Jesus Christ to His [[Apostles]] and others, both to direct the Church, as well as to perform the associated and necessary ordinances, such as baptism by water immersion, and giving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Without this authority, it would be impossible to perform them in an authorized manner (see [[Book of Acts|Acts]] 8:18-23). This authority, in actuality a covenant of service, only placed on men and not at all a legitimate source of self-aggrandizement, could only be passed from one authorized holder to another worthy man through the laying on of hands. Thus, while although initially the full quorum of 12 Apostles was maintained (see Acts 1:15-26), the Apostles were killed one by one and the Lord, in His mercy, ceased to give these murderers further opportunity of condemning themselves as more Apostles were not chosen. Thus, without the Priesthood and without the continuing revelation that the Lord provided to His Apostles to lead and guide the church, it fell way, as had been prophesied.

Therefore, LDS doctrine teaches of the necessity of a complete restoration rather than simply a reformation, and for this reason, Joseph Smith was called by God to be the first prophet, in the same sense as [[Moses]], [[Isaiah]], or [[Peter]], since the times of the New Testament. Mormons believe that since Joseph Smith, the leaders of the Church, from Brigham Young to [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] today, were and are prophets, with the complete Priesthood authority (restored through the laying on of hands by first [[John the Baptist]] and then by Apostles Peter, [[James]] and [[John]]). Mormons revere these men just as the Biblical prophets are revered and in particular, honor Joseph Smith for being the man through whom God and Jesus Christ chose to restore Their church to the earth.

===JesusChrist.lds.org===
[[Image:FaithinChrist.jpg|thumb|right|A screen shot of the new JesusChrist.lds.org Web site.]]
The Church has a multimedia website about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ at [http://jesuschrist.lds.org/?cid=wpats1 JesusChrist.lds.org].

Elder [[Russell Nelson|Russell M. Nelson]] speaks about the new website ''JesusChrist.lds.org''. [http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/media/mediaplayer.swf?media=http://broadcast.lds.org/newsroom/video/flv/2-29-08_Nelson.flv&type=FLV video]

===Scriptures===

The four standard works of the Church are:
*The King James Version of the [[Bible]] - both the Old and New Testaments
*[[The Book of Mormon|The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ]] - Translation of the spiritual record of two ancient civilizations in the western hemisphere, one from the time of the [[Tower of Babel]] to about 600 B.C., and the other from 600 B.C. to 421 A.D.
*[[Doctrine and Covenants]] - Modern-day revelation as received by the Prophet Joseph Smith and other modern-day prophets
*[[Pearl of Great Price]] - Selection of translations, revelations and narrations from the Prophet Joseph Smith

====Book of Mormon====

President [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] said the following about the [[Book of Mormon]] in an October, 2002 [[General Conference]] address entitled "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith": <blockquote>"This remarkable book stands as a testimonial to the living reality of the Son of God. The Bible declares that 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established' (Matt. 18:16). The Bible, the testament of the Old World, is one witness. The Book of Mormon, the testament of the New World, is another witness.</blockquote><blockquote>I cannot understand why the Christian world does not accept this book. I would think they would be looking for anything and everything that would establish without question the reality and the divinity of the Savior of the world."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e74c4d4297602110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD Mormons Reflect Christianity in Lifestyle] as stated in the April, 2007 newsroom article at lds.org</ref></blockquote>

===Restoration of the Priesthood===
Members of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] believe that on May 15, 1829 A.D., the resurrected [[John the Baptist]] appeared to [[Joseph Smith|Joseph Smith, Jr.]] and [[Oliver Cowdery]] and conferred upon them the [[Aaronic priesthood]], which includes the authority to baptize.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/13 Doctrine and Covenants 13]</ref> Later, the resurrected Peter, James, and John appeared to them and conferred the [[Melchizedek priesthood]].

==Special Witnesses of Christ==
These prophets and apostles have given their testimonies as special witnesses of Jesus Christ.

*President [[Gordon Hinckley|Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008)]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-gordon-b-hinckley-1910-2008-garden-tomb Special Witnesses of Christ], President Gordon B. Hinckley at the Garden Tomb, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref> <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-gordon-b-hinckley-1910-2008-sacred-grove Special Witnesses of Christ], President Gordon B. Hinckley at the Sacred Grove, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*President [[Thomas Monson|Thomas S. Monson]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-thomas-s-monson Special Witnesses of Christ], President Thomas S. Monson, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*President [[Henry Eyring|Henry B. Eyring]]
*President [[Dieter Uchtdorf|Dieter F. Uchtdorf]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-dieter-f-uchtdorf Special Witnesses of Christ], President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*President [[Boyd Packer|Boyd K. Packer]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-boyd-k-packer Special Witnesses of Christ], President Boyd K. Packer, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[L. Tom Perry]]
*Elder [[Russell Nelson|Russell M. Nelson]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/elder-russell-m-nelson Special Witnesses of Christ], Elder Russell M. Nelson, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[Dallin Oaks|Dallin H. Oaks]]
*Elder [[M. Russell Ballard]]
*Elder [[Joseph Wirthlin|Joseph B. Wirthlin]]
*Elder [[Richard Scott|Richard G. Scott]]
*Elder [[Robert Hales|Robert D. Hales]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/elder-robert-d-hales Special Witnesses of Christ], Elder Robert D. Hales, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[Jeffrey Holland|Jeffrey R. Holland]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/elder-jeffrey-r-holland Special Witnesses of Christ], Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[David Bednar|David A. Bednar]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/elder-elder-david-a-bednar Special Witnesses of Christ], Elder David A. Bednar, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[Quentin Cook|Quentin L. Cook]]
*Elder [[D. Todd Christofferson]]

==Wards==
[[Image:DCTemple.jpg|right|Washington DC Temple]]
Wards are geographically-defined congregations of the church. The Bishop is the spiritual leader of the ward and he serves with two counselors, all three chosen from among the body of the Ward. Bishops are usually called to serve for a period of five years and do so on a volunteer and unpaid basis, without formal ecclesiastical training, and while maintaining their secular professions.

The entire ward meets every week on Sunday to worship the Lord Jesus Christ and to receive counsel. The meetings are divided into three different hours:
*First hour - '''Sacrament meeting'''. Our main purpose in attending sacrament meeting is to renew our covenants through partaking of the sacrament and to worship our Heavenly Father through hymn singing and prayer. Sacrament meeting provides an opportunity for members to strengthen their faith, find inner peace and spiritual healing, receive inspiration, and be instructed in the gospel. A member of the bishopric begins the meeting welcoming all members and visitors. There is an opening hymn followed by an opening prayer (invocation). This is followed by conducting ward business where members are released and sustained from callings. Then the sacrament of bread and water is prepared, blessed by the priesthood, and passed to the congregation. The sacrament is a renewal of the covenants each member made at baptism to remember the Lord Jesus Christ and to keep his commandments. On the first Sunday of the month, the meeting conductor starts off the bearing of testimonies by offering his own personal testimony. A testimony is a personal witness that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. As inspired by the Spirit, other members give their testimonies. On the other three Sundays, there are talks from members. The sacrament meeting concludes with a closing hymn and prayer.
*Second hour - '''Sunday School''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. Its purposes are to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and strengthen individuals and families by encouraging them to study the scriptures, obey the commandments, receive the essential ordinances, and keep the associated covenants. All the adults and youth meet in Sunday School classes. Children younger than twelve and three or older attend Primary. Children who are at least 18 months old but who are not yet 3 years old on 1 January may attend nursery at the discretion of their parents.
:'''Adult Sunday School''' - The adults meet in several different classes. New members to the Church usually attend a Gospel Essentials class where they learn the basic teachings of the Church. Most of the other adults attend a Gospel Doctrine class where they are instructed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the scriptures. The main subjects rotate every four years: Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and the last year is Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and Church history. The bible used by Church members is the King James Version.
:'''Youth Sunday School''' - The youth meet in several different classes according to their ages. There are usually separate classes for twelve and thirteen year olds, fourteen and fifteen year olds and sixteen and seventeen year olds. When they turn eighteen, the member starts attending the adult classes.
:'''Primary''' - The purpose of Primary is to teach children the gospel of Jesus Christ and help them learn to live it.
:'''Nursery''' - The purpose of the nursery class is to provide a loving, safe, organized place where young children can increase their understanding of and love for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, have positive experiences in a Church setting, and grow in feelings of self-worth.
*Third hour - '''Priesthood''', '''Relief Society''', '''Young Men''', '''Young Women''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. The men meet in Priesthood, the adult women meet in Relief Society,the male youth meet in Young Men, the female youth meet in Young Women and the children continue to meet in Primary or Nursery.
:'''Priesthood''' - The purpose of the priesthood meetings are to increase priesthood holders’ knowledge of the gospel; strengthen their dedication to becoming better husbands, fathers, sons, and neighbors; and help them become active participants in fulfilling the mission of the Church.
:'''Relief Society ''' - The purpose of Relief Society is to provide relief for the poor and needy and to bring people to Christ.
:'''Young Men''' - The purpose of the Young men group is to prepare the young men of the Aaronic Priesthood to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, to receive the ordinances of the temple, and to serve a full-time mission.
:'''Young Women''' - The purpose of the Young Women organization is to help each young woman, ages 12 to 18, "come unto Christ".

==General Conference==
The church holds a semi-annual General Conference (in April and October, five two-hour sessions over two days) during which members listen to spoken messages from the Prophet and President of the church, his two counselors, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other Church leaders. These messages are received by members of the church as modern-day revelation, just as the words of Peter were received by the followers of Jesus Christ in his day. Many members travel to Salt Lake City for the two-day conference, but the proceedings are broadcast via satellite throughout the world (as well as streamed on the internet) so that the entire church can participate.

The semi-annual conference was held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle for 132 years, but in 2000, the church completed construction of the Conference Center and has held the conference there since April 2000. The Conference Center's primary feature is an auditorium that seats 21,000.

==History of the Church in Utah ==
After the move to what would eventually become Utah, members of the Church founded the Territory of Deseret. While this was soon scaled down to the Utah territory by the United states government, the name Deseret was retained in the form of a newspaper (the Deseret Times) and the symbol on the state's highways (the beehive). Brigham Young, the then president of the Church was appointed governor of the Territory. The territory thrived, with the Saints in all positions of power (a territory consisting almost entirely of Saints unsurprisingly elected a territorial legislature that was entirely Mormon).

When federal officials, placed as patronage positions, arrived in Utah and found they could not profit in the usual way (skimming money off the top of deals, insisting on bribes and kickbacks for contracts), they started a drumbeat of negativity towards the Church in Washington. This led to the United States government marching an army of 2,500 troops towards Utah in 1857. This exercise of a nation taking arms against its own people failed miserably, with the troops poorly supplied and forced to march through the Rocky Mountains in the winter. Armed conflict was averted by Thomas Kaine, who convinced the governor of the territory at the time, Alfred Cummings, to order the army to pass by Salt Lake City and camp miles away. This failed expedition helped the Saints maintain a greater part of their independence from the federal government for a while longer.

==Controversy==

====Position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with respect to Christianity====
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider themselves Christians. They worship Jesus Christ as their Creator (see John 1:3), their Savior and Redeemer, and ultimately their eternal Judge. They believe that the events described in the New Testament in reality occurred, including Jesus Christ's virgin birth, his sinless life and miraculous ministry, and his suffering, death, and literal resurrection, through which forgiveness of sin, salvation (understood in LDS doctrine to indicate resurrection and immortality, a free gift to all; see 1 Corinthians 15:22), and ultimately exaltation (returning to and eternally dwelling in the presence of God and Jesus Christ and becoming "joint-heirs with Christ"; see Romans 8:17), are made possible.

The eleventh of the above-mentioned thirteen articles of faith contains the following statement:
<blockquote>“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (see Articles of Faith 1:11)</blockquote>

====African Americans and the Priesthood====
Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse.
Therefore, African Americans were banned from the priesthood until, in June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball is said to have received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2).
<ref name="Black">Emmanuel Abu Kissi, [http://byustudies.byu.edu/Reviews/Pages/reviewdetail.aspx?reviewID=117 Book review of Black and Mormon] BYU Studies Review, October 2006.</ref><ref> [http://www.pbs.org/mormons/themes/prohibition.html The Prohibition Against Blacks in the Priesthood], Public Broadcasting Service.</ref> <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=36f2ce9566a43110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ LDS.org - Topic Definition - Priesthood Ordination before 1978]</ref>

The Book of Mormon attests that God invites “all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . and all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). In our present day the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have stated that all human beings are created in the image of God and that each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of Deity. <ref>“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” 23 Sept. 1995, published in Ensign, Nov. 1995</ref>

<blockquote>In the twentieth century, various Church leaders continued to offer possible reasons why a race of people was prohibited from holding the priesthood. One explanation, carried over from the previous century, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain, the first murderer, and therefore were denied the priesthood because of lineage. Another theory held that blacks were less valiant in the premortal existence and therefore had certain spiritual restrictions placed upon them during mortality. Priesthood denial was perceived to be one of these spiritual restrictions. But by mid-century, President David O. McKay stated, "There is not now, and there never has been, a doctrine in this Church that the negroes are under a divine curse. . . .It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed".<ref name="Black" /></blockquote>

===Views on Same-Gender Attraction===
In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote an article in the Ensign magazine entitled "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction". <ref>[http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e5cbba12dc825110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]</ref> In 2007, the Church published a pamphlet "God Loveth His Children", for those suffering from same-gender attraction. <ref>http://www.lds.org/topics/pdf/GodLovethHisChildren_04824_000.pdf God Loveth His Children</ref>

On June 7, 2006, ABC’s Nightline ran a story on members and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who struggle with same-gender attraction. The Church published a response to the inaccuracies in the Nightline story. <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d4ec39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Church Responds to Nightline Story on Mormons and Homosexuality]</ref>

The Church has a section on same-gender attraction on the Newsroom website. <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=27f71f1dd189f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1 Same-Gender Attraction]</ref>

===Polygamy===
Early ill will towards Mormons was sparked in part by its early practice of [[polygamy]], which was sanctioned from 1840 until 1890. Even though it was officially discontinued in 1890, Mormonism and polygamy continue to be associated in the minds of the uninformed.

A 1998 statement by current LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley states:
:This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-1,00.html What is the Church’s position on polygamy?] LDS website</ref>

However, in addition to "the" Church (the 12.5-million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), there continue to be small splinter groups, which also consider themselves to be Mormons and do practice polygamy. The most notable is the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (often called "Fundamentalist Mormons.") This group numbers about ten thousand. It broke from the Mormon church in 1890 over the issue of polygamy. It made headlines in 2006 and 2007, when leader Warren Jeffs was arrested by the FBI and indicted by a grand jury on charges of arranging illegal "marriages" between male followers and underage girls.

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

==See Also==
*[[List of LDS temples]]
*[[Christianity]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.lds.org Official Church Website]
*[http://www.mormon.org Official Church Website for Investigators]
*[http://scriptures.lds.org Official Online Version of the LDS Scriptures]
*[http://www.familysearch.org/ Official Church Genealogy Website, "the largest collection of free family history, family tree and genealogy records in the world."]
*[http://www.ldschurchtemples.com "News, schedules, photographs, and interesting facts of the temples of the LDS Church"]
*[http://www.fairlds.org Mormon Apologetics]
*[http://www.maxwellinstitute.com BYU Theologians]
*[http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/ About Mormons]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints Wikipedia article] on the LDS Church
*[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3282.html Are Mormons Conservative?]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html 21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith]
*[http://www.moroni10.com/protestants.html Why Protestants Agree With Mormons (They Just Don’t Realize It)], Kelly Bingham, December 7, 2007
*[http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/what-you-will-find-when-you-step-inside-a-mormon-chapel What You Will Find When You Step Inside a Mormon Chapel], LDS Newsroom, 19 August 2008

====Links to Groups Not in Favor of the Mormon Church====

*[http://jesusnotjoseph.com JesusNotJoseph]
*[http://www.mrm.org Mormonism Research Ministry]
*[http://www.evangelicalbible.com/jw.htm#LDS The Mormon Church & the Nature of God]

[[Category:Christian Denominations]]
[[Category:LDS Church]]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-11-18T05:03:28Z

ArnoldFriend: Started a section on the history of the church in Utah, goes from 1847-1860. Needs a great deal more work, and more material. I can keep working on it up till the 1890's and the Edmund's Act.

[[Image:Birmingham temple.jpg|right|Birmingham temple]]
The '''Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,'''<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Style Guide - The Name of the Church] LDS.org</ref> informally known as the '''Mormon Church''', was organized on 6 April 1830 in [[Fayette]], [[New York]], by [[Joseph Smith]]. As the Church grew, new converts gathered in [[Ohio]] and [[Missouri]]. While the Latter-day Saints in [[Kirtland]], Ohio, experienced persecution, those gathered in Missouri were repeatedly driven from town to town by angry mobs. Having been forced from Missouri in 1839, Church members gathered in Illinois and built a thriving city called [[Nauvoo]] in a swampy bend of the Mississippi River. However, within seven years they were again forced from their homes. Led by [[Brigham Young]], these pioneers trekked 1,300 miles (2,092 kilometers) westward to the Salt Lake Valley, to escape persecution, and founded [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]], where the Latter-Day Saint Church continues to be headquartered today. The church has now expanded to more than 12.5 million members.<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=86e6635a56d8f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD LDS Newsroom - Early Church History]</ref><ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Worldwide Church Statistics] LDS.org</ref>

Church members follow a law of health known as the [[Word of Wisdom]] that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and illegal drugs.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89 The Word of Wisdom] Scriptures.lds.org</ref>
The U.S religious landscape survey published in February 2008 shows that [[Mormon]]s have the largest families closely followed by Muslims. <ref> [http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/25/america/25usreligion.php U.S religious landscape survey]</ref>

==Beliefs==
Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe in [[Christ]], and they strive to follow his example. They testify of Christ and their Church bears his name. From the organization of the LDS Church in 1830, the Church's doctrine focused on Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, Jr. wrote in 1842 to ''Chicago Democrat'' editor John Wentworth a statement of Church beliefs. The first of these 13 doctrinal declarations, later called the Articles of [[Faith]], stated the following:<blockquote>“We believe in [[God]] the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the [[Holy Ghost]]."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4ebe76e6ffe0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith] from the October 2002 General Conference</ref></blockquote>

"The Articles of Faith are thirteen statements written by the Prophet Joseph Smith describing some of the basic teachings and ordinances of the Church". <ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1]</ref> <ref>[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/home%20and%20family.htm/gospel%20principles.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0 ''Gospel Principles'', The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah. 1997</ref> 

The LDS website states: <blockquote>"We believe in the Jesus of the [[New Testament]], and we believe what the New Testament teaches about Him. We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know."<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-56-16,00.html Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?] As answered on the LDS Church's website</ref></blockquote>

Members of the church believe that [[God the Father]] and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct glorified beings, that God, the Father of all spirits (even including Lucifer) and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a vision in the spring of 1820 in response to Joseph's prayer requesting to know which of the many local [[Christian]] denominations he should join himself with, and that They told him that he should join with none of them. The reason behind this direction was as follows, according to LDS beliefs: the organization or "church" put in place by Jesus Christ during His ministry both before and after His resurrection was meant to remain as long as there were faithful followers, although there was clear understanding that a "falling away" (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3) or apostasy would take place, destroying for a time this organization (though not destroying faith in Jesus Christ, which did persist). This church organization provided a structure whereby two key components were maintained: the Priesthood, and continuing and direct revelation from the ascended Jesus Christ to His chosen Apostles.

According to LDS beliefs, the Priesthood is the authority given by Jesus Christ to His [[Apostles]] and others, both to direct the Church, as well as to perform the associated and necessary ordinances, such as baptism by water immersion, and giving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Without this authority, it would be impossible to perform them in an authorized manner (see [[Book of Acts|Acts]] 8:18-23). This authority, in actuality a covenant of service, only placed on men and not at all a legitimate source of self-aggrandizement, could only be passed from one authorized holder to another worthy man through the laying on of hands. Thus, while although initially the full quorum of 12 Apostles was maintained (see Acts 1:15-26), the Apostles were killed one by one and the Lord, in His mercy, ceased to give these murderers further opportunity of condemning themselves as more Apostles were not chosen. Thus, without the Priesthood and without the continuing revelation that the Lord provided to His Apostles to lead and guide the church, it fell way, as had been prophesied.

Therefore, LDS doctrine teaches of the necessity of a complete restoration rather than simply a reformation, and for this reason, Joseph Smith was called by God to be the first prophet, in the same sense as [[Moses]], [[Isaiah]], or [[Peter]], since the times of the New Testament. Mormons believe that since Joseph Smith, the leaders of the Church, from Brigham Young to [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] today, were and are prophets, with the complete Priesthood authority (restored through the laying on of hands by first [[John the Baptist]] and then by Apostles Peter, [[James]] and [[John]]). Mormons revere these men just as the Biblical prophets are revered and in particular, honor Joseph Smith for being the man through whom God and Jesus Christ chose to restore Their church to the earth.

===JesusChrist.lds.org===
[[Image:FaithinChrist.jpg|thumb|right|A screen shot of the new JesusChrist.lds.org Web site.]]
The Church has a multimedia website about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ at [http://jesuschrist.lds.org/?cid=wpats1 JesusChrist.lds.org].

Elder [[Russell Nelson|Russell M. Nelson]] speaks about the new website ''JesusChrist.lds.org''. [http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/media/mediaplayer.swf?media=http://broadcast.lds.org/newsroom/video/flv/2-29-08_Nelson.flv&type=FLV video]

===Scriptures===

The four standard works of the Church are:
*The King James Version of the [[Bible]] - both the Old and New Testaments
*[[The Book of Mormon|The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ]] - Translation of the spiritual record of two ancient civilizations in the western hemisphere, one from the time of the [[Tower of Babel]] to about 600 B.C., and the other from 600 B.C. to 421 A.D.
*[[Doctrine and Covenants]] - Modern-day revelation as received by the Prophet Joseph Smith and other modern-day prophets
*[[Pearl of Great Price]] - Selection of translations, revelations and narrations from the Prophet Joseph Smith

====Book of Mormon====

President [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] said the following about the [[Book of Mormon]] in an October, 2002 [[General Conference]] address entitled "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith": <blockquote>"This remarkable book stands as a testimonial to the living reality of the Son of God. The Bible declares that 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established' (Matt. 18:16). The Bible, the testament of the Old World, is one witness. The Book of Mormon, the testament of the New World, is another witness.</blockquote><blockquote>I cannot understand why the Christian world does not accept this book. I would think they would be looking for anything and everything that would establish without question the reality and the divinity of the Savior of the world."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e74c4d4297602110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD Mormons Reflect Christianity in Lifestyle] as stated in the April, 2007 newsroom article at lds.org</ref></blockquote>

===Restoration of the Priesthood===
Members of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] believe that on May 15, 1829 A.D., the resurrected [[John the Baptist]] appeared to [[Joseph Smith|Joseph Smith, Jr.]] and [[Oliver Cowdery]] and conferred upon them the [[Aaronic priesthood]], which includes the authority to baptize.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/13 Doctrine and Covenants 13]</ref> Later, the resurrected Peter, James, and John appeared to them and conferred the [[Melchizedek priesthood]].

==Special Witnesses of Christ==
These prophets and apostles have given their testimonies as special witnesses of Jesus Christ.

*President [[Gordon Hinckley|Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008)]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-gordon-b-hinckley-1910-2008-garden-tomb Special Witnesses of Christ], President Gordon B. Hinckley at the Garden Tomb, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref> <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-gordon-b-hinckley-1910-2008-sacred-grove Special Witnesses of Christ], President Gordon B. Hinckley at the Sacred Grove, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*President [[Thomas Monson|Thomas S. Monson]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-thomas-s-monson Special Witnesses of Christ], President Thomas S. Monson, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*President [[Henry Eyring|Henry B. Eyring]]
*President [[Dieter Uchtdorf|Dieter F. Uchtdorf]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-dieter-f-uchtdorf Special Witnesses of Christ], President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*President [[Boyd Packer|Boyd K. Packer]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-boyd-k-packer Special Witnesses of Christ], President Boyd K. Packer, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[L. Tom Perry]]
*Elder [[Russell Nelson|Russell M. Nelson]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/elder-russell-m-nelson Special Witnesses of Christ], Elder Russell M. Nelson, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[Dallin Oaks|Dallin H. Oaks]]
*Elder [[M. Russell Ballard]]
*Elder [[Joseph Wirthlin|Joseph B. Wirthlin]]
*Elder [[Richard Scott|Richard G. Scott]]
*Elder [[Robert Hales|Robert D. Hales]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/elder-robert-d-hales Special Witnesses of Christ], Elder Robert D. Hales, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[Jeffrey Holland|Jeffrey R. Holland]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/elder-jeffrey-r-holland Special Witnesses of Christ], Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[David Bednar|David A. Bednar]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/elder-elder-david-a-bednar Special Witnesses of Christ], Elder David A. Bednar, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[Quentin Cook|Quentin L. Cook]]
*Elder [[D. Todd Christofferson]]

==Wards==
[[Image:DCTemple.jpg|right|Washington DC Temple]]
Wards are geographically-defined congregations of the church. The Bishop is the spiritual leader of the ward and he serves with two counselors, all three chosen from among the body of the Ward. Bishops are usually called to serve for a period of five years and do so on a volunteer and unpaid basis, without formal ecclesiastical training, and while maintaining their secular professions.

The entire ward meets every week on Sunday to worship the Lord Jesus Christ and to receive counsel. The meetings are divided into three different hours:
*First hour - '''Sacrament meeting'''. Our main purpose in attending sacrament meeting is to renew our covenants through partaking of the sacrament and to worship our Heavenly Father through hymn singing and prayer. Sacrament meeting provides an opportunity for members to strengthen their faith, find inner peace and spiritual healing, receive inspiration, and be instructed in the gospel. A member of the bishopric begins the meeting welcoming all members and visitors. There is an opening hymn followed by an opening prayer (invocation). This is followed by conducting ward business where members are released and sustained from callings. Then the sacrament of bread and water is prepared, blessed by the priesthood, and passed to the congregation. The sacrament is a renewal of the covenants each member made at baptism to remember the Lord Jesus Christ and to keep his commandments. On the first Sunday of the month, the meeting conductor starts off the bearing of testimonies by offering his own personal testimony. A testimony is a personal witness that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. As inspired by the Spirit, other members give their testimonies. On the other three Sundays, there are talks from members. The sacrament meeting concludes with a closing hymn and prayer.
*Second hour - '''Sunday School''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. Its purposes are to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and strengthen individuals and families by encouraging them to study the scriptures, obey the commandments, receive the essential ordinances, and keep the associated covenants. All the adults and youth meet in Sunday School classes. Children younger than twelve and three or older attend Primary. Children who are at least 18 months old but who are not yet 3 years old on 1 January may attend nursery at the discretion of their parents.
:'''Adult Sunday School''' - The adults meet in several different classes. New members to the Church usually attend a Gospel Essentials class where they learn the basic teachings of the Church. Most of the other adults attend a Gospel Doctrine class where they are instructed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the scriptures. The main subjects rotate every four years: Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and the last year is Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and Church history. The bible used by Church members is the King James Version.
:'''Youth Sunday School''' - The youth meet in several different classes according to their ages. There are usually separate classes for twelve and thirteen year olds, fourteen and fifteen year olds and sixteen and seventeen year olds. When they turn eighteen, the member starts attending the adult classes.
:'''Primary''' - The purpose of Primary is to teach children the gospel of Jesus Christ and help them learn to live it.
:'''Nursery''' - The purpose of the nursery class is to provide a loving, safe, organized place where young children can increase their understanding of and love for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, have positive experiences in a Church setting, and grow in feelings of self-worth.
*Third hour - '''Priesthood''', '''Relief Society''', '''Young Men''', '''Young Women''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. The men meet in Priesthood, the adult women meet in Relief Society,the male youth meet in Young Men, the female youth meet in Young Women and the children continue to meet in Primary or Nursery.
:'''Priesthood''' - The purpose of the priesthood meetings are to increase priesthood holders’ knowledge of the gospel; strengthen their dedication to becoming better husbands, fathers, sons, and neighbors; and help them become active participants in fulfilling the mission of the Church.
:'''Relief Society ''' - The purpose of Relief Society is to provide relief for the poor and needy and to bring people to Christ.
:'''Young Men''' - The purpose of the Young men group is to prepare the young men of the Aaronic Priesthood to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, to receive the ordinances of the temple, and to serve a full-time mission.
:'''Young Women''' - The purpose of the Young Women organization is to help each young woman, ages 12 to 18, "come unto Christ".

==General Conference==
The church holds a semi-annual General Conference (in April and October, five two-hour sessions over two days) during which members listen to spoken messages from the Prophet and President of the church, his two counselors, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other Church leaders. These messages are received by members of the church as modern-day revelation, just as the words of Peter were received by the followers of Jesus Christ in his day. Many members travel to Salt Lake City for the two-day conference, but the proceedings are broadcast via satellite throughout the world (as well as streamed on the internet) so that the entire church can participate.

The semi-annual conference was held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle for 132 years, but in 2000, the church completed construction of the Conference Center and has held the conference there since April 2000. The Conference Center's primary feature is an auditorium that seats 21,000.

==History of the Church in Utah ==
After the move to what would eventually become Utah, members of the Church founded the Territory of Deseret. While this was soon scaled down to the Utah territory by the United states government, the name Deseret was retained in the form of a newspaper (the Deseret Times) and the symbol on the state's highways (the beehive). Bringham Young, the then president of the Church was appointed governor of the Territory. The territory thrived, with the Saints in all positions of power (a territory consisting almost entirely of Saints unsurprisingly elected a territorial legislature that was entirely Mormon).

When federal officials, placed as patronage positions, arrived in Utah and found they could not profit in the usual way (skimming money off the top of deals, insisting on bribes and kickbacks for contracts), they started a drumbeat of negativity towards the Church in Washington. This led to the United States government marching an army of 2,500 troops towards Utah in 1857. This exercise of a nation taking arms against its own people failed miserably, with the troops poorly supplied and forced to march through the Rocky Mountains in the winter. Armed conflict was averted by Thomas Kaine, who convinced the governor of the territory at the time, Alfred Cummings, to order the army to pass by Salt Lake City and camp miles away. This failed expedition helped the Saints maintain a greater part of their independence from the federal government for a while longer.

==Controversy==

====Position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with respect to Christianity====
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider themselves Christians. They worship Jesus Christ as their Creator (see John 1:3), their Savior and Redeemer, and ultimately their eternal Judge. They believe that the events described in the New Testament in reality occurred, including Jesus Christ's virgin birth, his sinless life and miraculous ministry, and his suffering, death, and literal resurrection, through which forgiveness of sin, salvation (understood in LDS doctrine to indicate resurrection and immortality, a free gift to all; see 1 Corinthians 15:22), and ultimately exaltation (returning to and eternally dwelling in the presence of God and Jesus Christ and becoming "joint-heirs with Christ"; see Romans 8:17), are made possible.

The eleventh of the above-mentioned thirteen articles of faith contains the following statement:
<blockquote>“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (see Articles of Faith 1:11)</blockquote>

====African Americans and the Priesthood====
Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse.
Therefore, African Americans were banned from the priesthood until, in June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball is said to have received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2).
<ref name="Black">Emmanuel Abu Kissi, [http://byustudies.byu.edu/Reviews/Pages/reviewdetail.aspx?reviewID=117 Book review of Black and Mormon] BYU Studies Review, October 2006.</ref><ref> [http://www.pbs.org/mormons/themes/prohibition.html The Prohibition Against Blacks in the Priesthood], Public Broadcasting Service.</ref> <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=36f2ce9566a43110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ LDS.org - Topic Definition - Priesthood Ordination before 1978]</ref>

The Book of Mormon attests that God invites “all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . and all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). In our present day the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have stated that all human beings are created in the image of God and that each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of Deity. <ref>“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” 23 Sept. 1995, published in Ensign, Nov. 1995</ref>

<blockquote>In the twentieth century, various Church leaders continued to offer possible reasons why a race of people was prohibited from holding the priesthood. One explanation, carried over from the previous century, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain, the first murderer, and therefore were denied the priesthood because of lineage. Another theory held that blacks were less valiant in the premortal existence and therefore had certain spiritual restrictions placed upon them during mortality. Priesthood denial was perceived to be one of these spiritual restrictions. But by mid-century, President David O. McKay stated, "There is not now, and there never has been, a doctrine in this Church that the negroes are under a divine curse. . . .It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed".<ref name="Black" /></blockquote>

===Views on Same-Gender Attraction===
In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote an article in the Ensign magazine entitled "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction". <ref>[http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e5cbba12dc825110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]</ref> In 2007, the Church published a pamphlet "God Loveth His Children", for those suffering from same-gender attraction. <ref>http://www.lds.org/topics/pdf/GodLovethHisChildren_04824_000.pdf God Loveth His Children</ref>

On June 7, 2006, ABC’s Nightline ran a story on members and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who struggle with same-gender attraction. The Church published a response to the inaccuracies in the Nightline story. <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d4ec39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Church Responds to Nightline Story on Mormons and Homosexuality]</ref>

The Church has a section on same-gender attraction on the Newsroom website. <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=27f71f1dd189f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1 Same-Gender Attraction]</ref>

===Polygamy===
Early ill will towards Mormons was sparked in part by its early practice of [[polygamy]], which was sanctioned from 1840 until 1890. Even though it was officially discontinued in 1890, Mormonism and polygamy continue to be associated in the minds of the uninformed.

A 1998 statement by current LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley states:
:This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-1,00.html What is the Church’s position on polygamy?] LDS website</ref>

However, in addition to "the" Church (the 12.5-million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), there continue to be small splinter groups, which also consider themselves to be Mormons and do practice polygamy. The most notable is the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (often called "Fundamentalist Mormons.") This group numbers about ten thousand. It broke from the Mormon church in 1890 over the issue of polygamy. It made headlines in 2006 and 2007, when leader Warren Jeffs was arrested by the FBI and indicted by a grand jury on charges of arranging illegal "marriages" between male followers and underage girls.

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

==See Also==
*[[List of LDS temples]]
*[[Christianity]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.lds.org Official Church Website]
*[http://www.mormon.org Official Church Website for Investigators]
*[http://scriptures.lds.org Official Online Version of the LDS Scriptures]
*[http://www.familysearch.org/ Official Church Genealogy Website, "the largest collection of free family history, family tree and genealogy records in the world."]
*[http://www.ldschurchtemples.com "News, schedules, photographs, and interesting facts of the temples of the LDS Church"]
*[http://www.fairlds.org Mormon Apologetics]
*[http://www.maxwellinstitute.com BYU Theologians]
*[http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/ About Mormons]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints Wikipedia article] on the LDS Church
*[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3282.html Are Mormons Conservative?]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html 21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith]
*[http://www.moroni10.com/protestants.html Why Protestants Agree With Mormons (They Just Don’t Realize It)], Kelly Bingham, December 7, 2007
*[http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/what-you-will-find-when-you-step-inside-a-mormon-chapel What You Will Find When You Step Inside a Mormon Chapel], LDS Newsroom, 19 August 2008

====Links to Groups Not in Favor of the Mormon Church====

*[http://jesusnotjoseph.com JesusNotJoseph]
*[http://www.mrm.org Mormonism Research Ministry]
*[http://www.evangelicalbible.com/jw.htm#LDS The Mormon Church & the Nature of God]

[[Category:Christian Denominations]]
[[Category:LDS Church]]

Scientific law

2008-11-18T04:41:36Z

ArnoldFriend: spelling

In [[science]] a scientific law is a portion of a [[scientific_theory|Scientific Theory]] which predicts the actions of objects under most circumstances. Laws almost always have exceptions. Examples of this from physics are [[Newton]]'s second law of motion (F=ma) which is not true at sufficient speeds (see [[Scientific_theory|Theory]] of [[relativity]], [[Hooke's_Law|Hooke's Law]] of springs (F=-kx) which is true for only "Hookean" springs (examples of non-Hookean springs are screen door springs and leaf springs used for suspension in heavy trucks), and Ohm's Law (I=V/R), which fails under extreme temperature, being unable to predict superconductors and increase in resistance due to heat. Another example is [[Kepler]]'s law of planetary movement, which predicts the movement of planets very well, but is unable to account for all of [[Mercury]]'s orbit, which is explained by the theory of General [[Relativity]].

There is much confusion in the general public over the difference between a Theory and a Law in science. A theory is an overarching explanation for a set of observed phenomena. A law, is a tool use for predicting behavior (see the examples from physics above). Scientific laws are less useful than theories, as they do not explain the world, they simply predict events. Theories are not promoted to laws when they accumulate enough evidence. Instead, hypothesis become parts of theories when there is enough evidence to show that the explanation is the best for the observed phenomena.<ref>http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html</ref> This is different from conventional use, in which [[theory|theories]] are assertions backed by scant evidence and [[law|laws]] are statutes enacted by a government.

The confusion between scientific theories and laws is often deceitfully used by promoters of [[pseudoscience]], in order to convince members of the public that their claims have equal validity to the well tested and verified theories of science. An example can be seen at [http://home.wanadoo.nl/perpetual/] where the theory of thermodynamics is dismissed as a "[[meme]]." Another can be found in an unfortunate science textbook.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. Exploring Creation With General Science. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Libertarian censorship

2008-11-18T04:37:32Z

ArnoldFriend:

==Homosexual beliefs?==

Which homosexual beliefs would these be, then? Do homosexuals have some special scientific theories the general public is unaware of? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 22:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: Sure, like the "gay gene" or the denial of shorter lifespans for homosexuals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Really? ==

I hang around many libertarian circles, and in every one of them they would get offended at the thought of one of their members censoring others. Are there any examples of actual libertarians censoring? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:44, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
:I think this should probably be deleted. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::That's what I was thinking. The only thing I could find to be true in the article is that libertarians are known for favoring free speech. Which is kind of opposite to the point of the article. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 13:50, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::As a paleolibertarian who spends a great deal of time discussing conservative values within the libertarian framework with "liberal" libertarians, I know that while we argue a great deal about most of these issues, almost all of the true libertarians reject censorship in any form. The one possible exception is prayer in public school, and I think that should be left in the article. I am an advocate for private prayer time in public school (as long as the school doesn't force children to), but I know others who feel differently. We all agree that there should be no public school, and that private schools should be allowed to have any type of prayer or not as the school decides. But that really is an area of disagreement. Otherwise, libertarians may at times ridicule conservative values, but respect our right to express them. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 10:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Thanks for confirming the point about libertarian censorship of classroom prayer. The other points can hardly be disputed either. Simply visit libertarian websites (such as CATO, FEE, Von Mises, Ayn Rand, etc.) and you'll likely see the support (or evidence of the censorship) yourself.
:::::Well, I guess I should clarify what I mean. Many "liberal" libertarians will support private censorship (although some protest any form of censorship whatsoever, no matter how silly). They think that suppressing conservative values will help their cause. But most will draw the line at government censorship. Some misguidedly argue for public schools to censor conservative ideals, but they would also argue for private schools to be allowed to teach conservative values if they choose to, and for homeschooling as well. The public school curriculum is a difficult area for libertarians, since we oppose its existence altogether.

:::::On the other hand, if you are just saying that they support the liberal agenda in these areas, I would be hard-pressed to disagree. There are many liberal-leaning libertarians. Perhaps we could clarify the article to discuss private censorship and public school censorship instead of general censorship (which to many, implies government control). [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 10:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Libertarians support censorship of certain ideas in public school. The entry lists examples. It's irrelevant whether libertarians think public schools should exist or not. Privately, libertarians will demand the same type of censorship for any group in which they are members.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: You are certainly right. Some, or most, do. I just think the article should reflect that they support censorship in public schools and internal censorship of private groups, but not, for example, the censorship of private groups by the government. If I were to buy a television advertisement or billboard arguing against evolution in favor of intelligent design, they would mock me, almost certainly, but would not try to have the government (such as the FCC) block my advertisement from showing. They might only work by asking the television company to remove it. I just want to specify the type of censorship, because it is weaker than the type of censorship most liberals would use to enforce their agenda. It is real, and bad, but of a different type. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 11:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, I don't see any meaningful distinction between libertarians and liberals with respect to censorship of the items listed in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Okay, then I will drop it. You might have to be a libertarian (and be used to our constant disagreement about what some think are minor issues) to see a difference. For us, there is one, but I know most people might disagree. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 11:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Cite tags ==
First, I will make an admission - in this case I misread the title and thought it said "liberal censorship". An honest mistake after having reverted ideological fact tags on "liberal logic" and the words are similar. Now, in deference to that mistake, I've read the above talk to see if I may have reverted good edits by accident. But the above talk seems to miss the point of the article, which is that ''despite'' the open proclamations of libertarians to not censor free speech, they still manage to censor it in regard to certain topics. Andy didn't create this article on a hunch, and it's awfully presumptuous to want to *delete* the article just based on the personal experiences you've had with several libertarians. Don't you think you're being hasty? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 06:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:I don't think anyone was hasty here. The fact that nobody can find any instances of this happening gives strong evidence that it just doesn't happen. Sure, it's an interesting theoretical concept -- what would happen if libertarians censored -- but should we have encyclopedia articles about things that aren't true? I'm fine with keeping the article if we can actually find some examples of this happening. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:08, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:*Seems like some would be much happier at Wikipedia, or the hundred others that enjoy political correctness, make it their watchword. An article put up by the Owner should be a good indicator of its veracity, especially coming from one with such high public/academic standing as Andy Schafly. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Shame on all of you. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::What does this have to do with political correctness? And just because Andy says something is true makes it so? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 23:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I should really just put the following into AutoText: "It is not censorship for someone to say 'that's wrong and you shouldn't say it.' It's only censorship if somebody has the ability to keep you from presenting your speech in whatever forum. When people didn't buy Dixie Chicks albums and tickets, they weren't censoring the Dixie Chicks, they were using their own speech just as freely."

What libertarian, in what position of power/authority to deny anybody their rights, has used that power/authority to censor any of the concepts listed in the article? And yes, 90/10 and all that, but it's not like I'm talking just to read my own voice; this is for the good of the project just as much as correcting the spelling mistakes in whatever article I randomly choose. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:28, 16 November 2008 (EST) ''<-not that this is likely to stop anybody...''

[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26415] is worth a look. It says libertarians and conservatives share similar values on school prayer [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

*And on drug laws, prostitution, sodomy and a whole host of other issues, they do not. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::Would both you gentlemen help me prepare a chart or table showing where conservatives, liberals and libertarians agree and disagree on the major U.S. issues? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::: On school prayer - libertarians oppose censorship - believe government should NOT have any say in content or curriculum, parents decision - conservative viewpoint - By Steve Kubby - libertarian candidate for Governer of california - [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26415 | Here] ""No real Libertarian could endorse school prayer: forcing a Christian prayer down the throat of every schoolchild legally required to appear in school." [http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/03/two-more-points-against-barr.html | here] is slightly different , This does not endorse censorship, but will not support forced prayer, which is in keeping with concept of Personal choice. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::: No, that's misleading. Read your cite carefully: libertarians do not oppose censorship of school prayer. Hoping to pick up conservative support, libertarians seek the implausible end to public schools, which is very different. Libertarians are the most strident supporters of the phony separation of church and state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== theory of evolution ==

This piece says that the libertarian solution to the evolution controversy in schools is to simply end public schooling [http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/a-libertarian-s.html]. Sounds like the opposite of "libertarian censorship". '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 10:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

: FernoKlump, don't be clueless. Claiming that the "solution" is ending public schooling can be just a deceitful way of supporting continuation of the censorship. Apparently that far-fetched approach fools some. Not us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:31, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Fine, please add citations to the statements. I looked, but I only found evidence to the contrary. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Giving up might be the solution here. ==

Schlafly thinks that Libertarians are liberals, that mean that any attempt to make the not look like devil spawn will probably bereverted, hell he might block me for saying that. I'd like to see the article have some sort of backing at least, but no one can findthe evidence to support those claims because it doesn't exist because they are false and Andy will not let them be taken downs. His Ideological stand overrides and kind of factual needs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:31, 17 November 2008 (EST)

: You're right, you are being blocked for that (for just a day). First, don't swear here. Second, don't engage in ad hominem attacks here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Counter examples ==
Would counter examples help to change people's opinions here, or would I just be whistling in the dark? I have them for prayer and evolution, but stopped looking when I realized that they might not be welcome. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 22:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)

: I don't see how a counterexample to censorship helps lessen the wrongdoing of censorship. How about a counterexample to crime? The criminal obeyed the law today! That doesn't work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: I was hoping that providing examples would help convince you that this argument is fallacious. The following examples from prominent libertarians say that each school should have its own mandate about state control of prayer in school: [http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=2&id=171] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26415] [http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm]

:: I think what this might boil down to is that the ACLU is not and never was a libertarian organization. While these may be issues that the ACLU pushes, the ACLU ignores such things as the second amendment, the increases in government size due to their lawsuits, and the limitation on speech that their lawsuits end up causing.

::All of the libertarians I know agree with the Norquist idea of shrinking the federal government down to the point where it can be drown in a bathtub. They want to create a world in which a parent can choose to send their child to a school that starts the day with a prayer. Or doesn't for that matter. They support the right of parents to homeschool their children and teach them what they feel children should learn. I'm not sure how else to state that. If you can find libertarian organizations that actually support restrictions on the prayers that students say, please tell me. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Libertarian censorship

2008-11-18T03:28:15Z

ArnoldFriend:

Talk:Richard Lenski

2008-11-18T03:00:52Z

ArnoldFriend:

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

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

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

== Listing fields ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== This man is nothing but a farce ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wrong format for a debate ==

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

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

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

== Atheist Lobbying Organization ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Maybe need to add another section ==

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

== e-mail ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Dear Mr. Bohlin,

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

::Sincerely,

::Mike Anderson
::Conservapedia contributor

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

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

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

::::Dear Mike,

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

::::Respectfully,

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

::::He provided the response by Prof. Behe but I am not including it because it is lengthy and people can view it on Amazon. My only editorial comment is to note that Prof. Behe in his rebuttal does not in any way conclude that Prof. Lenski’s research is flawed or that his data is incomplete or hidden. He just feels that the experiments results do not support the theory of evolution. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::Can you provide the link to Prof. Behe's response? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:06, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Here is the link http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref=cm_blog_dp_artist_blog [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 09:08, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::What's going on? Hasn't anyone at conservapedia gotten on the phone and even tried to recruit an christian scientist to follow up on this? Why not?? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 22:51, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

''A spiritual/religious scientist and an atheist scientist are on equal footing when it comes to data analysis.'' That is precisely ''not'' the case. Faith in God is natural and right: it is, if you like, the 'default' condition of mankind. Atheism is a perversion of belief; it takes a wilful step into ignorance and defiance of God. Once that step is taken, all values of truth and objectivity fly out of the window. Atheists cannot practice science; the need to 'prove' and 'justify' their terrible howling void of non-belief means that they can only practice pseudo-science. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:44, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
:I honestly hope you don't ever become a scientist. I say this not to slight you, but because your view on how it should/does function is horribly skewed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:30, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

== An Interesting Lenski Quote ==

From the first of the two papers Rutm linked:

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

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

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

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

== "Lenksi's biographical sketch does not exhibit any background or experience in mathematics or statistics. " ==

This dirt-digging is getting ridiculous, IMO. Prof. Lenski got his doctoral degree in Zoology. His thesis was "Effects of competition and disturbance on ground beetle populations". That area and evolutionary biology are math intensive with a substantial emphasis in statistics. His second and third papers are: Lenski, R. E., and P. M. Service. 1982. '''The ''statistical analysis'' of population growth rates calculated from schedules of survivorship and fecundity'''. Ecology 63:655-662. and Service, P. M., and R. E. Lenski. 1982. '''Aphid genotypes, plant phenotypes, and genetic diversity: a ''demographic analysis of experimental data'''''. Evolution 36:1276-1282. Did the person who wrote the headline comment even read any of Lenski's works? I would suppose not.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:00, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== uhhh ==

How would you obtaining E. Coli samples help? I don't think any of the editors or sysops here have the qualifications or the equipment to do anything with them. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
perhaps if the sysops presented the entire paper then they could have a more concrete basis for their disagreements and put their questions into full context rather than raising arguments that leave the reader blind to the whole situation. For instance you could have the paper and then say we disagree with this and here's why blah blah blah, instead of pulling random sentences from the paper without context and dissecting them. Because when you think about it critically it only undermines the sysops's arguments with the research. [[User:superstudent|superstudent]] 10:16 22 September 2008

== Lenski's Position ==
I put in the title of the chair that he holds. The information is in his biographical sketch. Why was it changed? I thought a completely accurate description of Lenski was the point of this, or am I wrong? Does mentioning that he's the Hannah Distinguished Professor of Microbial Ecology, as it says on his web page somehow violate a tenate of Conservapedia? The information can be found on his homepage and verified by looking at the web page of the University. Without any idea of why we should not mention his possession of a named professorship, I'm going to put that back in. If this is wrong to do, please tell me. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:05 25 September EDT

==Lenski's Atheism==
This article mentions Lenski's "...unabashed atheism", but provides no citation. I read his two pieces on religion and science (https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_and_religion.pdf and https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_church_and_state.pdf), as well as his responses to Aschlafly's letters. Nothing in those documents backs up the atheism claim. Is there something else that supports it? Should this claim be removed? --[[User:Martib|Martib]] 22:49, 15 November 2008 (EST)

==Lenski's Position II==
Why the removal of the mention of his position again? I figured that having a named professorship was something noteworthy in the article. (Noteworthy in what way is up to the reader. I view it as more of a black mark on MSU's case than in favor of Lenski, especially given his refusal to actually disclose his data. If this should be explicit in the entry, please tell me and I'll do my best to put it in.) For the moment, I'm not touching the page, but I am confused as to why an edit I made close to a month ago was changed back now. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)

: The academic titles are silly and misleading, particularly when there is no explanation of the process behind the title. He's a professor, and that does have a well-established meaning. Beyond that someone has to make a case for explaining the significance of an additional title before including it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: Ok, that makes sense. Sorry if I came across as harsh, I was just a confused by having one of my edits called "senseless liberal puffery," (which was not its intention). [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 22:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Richard Lenski

2008-11-18T02:14:58Z

ArnoldFriend:

Anthropophagy

2008-11-04T17:59:32Z

ArnoldFriend: Added a little bit about Kuru, a really weird disease

'''Anthropophagy''' is an academic term for cannibalism. Most often, anthrophagy is done in a [[ritual]]istic setting as one person or group of people attempt to take the "[[spirit]]" or "life force" of another person through symbolically or physically eating the flesh of that other person.

Cannibalism is taboo in most all cultures, except where it fulfills this sacred role. In non scientific or medical definitions, cannibalism is also associated with generalized insanity, both as a "cause" for the mentally insane, and as a way to determine if someone is insane. Cannibalism can cause an actual mental disease, known as Kuru. Kuru (sometimes known as laughing sickness) is transmitted by the eating of the brains of other humans and the ingestion of the diseased [[prions]] in those brains. There were incidences of Kuru in [[New Guinea]] in the 1950s and 1960s.<ref>[http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/kuru/kuru.htm] [[NIH]] page on Kuru</ref>

Anthrophagy can be compared to a similar concept, Theophagy, or "eating of the god"; a ritual in most all pre-modern religions where some symbol of the god (for example, corn for the goddess Demeter or tobacco in ancient Native American religions) is eaten in the same understanding of trying to "bring the spirit of the god" into the body of the person "consuming" the god.
[[Category:Anthropology]]

== References ==
<references/>

Cannabalism

2008-11-04T17:50:58Z

ArnoldFriend: Redirecting to Anthropophagy

#REDIRECT[[Anthropophagy]]