Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-11T12:56:21Z

BeReasonable: /* Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals */

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.{{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].
:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-11T12:35:33Z

BeReasonable: /* Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals */ new section

Talk:His Dark Materials (novel)

2008-08-07T21:00:00Z

BeReasonable:

Here's my take, and I haven't even read the book, so I'm insulated from all bias by my sheer ignorance. ;-)

The author thinks he can pull a fast one on us. He has created a satire of God and Christianity with the world's best "[[deniability]]" clause; see [[plausible denial]].

He portrays God and Christians as viciously cruel. Any criticism that he has portrayed God in a bad light can be dismissed simply by denying that he was talking about God at all. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:29, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:Interesting point, and it's one that the Archbishop of Canterbury raised when he was interviewed alongside Pullman - that this otherworldly church has no element of redemption, that it is purely a matter of control. Pullman's response was interesting, too - he said that Jesus' core teachings are antithetical to the organisation itself:
<blockquote>
"I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening."
</blockquote>

It's definitely worth a read, if you haven't gotten around to it yet. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

=="Interesting to note"==
"It is interesting to note the change in attitude over time that a work that tries to destroy God is considered to be an exemplary example for children in the minds of those who make the decisions. It is similar to Al Gore writing about global warming, and somehow being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." - this is ''supremely'' unencyclopedic. I see no reason not to remove this - it's clearly editorial content. Unless someone can come up with a reasonable defense of including it, I'm going to remove it within a few days. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:27, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
:We are allowed to point out odd choices that would be of interest to conservative thought. That such a thing is even possible would be of interest to our demographics. To not put it in would be more of an oversite than its inclusion. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:42, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::So personal insight (in the form of editorial commentary like "odd choice") in articles is a special feature of Conservapedia? Well, I suppose that's the choice of the people who run the site, but I hope you'll agree that it creates an uncomfortable grey area for an encyclopedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:58, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I fear I may have started this thing by removing a sentence that was much worse than that Wandering is now complaining of. Perhaps if Learn Together explained exactly what the resemblance between this award and Al Gore's award we might be in a better position to evaluate the situation.--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 23:03, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::::I've just done a quick clean-up & removed this bit. For one, there's no real "change in attitude over time". The same voices which praised HDM on publication still praise it now, the same voices which condemn it do so still. The only change has been a gradual increase in awareness & popularity, as happens with any fiction like this which gradually develops a cult popularity and is then adapted for cinema. Also, the false analogy with Al Gore really doesn't make any sense. Achievements by unconnected individuals in thoroughly different fields. Whatever your opinion on either subject, there is no connection between ecology and "killing God". (NB. I also removed the silly claim that it is "implied" that Will & Lyra have sex). [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 14:27, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::The change in attitude over time is what is acceptable and praiseworthy in society. Killing God at one time wasn't praiseworthy for a children's book. Gore shows how prizes can be twisted to award an agenda, instead of what the prize is supposed to reward. In my time even most of the atheists I have met wouldn't have thought it was proper to attack God in a children's book, but that critical thinking of that level which has a strong personal component is best considered in maturity. It's a usurption of previous values and will be noted as such. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Some points in response:
* Conservapedia Commandment 5 says "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry". This comparison looks like a personal opinion, and editors have already objected to it as unencyclopedcic.
* The 'killing God' aspect of ''His Dark Materials'' is grossly exaggerated. The story does not comtain a God figure in the conventional definition (I.E. omnipotent, omniscient & benevolent). There is a Creator, who is weak and frail, who is not intentionally killed but is unable to survive. And there is a usurping angel who has taken command of heaven. It is ''this'' Authority which Lord Asriel sets out to destroy.
* I have removed again the suggestion that Will & Lyra fornicate. Remember they are children. Please do not reinstate this unless you can cite exactly what in the books implies this.
* Please look at what edits have been made before you simply revert them. In each case I have corrected spelling errors which you have put back in by reverting them.
* The administration guidelines state that users should only be blocked without prior warning or discussion for obscenities. Please keep this in mind before you block me again, Learn Together. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 16:55, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

His Dark Materials (novel)

2008-08-07T20:59:07Z

BeReasonable:

'''''His Dark Materials''''' is a trilogy of children's [[fantasy]] novels written by [[Britain|British]] author [[Philip Pullman]]. Modelled on classics like [[C. S. Lewis|C.S. Lewis']] ''[[Chronicles of Narnia]]'' and [[John Milton|Milton's]] ''[[Paradise Lost]]'', the trilogy is an [[allegory|allegorical]] indictment of organised religion and has been widely perceived as an attack on traditional Christian [[theology]].

The trilogy consists of ''[[The Golden Compass]]'' (originally published as ''Northern Lights'' in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1995), ''[[The Subtle Knife]]'' (published in 1997) and ''[[The Amber Spyglass]]'' (published in 2000). The title of the trilogy refers to a line from the 17th century poem ''[[Paradise Lost]]'' by [[John Milton]], <ref>http://www.kirkcenter.org/bookman/44-1-bernthal.html</ref> a line that is stated at the start of ''The Golden Compass''.

==Plot==
{{Spoiler}}

The main action of the trilogy centers around Lyra Belacqua, an 11-year old girl raised in [[England]] in another universe, and Will Parry, a 12-year old boy from London in our [[universe]].

===The Golden Compass===
The first novel is primarily concerned with Lyra, a girl living in [[Oxford]]. In Lyra's world, a person's [[soul]] is represented as an animal known as a "daemon". Children's daemons can change their shape at will, but once a person reaches maturity their daemon becomes "fixed" and stays in one shape for the rest of its life. Lyra's world is ruled by "The Church", a [[religion|religious]] organization that wields immense power. The Church worships a powerful being known as "The Authority"

The story follows Lyra as she travels across the North to rescue her friend Roger, a servant at the college in which she lives, who has been kidnapped by a mysterious organization known as the Gobblers. She is also on a mission to rescue Lord Asriel, her father and an explorer, who has been imprisoned at a castle ruled by talking bears. Her primary assistance on this journey is a golden, compass-like object called an alethiometer, which can tell the future. Along the way, she encounters allies like flying witches, aeronauts (balloon operators), and tribes of seafarers called Gyptians.

Eventually, she is captured by the Gobblers and learn that they are a branch of The Church known as the General Oblation Board. The Board is led by Lyra's mother, Mrs. Marisa Coulter. Their goal is to separate children from their daemons to prevent a mysterious, invisible substance known as "Dust" from settling on them. This Dust is believed to be [[Original sin]] by the Church. Unfortunately, the separation of a child and their daemon always results in the death of both. With the aid of her allies, Lyra escapes the Oblation Board with Roger, freeing the other prisoners in the process.

She ends up in Svalbard, the kingdom of talking, armored bears known as ''panserbjorne''. With her bear ally Iorek Byrnison, she topples the corrupt bear king and frees Lord Asriel. However, Asriel betrays her and uses Roger's daemon to open a massive portal to another world. The process of opening this portal results in Roger's death. Lyra vows to find the source and identity of Dust, and enters the portal.

===The Subtle Knife===
The second novel takes place several weeks after ''The Golden Compass'', and introduces Will Parry, a 12-year old boy who lives with his mother in Oxford in our world. His father has been missing for many years after going on a voyage to the North. At the start of the novel, he accidentally kills a thief, and is forced to go on the run from the law. He finds a portal to another world and meets Lyra, who has been searching for knowledge about Dust.

Meanwhile, a minor character from ''The Golden Compass'' receives a major storyline: Lee Scoresby, an aeronaut from the [[Texas]] of Lyra's universe. He undergoes a quest to locate Stanislaus Grumman, an explorer who may hold answers to some of the mysteries surrounding Dust and be able to help Lord Asriel, who is amassing forces in another world. Eventually, Lee finds Grumman, where it is revealed that the explorer is John Parry, Will's long-lost father, who accidentally went through a portal on his expedition. The pair are followed by large war zeppelins and soldiers loyal to the Church. While holding them back, Scoresby is sadly killed, but his sacrifice enables Parry to continue on his journey.

Lyra and Will try to unravel the mysteries of Dust, meeting Mary Malone, a scientist from Will's world. She has been studying Dust and discovers that it mostly settles on objects of human design and origin, while avoiding natural objects such as plants or uncarved wood. Will and Lyra avoid the people looking for Will and return to Cittagazze, where they find an unusual device known as the Subtle Knife. This knife, which can create portals to many different worlds, also wards off Specters.

This discovery inadvertently results in the original owner being attacked by Specters, which angers the children who still reside in the city. They almost kill Lyra and Will, but the two are saved by Lyra's witch allies who have entered Cittagazze. The protagonists learn that the Subtle Knife would be helpful to Lord Asriel, who is amassing a large army to combat the Authority. Before this can happen, however, they are attacked by Specters under the control of Mrs. Coulter, and Lyra is captured.

Will, confused and disoriented, meets a wandering man who introduces himself as Stanislaus Grumman. He tells Will to give the Knife to Lord Asriel. As they see each other's eyes, they realize their familial connection. Unfortunately, before father and son can be truly reunited, John Parry is killed by a witch whose love he scorned because of his faithfulness to his wife. This witch commits suicide shortly thereafter. As Will tries to decide what to do, he encounters two invisible beings who introduce themselves as [[angels]] and promise to take him to Lord Asriel.

===The Amber Spyglass===
''The Amber Spyglass'' begins shortly after the end of ''The Subtle Knife''. Lyra has been taken captive by Mrs. Coulter, who keeps her sedated in a cave in yet another new world. Despite her strong loyalty to the Church, Mrs. Coulter's motherly instincts take over, and she decides to hide Lyra from both the Church's forces and Lord Asriel's.

Will goes on a journey to find Lyra, led by one of the two angels, Balthamos. The other angel dies early in the book while delivering a message to Lord Asriel. From the angels, Will learns that The Authority is only the first and most powerful angel, formed from Dust, who has convinced everyone that he created everything. Since he is so old, The Authority is now senile, and his Regent, Metatron, rules in his stead. A select few of the angels have rebelled against The Authority and Metatron, and now join forces with Asriel to defeat them and end their rule over everything.

Meanwhile, Dr. Mary Malone of Will's Oxford is being hunted by authorities and enters the same portal Will went through in ''The Subtle Knife''. She enters a strange world populated by intelligent, elephant-like creatures called "mulefa". She learns about Dust from their legends and customs, and constructs a spyglass with an amber lens, through which she is able to see Dust as particles of light. She discovers that Dust is slowly leaving the worlds, which will eventually result in disaster.

Traveling throughout the worlds, Will, Balthamos, and Iorek Byrinson the new bear king eventually reach Lyra and help her escape. The forces of Asriel and the Church wage battle all around them and Balthamos flees in terror. Will and Lyra attempt to enter another world, but the Subtle Knife breaks as a result of Will's emotions. Iorek fixes it using a makeshift forge. The two children eventually decide to enter the [[afterlife|world of the dead]] in an attempt to help Roger, John Parry, and Lee Scoresby.

Mrs. Coulter is captured by Asriel's army and taken to his fortress. She escapes using a powerful flying machine and returns to the Church. However, she learns that the Church plans to kill Lyra, using a form of odd science, before she can face some "temptation" that has the potential to destroy everything the Church stands for, an explicit analogy to [[Eve]]. Mrs. Coulter again switches sides, and is able to prevent this murder from happening, returning to Asriel's fortress.

Will and Lyra are aided by two spies of Lord Asriel, members of a race of extremely small people called "Gallivespians", in their efforts to reach the land of the dead. They eventually enter it by use of the Subtle Knife, but Lyra is forced to leave her daemon behind, an act of complete betrayal. Though the protagonists are reunited with their loved ones, they learn that the afterlife is little more than a [[prison]], where all of the dead are emotionally tortured by monsters called harpies who feed on their sadness. They manage to convince the harpies to let them lead the dead out of the afterlife, and they cut a portal that leads them through the center of the world.

The final battle between the forces of Lord Asriel and the forces of The Authority and Metatron has officially begun, and Lyra and Will lead the dead right into the middle of it. Mrs. Coulter uses the flying machine to go to The Authority's palace, where she sees The Authority being carried out in a large glass cage. She eventually seduces Metatron into following her to the center of the world, where she says Lyra is being held. In reality, it is a trap for the angel laid by her and Lord Asriel, and they both push Metatron over the edge into an abyss, killing themselves in the process.

Lyra and Will find the cage containing The Authority, who is being attacked by animals. They drive off the animals, and free the being from his cage. Unfortunately, his frail body can not withstand a gust of wind, and he dies. The battle is not yet over, and Lyra and Will are saved from soldiers by the dead. After their task is done, the dead dissolve into the air, becoming one with the world.

Lyra and Will escape the battle by entering another world, the world of the mulefa. They meet Mary Malone again, and she tells them of the time that she lost her faith in [[Catholicism]]. Because of her descriptions of love, Lyra and Will realize that they are in love. This somehow makes the flow of Dust return to normal, and fulfills the "temptation" mentioned earlier in the series. Not long after this, Lyra is reunited with her daemon and Will is able to see his for the first time.

A [[priest]] sent by the Church to kill Lyra is almost given a chance to kill her and Will, but is stopped by Balthamos, who is ashamed of leaving Will and Lyra before. The assassin is accidentally killed, and it is implied that Balthamos dies of his wounds.

Will and Lyra delight in their new-found love, but they soon learn that the many holes cut by the Subtle Knife will need to be closed before the supply of Dust runs out. They also learn that staying in a different world for a long period of time will eventually cause a decline in a person's health, killing them. They decide that despite their feelings that they cannot stay with each other, since they have to leave one portal open to allow the dead to return to the living world. They each go back to their respective Oxfords, and resume their normal lives, basing them around teaching other people to live their lives to the fullest and not bother with [[faith]].

==Religious Views==
Dust is a primeval substance from which all life, consciousness and free will sprang. However the Authority and Magisterium seek to suppress this knowledge because it contradicts their doctrine of supremacy, and therefore equate it with sin or loss of innocence. At an allegorical level this can be seen as the Church's work to eliminate sin conflicting with the need for free will. As the characters rediscover this dust and embrace its life-giving power, they choose to free themselves from the oppressive theocracy of the Magisterium.

===God===
The character of "The Authority" is definitely the [[Judeo-Christian]] [[God]], evidenced by many of his names <ref>http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html</ref>. [[Yahweh]], one of the names mentioned, is a common name for God in the [[Bible]]. The Father the Almighty, another name, is a term from the [[Nicene Creed]].

Despite this, The Authority's traits clearly depart from the God depicted in the Bible. He is mortal and his powers are clearly limited, while the Judeo-Christian God is immortal and omnipotent. In a sense it mocks the belief of Christians and Jews, telling them that the God they worship is a powerless creation and worthy only of pity and disgust.

===Jesus===
[[Jesus]] is only referenced directly once in the books. Near the end of ''The Amber Spyglass'', when talking of her former devotion to the Catholic faith, Mary Malone (a minor character) says:

''"I wanted to take my whole life and offer it up.. and place it in front of Jesus to do as he liked with."'' <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 33, "Marzipan"</ref>

In an April 2004 interview alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pullman stated that he felt that Jesus' teachings were antithetical to organised religion, and wanted to mark this by his absence in the story.
<blockquote>

"...He doesn't figure in the teaching of the church, as I described the church in the story. I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml&page=1</ref>
</blockquote>

===Christianity===
However, the religion started by Jesus appears many times in the books. The Church of Lyra's parallel universe is specifically stated to be a descendant of the [[Calvinist]] faith in ''The Golden Compass''. <ref>''The Golden Compass'', Ch. 2, "The Idea of North"</ref>

===Angels===
[[Angels]] are a separate race in the books' world, complete with their own backstory. Apparently, most of the angels were formed out of the substance known as Dust at sometime in the past, and are very old. The Authority was the first angel formed, and convinced the following angels that he had created them. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref>

[[Human]]s can become angels somehow, although the process is not described in detail. The characters Baruch and Metatron were once human brothers. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 5, "The Adamant Tower"</ref> Metatron's former name was Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalalel. These three names are commonly cited as direct descendants of [[Adam]]. <ref>[http://www.marshallgenealogy.org/bible/pafg35.htm Bible Genealogy, Descendants of Adam]</ref>

===Homosexuality===
Though it is not a major part of the story, it is extremely heavily implied that the angels Balthamos and Baruch have a [[homosexual]] relationship. This is most seen in several instances of them or other characters referring to the two as "loving each other with a passion" or similar phrases. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref> It is unclear whether the same rules of gender apply, due to their non-human ancestry, but Pullman stated in an August 2000 interview that he "liked the idea of two male angels who love each other and who are, themselves, very different characters. They play an important part in the moral education, so to speak, of Will, but also in the outcome of the story."<ref>http://www.powells.com/authors/pullman.html</ref>

==Religious Response==
Online Christian criticism brands the trilogy overly [[atheist]],<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58341</ref> [[pantheism|pantheist]]<ref>http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pullman.php</ref> or [[humanist]].<ref>http://literarycatechist.blogspot.com/2007/11/his-dark-materials.html</ref> It has also come under heavy fire from several [[Christian]] groups, most famously the Catholic League, who called for a Christian boycott of the film adaptation.<ref>http://catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=October&read=2322</ref>
There are some Christian supporters of the books, most notably Rowan Williams, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]].<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml</ref>

==Awards==
The series has won some awards<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/features/pullman/author/author.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.philip-pullman.com/about_the_author.asp</ref>
*the Astrid Lindgren Award
*the Carnegie Medal
*the Guardian Children's Book Award
*the Whitbread Book of the Year award, the first time it had been given to a children's book

It is  interesting to note the change in attitude over time that a work that tries to destroy God is considered to be an exemplary example for children in the minds of those who make the decisions. It is  similar to [[Al Gore]] writing about [[global warming]], and somehow being awarded the [[Nobel Peace Prize]].

==References==
<references/>
==See also==
{{Nb Atheism}}

[[Category:Novels]]

Talk:His Dark Materials (novel)

2008-08-07T20:56:32Z

BeReasonable: /* "Interesting to note" */

Here's my take, and I haven't even read the book, so I'm insulated from all bias by my sheer ignorance. ;-)

The author thinks he can pull a fast one on us. He has created a satire of God and Christianity with the world's best "[[deniability]]" clause; see [[plausible denial]].

He portrays God and Christians as viciously cruel. Any criticism that he has portrayed God in a bad light can be dismissed simply by denying that he was talking about God at all. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:29, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:Interesting point, and it's one that the Archbishop of Canterbury raised when he was interviewed alongside Pullman - that this otherworldly church has no element of redemption, that it is purely a matter of control. Pullman's response was interesting, too - he said that Jesus' core teachings are antithetical to the organisation itself:
<blockquote>
"I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening."
</blockquote>

It's definitely worth a read, if you haven't gotten around to it yet. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

=="Interesting to note"==
"It is interesting to note the change in attitude over time that a work that tries to destroy God is considered to be an exemplary example for children in the minds of those who make the decisions. It is similar to Al Gore writing about global warming, and somehow being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." - this is ''supremely'' unencyclopedic. I see no reason not to remove this - it's clearly editorial content. Unless someone can come up with a reasonable defense of including it, I'm going to remove it within a few days. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:27, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
:We are allowed to point out odd choices that would be of interest to conservative thought. That such a thing is even possible would be of interest to our demographics. To not put it in would be more of an oversite than its inclusion. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:42, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::So personal insight (in the form of editorial commentary like "odd choice") in articles is a special feature of Conservapedia? Well, I suppose that's the choice of the people who run the site, but I hope you'll agree that it creates an uncomfortable grey area for an encyclopedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:58, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I fear I may have started this thing by removing a sentence that was much worse than that Wandering is now complaining of. Perhaps if Learn Together explained exactly what the resemblance between this award and Al Gore's award we might be in a better position to evaluate the situation.--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 23:03, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::::I've just done a quick clean-up & removed this bit. For one, there's no real "change in attitude over time". The same voices which praised HDM on publication still praise it now, the same voices which condemn it do so still. The only change has been a gradual increase in awareness & popularity, as happens with any fiction like this which gradually develops a cult popularity and is then adapted for cinema. Also, the false analogy with Al Gore really doesn't make any sense. Achievements by unconnected individuals in thoroughly different fields. Whatever your opinion on either subject, there is no connection between ecology and "killing God". (NB. I also removed the silly claim that it is "implied" that Will & Lyra have sex). [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 14:27, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::The change in attitude over time is what is acceptable and praiseworthy in society. Killing God at one time wasn't praiseworthy for a children's book. Gore shows how prizes can be twisted to award an agenda, instead of what the prize is supposed to reward. In my time even most of the atheists I have met wouldn't have thought it was proper to attack God in a children's book, but that critical thinking of that level which has a strong personal component is best considered in maturity. It's a usurption of previous values and will be noted as such. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Some points in response:
* Conservapedia Commandment 5 says "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry". This comparison looks like a personal opinion, and editors have already objected to it as unencyclopedcic.
* The 'killing God' aspect of ''His Dark Materials'' is grossly exaggerated. The story does not comtain a God figure in the conventional definition (I.E. omnipotent, omniscient & benevolent). There is a Creator, who is weak and frail, who is not intentionally killed but is unable to survive. And there is a usurping angel who has taken command of heaven. It is ''this'' Authority which Lord Asriel sets out to destroy.
* I have removed again the suggestion that Will & Lyra fornicate. Remember they are children. Please do not reinstate this unless you can cite exactly what in the books implies this.
* Please look at what edits have been made before you simply revert them. In each case I have corrected spelling errors which you have put back in by reverting them.
* The administration guidelines state that users should only be blocked without prior warning or discussion for obscenities. Please keep this in m
ind before you block me again, Learn Together. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 16:55, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:His Dark Materials (novel)

2008-08-07T20:55:53Z

BeReasonable: /* "Interesting to note" */ reply

Here's my take, and I haven't even read the book, so I'm insulated from all bias by my sheer ignorance. ;-)

The author thinks he can pull a fast one on us. He has created a satire of God and Christianity with the world's best "[[deniability]]" clause; see [[plausible denial]].

He portrays God and Christians as viciously cruel. Any criticism that he has portrayed God in a bad light can be dismissed simply by denying that he was talking about God at all. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:29, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:Interesting point, and it's one that the Archbishop of Canterbury raised when he was interviewed alongside Pullman - that this otherworldly church has no element of redemption, that it is purely a matter of control. Pullman's response was interesting, too - he said that Jesus' core teachings are antithetical to the organisation itself:
<blockquote>
"I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening."
</blockquote>

It's definitely worth a read, if you haven't gotten around to it yet. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

=="Interesting to note"==
"It is interesting to note the change in attitude over time that a work that tries to destroy God is considered to be an exemplary example for children in the minds of those who make the decisions. It is similar to Al Gore writing about global warming, and somehow being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." - this is ''supremely'' unencyclopedic. I see no reason not to remove this - it's clearly editorial content. Unless someone can come up with a reasonable defense of including it, I'm going to remove it within a few days. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:27, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
:We are allowed to point out odd choices that would be of interest to conservative thought. That such a thing is even possible would be of interest to our demographics. To not put it in would be more of an oversite than its inclusion. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:42, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::So personal insight (in the form of editorial commentary like "odd choice") in articles is a special feature of Conservapedia? Well, I suppose that's the choice of the people who run the site, but I hope you'll agree that it creates an uncomfortable grey area for an encyclopedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:58, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I fear I may have started this thing by removing a sentence that was much worse than that Wandering is now complaining of. Perhaps if Learn Together explained exactly what the resemblance between this award and Al Gore's award we might be in a better position to evaluate the situation.--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 23:03, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::::I've just done a quick clean-up & removed this bit. For one, there's no real "change in attitude over time". The same voices which praised HDM on publication still praise it now, the same voices which condemn it do so still. The only change has been a gradual increase in awareness & popularity, as happens with any fiction like this which gradually develops a cult popularity and is then adapted for cinema. Also, the false analogy with Al Gore really doesn't make any sense. Achievements by unconnected individuals in thoroughly different fields. Whatever your opinion on either subject, there is no connection between ecology and "killing God". (NB. I also removed the silly claim that it is "implied" that Will & Lyra have sex). [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 14:27, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::The change in attitude over time is what is acceptable and praiseworthy in society. Killing God at one time wasn't praiseworthy for a children's book. Gore shows how prizes can be twisted to award an agenda, instead of what the prize is supposed to reward. In my time even most of the atheists I have met wouldn't have thought it was proper to attack God in a children's book, but that critical thinking of that level which has a strong personal component is best considered in maturity. It's a usurption of previous values and will be noted as such. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Some points in response:
* Conservapedia Commandment 5 says "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry". This comparison looks like a personal opinion, and editors have already objected to it as unencyclopedcic.
* The 'killing God' aspect of ''His Dark Materials'' is grossly exaggerated. The story does not comtain a God figure in the conventional definition (I.E. omnipotent, omniscient & benevolent). There is a Creator, who is weak and frail, who is not intentionally killed but is unable to survive. And there is a usurping angel who has taken command of heaven. It is ''this'' Authority which Lord Asriel sets out to destroy.
* I have removed again the suggestion that Will & Lyra fornicate. Remember they are children. Please do not reinstate this unless you can cite exactly what in the books implies this.
* Please look at what edits have been made before you simply revert them. In each case I have corrected spelling errors which you have put back in by reverting them.
* The administration guidelines state that users should only be blocked without prior warning or discussion for obscenities. Please keep this in m ind before you block me again, Learn Together. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 16:55, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

His Dark Materials (novel)

2008-08-07T20:38:54Z

BeReasonable: /* The Amber Spyglass */

'''''His Dark Materials''''' is a trilogy of children's [[fantasy]] novels written by [[Britain|British]] author [[Philip Pullman]]. Modeled on classics like [[C. S. Lewis|C.S. Lewis']] ''[[Chronicles of Narnia]]'' and [[John Milton|Milton's]] ''[[Paradise Lost]]'', the trilogy is an [[allegory|allegorical]] indictment of organised religion and has been widely perceived as an attack on traditional Christian [[theology]].

The trilogy consists of ''[[The Golden Compass]]'' (originally published as ''Northern Lights'' in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1995), ''[[The Subtle Knife]]'' (published in 1997) and ''[[The Amber Spyglass]]'' (published in 2000). The title of the trilogy refers to a line from the 17th century poem ''[[Paradise Lost]]'' by [[John Milton]], <ref>http://www.kirkcenter.org/bookman/44-1-bernthal.html</ref> a line that is stated at the start of ''The Golden Compass''.

==Plot==
{{Spoiler}}

The main action of the trilogy centers around Lyra Belacqua, an 11-year old girl raised in [[England]] in another universe, and Will Parry, a 12-year old boy from London in our [[universe]].

===The Golden Compass===
The first novel is primarily concerned with Lyra, a girl living in [[Oxford]]. In Lyra's world, a person's [[soul]] is represented as an animal known as a "daemon". Children's daemons can change their shape at will, but once a person reaches maturity their daemon becomes "fixed" and stays in one shape for the rest of its life. Lyra's world is ruled by "The Church", a [[religion|religious]] organization that wields immense power. The Church worships a powerful being known as "The Authority"

The story follows Lyra as she travels across the North to rescue her friend Roger, a servant at the college in which she lives, who has been kidnapped by a mysterious organization known as the Gobblers. She is also on a mission to rescue Lord Asriel, her father and an explorer, who has been imprisoned at a castle ruled by talking bears. Her primary assistance on this journey is a golden, compass-like object called an alethiometer, which can tell the future. Along the way, she encounters allies like flying witches, aeronauts (balloon operators), and tribes of seafarers called Gyptians.

Eventually, she is captured by the Gobblers and learn that they are a branch of The Church known as the General Oblation Board. The Board is led by Lyra's mother, Mrs. Marisa Coulter. Their goal is to separate children from their daemons to prevent a mysterious, invisible substance known as "Dust" from settling on them. This Dust is believed to be [[Original sin]] by the Church. Unfortunately, the separation of a child and their daemon always results in the death of both. With the aid of her allies, Lyra escapes the Oblation Board with Roger, freeing the other prisoners in the process.

She ends up in Svalbard, the kingdom of talking, armored bears known as ''panserbjorne''. With her bear ally Iorek Byrnison, she topples the corrupt bear king and frees Lord Asriel. However, Asriel betrays her and uses Roger's daemon to open a massive portal to another world. The process of opening this portal results in Roger's death. Lyra vows to find the source and identity of Dust, and enters the portal.

===The Subtle Knife===
The second novel takes place several weeks after ''The Golden Compass'', and introduces Will Parry, a 12-year old boy who lives with his mother in Oxford in our world. His father has been missing for many years after going on a voyage to the North. At the start of the novel, he accidentally kills a thief, and is forced to go on the run from the law. He finds a portal to another world and meets Lyra, who has been searching for knowledge about Dust.

Meanwhile, a minor character from ''The Golden Compass'' receives a major storyline: Lee Scoresby, an aeronaut from the [[Texas]] of Lyra's universe. He undergoes a quest to locate Stanislaus Grumman, an explorer who may hold answers to some of the mysteries surrounding Dust and be able to help Lord Asriel, who is amassing forces in another world. Eventually, Lee finds Grumman, where it is revealed that the explorer is John Parry, Will's long-lost father, who accidentally went through a portal on his expedition. The pair are followed by large war zeppelins and soldiers loyal to the Church. While holding them back, Scoresby is sadly killed, but his sacrifice enables Parry to continue on his journey.

Lyra and Will try to unravel the mysteries of Dust, meeting Mary Malone, a scientist from Will's world. She has been studying Dust and discovers that it mostly settles on objects of human design and origin, while avoiding natural objects such as plants or uncarved wood. Will and Lyra avoid the people looking for Will and return to Cittagazze, where they find an unusual device known as the Subtle Knife. This knife, which can create portals to many different worlds, also wards off Specters.

This discovery inadvertently results in the original owner being attacked by Specters, which angers the children who still reside in the city. They almost kill Lyra and Will, but the two are saved by Lyra's witch allies who have entered Cittagazze. The protagonists learn that the Subtle Knife would be helpful to Lord Asriel, who is amassing a large army to combat the Authority. Before this can happen, however, they are attacked by Specters under the control of Mrs. Coulter, and Lyra is captured.

Will, confused and disoriented, meets a wandering man who introduces himself as Stanislaus Grumman. He tells Will to give the Knife to Lord Asriel. As they see each other's eyes, they realize their familial connection. Unfortunately, before father and son can be truly reunited, John Parry is killed by a witch whose love he scorned because of his faithfulness to his wife. This witch commits suicide shortly thereafter. As Will tries to decide what to do, he encounters two invisible beings who introduce themselves as [[angels]] and promise to take him to Lord Asriel.

===The Amber Spyglass===
''The Amber Spyglass'' begins shortly after the end of ''The Subtle Knife''. Lyra has been taken captive by Mrs. Coulter, who keeps her sedated in a cave in yet another new world. Despite her strong loyalty to the Church, Mrs. Coulter's motherly instincts take over, and she decides to hide Lyra from both the Church's forces and Lord Asriel's.

Will goes on a journey to find Lyra, led by one of the two angels, Balthamos. The other angel dies early in the book while delivering a message to Lord Asriel. From the angels, Will learns that The Authority is only the first and most powerful angel, formed from Dust, who has convinced everyone that he created everything. Since he is so old, The Authority is now senile, and his Regent, Metatron, rules in his stead. A select few of the angels have rebelled against The Authority and Metatron, and now join forces with Asriel to defeat them and end their rule over everything.

Meanwhile, Dr. Mary Malone of Will's Oxford is being hunted by authorities and enters the same portal Will went through in ''The Subtle Knife''. She enters a strange world populated by intelligent, elephant-like creatures called "mulefa". She learns about Dust from their legends and customs, and constructs a spyglass with an amber lens, through which she is able to see Dust as particles of light. She discovers that Dust is slowly leaving the worlds, which will eventually result in disaster.

Traveling throughout the worlds, Will, Balthamos, and Iorek Byrinson the new bear king eventually reach Lyra and help her escape. The forces of Asriel and the Church wage battle all around them and Balthamos flees in terror. Will and Lyra attempt to enter another world, but the Subtle Knife breaks as a result of Will's emotions. Iorek fixes it using a makeshift forge. The two children eventually decide to enter the [[afterlife|world of the dead]] in an attempt to help Roger, John Parry, and Lee Scoresby.

Mrs. Coulter is captured by Asriel's army and taken to his fortress. She escapes using a powerful flying machine and returns to the Church. However, she learns that the Church plans to kill Lyra, using a form of odd science, before she can face some "temptation" that has the potential to destroy everything the Church stands for, an explicit analogy to [[Eve]]. Mrs. Coulter again switches sides, and is able to prevent this murder from happening, returning to Asriel's fortress.

Will and Lyra are aided by two spies of Lord Asriel, members of a race of extremely small people called "Gallivespians", in their efforts to reach the land of the dead. They eventually enter it by use of the Subtle Knife, but Lyra is forced to leave her daemon behind, an act of complete betrayal. Though the protagonists are reunited with their loved ones, they learn that the afterlife is little more than a [[prison]], where all of the dead are emotionally tortured by monsters called harpies who feed on their sadness. They manage to convince the harpies to let them lead the dead out of the afterlife, and they cut a portal that leads them through the center of the world.

The final battle between the forces of Lord Asriel and the forces of The Authority and Metatron has officially begun, and Lyra and Will lead the dead right into the middle of it. Mrs. Coulter uses the flying machine to go to The Authority's palace, where she sees The Authority being carried out in a large glass cage. She eventually seduces Metatron into following her to the center of the world, where she says Lyra is being held. In reality, it is a trap for the angel laid by her and Lord Asriel, and they both push Metatron over the edge into an abyss, killing themselves in the process.

Lyra and Will find the cage containing The Authority, who is being attacked by animals. They drive off the animals, and free the being from his cage. Unfortunately, his frail body can not withstand a gust of wind, and he dies. The battle is not yet over, and Lyra and Will are saved from soldiers by the dead. After their task is done, the dead dissolve into the air, becoming one with the world.

Lyra and Will escape the battle by entering another world, the world of the mulefa. They meet Mary Malone again, and she tells them of the time that she lost her faith in [[Catholicism]]. Because of her descriptions of love, Lyra and Will realize that they are in love. This somehow makes the flow of Dust return to normal, and fulfills the "temptation" mentioned earlier in the series. Not long after this, Lyra is reunited with her daemon and Will is able to see his for the first time.

A [[priest]] sent by the Church to kill Lyra is almost given a chance to kill her and Will, but is stopped by Balthamos, who is ashamed of leaving Will and Lyra before. The assassin is accidentally killed, and it is implied that Balthamos dies of his wounds.

Will and Lyra delight in their new-found love, but they soon learn that the many holes cut by the Subtle Knife will need to be closed before the supply of Dust runs out. They also learn that staying in a different world for a long period of time will eventually cause a decline in a person's health, killing them. They decide that despite their feelings that they cannot stay with each other, since they have to leave one portal open to allow the dead to return to the living world. They each go back to their respective Oxfords, and resume their normal lives, basing them around teaching other people to live their lives to the fullest and not bother with [[faith]].

==Religious Views==
Dust is a primeval substance from which all life, consciousness and free will sprang. However the Authority and Magisterium seek to suppress this knowledge because it contradicts their doctrine of supremacy, and therefore equate it with sin or loss of innocence. At an allegorical level this can be seen as the Church's work to eliminate sin conflicting with the need for free will. As the characters rediscover this dust and embrace its life-giving power, they choose to free themselves from the oppressive theocracy of the Magisterium.

===God===
The character of "The Authority" is definitely the [[Judeo-Christian]] [[God]], evidenced by many of his names <ref>http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html</ref>. [[Yahweh]], one of the names mentioned, is a common name for God in the [[Bible]]. The Father the Almighty, another name, is a term from the [[Nicene Creed]].

Despite this, The Authority's traits clearly depart from the God depicted in the Bible. He is mortal and his powers are clearly limited, while the Judeo-Christian God is immortal and omnipotent. In a sense it mocks the belief of Christians and Jews, telling them that the God they worship is a powerless creation and worthy only of pity and disgust.

===Jesus===
[[Jesus]] is only referenced directly once in the books. Near the end of ''The Amber Spyglass'', when talking of her former devotion to the Catholic faith, Mary Malone (a minor character) says:

''"I wanted to take my whole life and offer it up.. and place it in front of Jesus to do as he liked with."'' <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 33, "Marzipan"</ref>

In an April 2004 interview alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pullman stated that he felt that Jesus' teachings were antithetical to organised religion, and wanted to mark this by his absence in the story.
<blockquote>

"...He doesn't figure in the teaching of the church, as I described the church in the story. I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml&page=1</ref>
</blockquote>

===Christianity===
However, the religion started by Jesus appears many times in the books. The Church of Lyra's parallel universe is specifically stated to be a descendant of the [[Calvinist]] faith in ''The Golden Compass''. <ref>''The Golden Compass'', Ch. 2, "The Idea of North"</ref>

===Angels===
[[Angels]] are a separate race in the books' world, complete with their own backstory. Apparently, most of the angels were formed out of the substance known as Dust at sometime in the past, and are very old. The Authority was the first angel formed, and convinced the following angels that he had created them. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref>

[[Human]]s can become angels somehow, although the process is not described in detail. The characters Baruch and Metatron were once human brothers. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 5, "The Adamant Tower"</ref> Metatron's former name was Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalalel. These three names are commonly cited as direct descendants of [[Adam]]. <ref>[http://www.marshallgenealogy.org/bible/pafg35.htm Bible Genealogy, Descendants of Adam]</ref>

===Homosexuality===
Though it is not a major part of the story, it is extremely heavily implied that the angels Balthamos and Baruch have a [[homosexual]] relationship. This is most seen in several instances of them or other characters referring to the two as "loving each other with a passion" or similar phrases. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref> It is unclear whether the same rules of gender apply, due to their non-human ancestry, but Pullman stated in an August 2000 interview that he "liked the idea of two male angels who love each other and who are, themselves, very different characters. They play an important part in the moral education, so to speak, of Will, but also in the outcome of the story."<ref>http://www.powells.com/authors/pullman.html</ref>

==Religious Response==
Online Christian criticism brands the trilogy overly [[atheist]],<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58341</ref> [[pantheism|pantheist]]<ref>http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pullman.php</ref> or [[humanist]].<ref>http://literarycatechist.blogspot.com/2007/11/his-dark-materials.html</ref> It has also come under heavy fire from several [[Christian]] groups, most famously the Catholic League, who called for a Christian boycott of the film adaptation.<ref>http://catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=October&read=2322</ref>
There are some Christian supporters of the books, most notably Rowan Williams, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]].<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml</ref>

==Awards==
The series has won some awards<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/features/pullman/author/author.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.philip-pullman.com/about_the_author.asp</ref>
*the Astrid Lindgren Award
*the Carnegie Medal
*the Guardian Children's Book Award
*the Whitbread Book of the Year award, the first time it had been given to a children's book

It is interesting to note the change in attitude over time that a work that tries to destroy God is considered to be an exemplary example for children in the minds of those who make the decisions. It is similar to [[Al Gore]] writing about [[global warming]], and somehow being awarded the [[Nobel Peace Prize]].

==References==
<references/>
==See also==
{{Nb Atheism}}

[[Category:Novels]]

Talk:His Dark Materials (novel)

2008-08-07T18:27:48Z

BeReasonable: /* "Interesting to note" */ removed

His Dark Materials (novel)

2008-08-07T18:20:37Z

BeReasonable:

'''''His Dark Materials''''' is a trilogy of children's [[fantasy]] novels written by [[Britain|British]] author [[Philip Pullman]]. Modelled on classics like [[C. S. Lewis|C.S. Lewis']] ''[[Chronicles of Narnia]]'' and [[John Milton|Milton's]] ''[[Paradise Lost]]'', the trilogy is an [[allegory|allegorical]] indictment of organised religion and has been widely perceived as an attack on traditional Christian [[theology]].

The trilogy consists of ''[[The Golden Compass]]'' (originally published as ''Northern Lights'' in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1995), ''[[The Subtle Knife]]'' (published in 1997) and ''[[The Amber Spyglass]]'' (published in 2000). The title of the trilogy refers to a line from the 17th century poem ''[[Paradise Lost]]'' by [[John Milton]], <ref>http://www.kirkcenter.org/bookman/44-1-bernthal.html</ref> a line that is stated at the start of ''The Golden Compass''.

==Plot==
{{Spoiler}}

The main action of the trilogy centers around Lyra Belacqua, an 11-year old girl raised in [[England]] in another universe, and Will Parry, a 12-year old boy from London in our [[universe]].

===The Golden Compass===
The first novel is primarily concerned with Lyra, a girl living in [[Oxford]]. In Lyra's world, a person's [[soul]] is represented as an animal known as a "daemon". Children's daemons can change their shape at will, but once a person reaches maturity their daemon becomes "fixed" and stays in one shape for the rest of its life. Lyra's world is ruled by "The Church", a [[religion|religious]] organization that wields immense power. The Church worships a powerful being known as "The Authority"

The story follows Lyra as she travels across the North to rescue her friend Roger, a servant at the college in which she lives, who has been kidnapped by a mysterious organization known as the Gobblers. She is also on a mission to rescue Lord Asriel, her father and an explorer, who has been imprisoned at a castle ruled by talking bears. Her primary assistance on this journey is a golden, compass-like object called an alethiometer, which can tell the future. Along the way, she encounters allies like flying witches, aeronauts (balloon operators), and tribes of seafarers called Gyptians.

Eventually, she is captured by the Gobblers and learn that they are a branch of The Church known as the General Oblation Board. The Board is led by Lyra's mother, Mrs. Marisa Coulter. Their goal is to separate children from their daemons to prevent a mysterious, invisible substance known as "Dust" from settling on them. This Dust is believed to be [[Original sin]] by the Church. Unfortunately, the separation of a child and their daemon always results in the death of both. With the aid of her allies, Lyra escapes the Oblation Board with Roger, freeing the other prisoners in the process.

She ends up in Svalbard, the kingdom of talking, armored bears known as ''panserbjorne''. With her bear ally Iorek Byrnison, she topples the corrupt bear king and frees Lord Asriel. However, Asriel betrays her and uses Roger's daemon to open a massive portal to another world. The process of opening this portal results in Roger's death. Lyra vows to find the source and identity of Dust, and enters the portal.

===The Subtle Knife===
The second novel takes place several weeks after ''The Golden Compass'', and introduces Will Parry, a 12-year old boy who lives with his mother in Oxford in our world. His father has been missing for many years after going on a voyage to the North. At the start of the novel, he accidentally kills a thief, and is forced to go on the run from the law. He finds a portal to another world and meets Lyra, who has been searching for knowledge about Dust.

Meanwhile, a minor character from ''The Golden Compass'' receives a major storyline: Lee Scoresby, an aeronaut from the [[Texas]] of Lyra's universe. He undergoes a quest to locate Stanislaus Grumman, an explorer who may hold answers to some of the mysteries surrounding Dust and be able to help Lord Asriel, who is amassing forces in another world. Eventually, Lee finds Grumman, where it is revealed that the explorer is John Parry, Will's long-lost father, who accidentally went through a portal on his expedition. The pair are followed by large war zeppelins and soldiers loyal to the Church. While holding them back, Scoresby is sadly killed, but his sacrifice enables Parry to continue on his journey.

Lyra and Will try to unravel the mysteries of Dust, meeting Mary Malone, a scientist from Will's world. She has been studying Dust and discovers that it mostly settles on objects of human design and origin, while avoiding natural objects such as plants or uncarved wood. Will and Lyra avoid the people looking for Will and return to Cittagazze, where they find an unusual device known as the Subtle Knife. This knife, which can create portals to many different worlds, also wards off Specters.

This discovery inadvertently results in the original owner being attacked by Specters, which angers the children who still reside in the city. They almost kill Lyra and Will, but the two are saved by Lyra's witch allies who have entered Cittagazze. The protagonists learn that the Subtle Knife would be helpful to Lord Asriel, who is amassing a large army to combat the Authority. Before this can happen, however, they are attacked by Specters under the control of Mrs. Coulter, and Lyra is captured.

Will, confused and disoriented, meets a wandering man who introduces himself as Stanislaus Grumman. He tells Will to give the Knife to Lord Asriel. As they see each other's eyes, they realize their familial connection. Unfortunately, before father and son can be truly reunited, John Parry is killed by a witch whose love he scorned because of his faithfulness to his wife. This witch commits suicide shortly thereafter. As Will tries to decide what to do, he encounters two invisible beings who introduce themselves as [[angels]] and promise to take him to Lord Asriel.

===The Amber Spyglass===
''The Amber Spyglass'' begins shortly after the end of ''The Subtle Knife''. Lyra has been taken captive by Mrs. Coulter, who keeps her sedated in a cave in yet another new world. Despite her strong loyalty to the Church, Mrs. Coulter's motherly instincts take over, and she decides to hide Lyra from both the Church's forces and Lord Asriel's.

Will goes on a journey to find Lyra, led by one of the two angels, Balthamos. The other angel dies early in the book while delivering a message to Lord Asriel. From the angels, Will learns that The Authority is only the first and most powerful angel, formed from Dust, who has convinced everyone that he created everything. Since he is so old, The Authority is now senile, and his Regent, Metatron, rules in his stead. A select few of the angels have rebelled against The Authority and Metatron, and now join forces with Asriel to defeat them and end their rule over everything.

Meanwhile, Dr. Mary Malone of Will's Oxford is being hunted by authorities and enters the same portal Will went through in ''The Subtle Knife''. She enters a strange world populated by intelligent, elephant-like creatures called "mulefa". She learns about Dust from their legends and customs, and constructs a spyglass with an amber lens, through which she is able to see Dust as particles of light. She discovers that Dust is slowly leaving the worlds, which will eventually result in disaster.

Traveling throughout the worlds, Will, Balthamos, and Iorek Byrinson the new bear king eventually reach Lyra and help her escape. The forces of Asriel and the Church wage battle all around them and Balthamos flees in terror. Will and Lyra attempt to enter another world, but the Subtle Knife breaks as a result of Will's emotions. Iorek fixes it using a makeshift forge. The two children eventually decide to enter the [[afterlife|world of the dead]] in an attempt to help Roger, John Parry, and Lee Scoresby.

Mrs. Coulter is captured by Asriel's army and taken to his fortress. She escapes using a powerful flying machine and returns to the Church. However, she learns that the Church plans to kill Lyra, using a form of odd science, before she can face some "temptation" that has the potential to destroy everything the Church stands for, an explicit analogy to [[Eve]]. Mrs. Coulter again switches sides, and is able to prevent this murder from happening, returning to Asriel's fortress.

Will and Lyra are aided by two spies of Lord Asriel, members of a race of extremely small people called "Gallivespians", in their efforts to reach the land of the dead. They eventually enter it by use of the Subtle Knife, but Lyra is forced to leave her daemon behind, an act of complete betrayal. Though the protagonists are reunited with their loved ones, they learn that the afterlife is little more than a [[prison]], where all of the dead are emotionally tortured by monsters called harpies who feed on their sadness. They manage to convince the harpies to let them lead the dead out of the afterlife, and they cut a portal that leads them through the center of the world.

The final battle between the forces of Lord Asriel and the forces of The Authority and Metatron has officially begun, and Lyra and Will lead the dead right into the middle of it. Mrs. Coulter uses the flying machine to go to The Authority's palace, where she sees The Authority being carried out in a large glass cage. She eventually seduces Metatron into following her to the center of the world, where she says Lyra is being held. In reality, it is a trap for the angel laid by her and Lord Asriel, and they both push Metatron over the edge into an abyss, killing themselves in the process.

Lyra and Will find the cage containing The Authority, who is being attacked by animals. They drive off the animals, and free the being from his cage. Unfortunately, his frail body can not withstand a gust of wind, and he dies. The battle is not yet over, and Lyra and Will are saved from soldiers by the dead. After their task is done, the dead dissolve into the air, becoming one with the world.

Lyra and Will escape the battle by entering another world, the world of the mulefa. They meet Mary Malone again, and she tells them of the time that she lost her faith in [[Catholicism]]. Because of her descriptions of love, Lyra and Will realize that they are in love. This somehow makes the flow of Dust return to normal, and fulfills the "temptation" mentioned earlier in the series. Not long after this, Lyra is reunited with her daemon and Will is able to see his for the first time.

A [[priest]] sent by the Church to kill Lyra is almost given a chance to kill her and Will, but is stopped by Balthamos, who is ashamed of leaving Will and Lyra before. The assassin is accidentally killed, and it is implied that Balthamos dies of his wounds.

Will and Lyra delight in their new-found love, but they soon learn that the many holes cut by the Subtle Knife will need to be closed before the supply of Dust runs out. They also learn that staying in a different world for a long period of time will eventually cause a decline in a person's health, killing them. They decide that despite their feelings that they cannot stay with each other, since they have to leave one portal open to allow the dead to return to the living world. They each go back to their respective Oxfords, and resume their normal lives, basing them around teaching other people to live their lives to the fullest and not bother with [[faith]].

==Religious Views==
Dust is a primeval substance from which all life, consciousness and free will sprang. However the Authority and Magisterium seek to suppress this knowledge because it contradicts their doctrine of supremacy, and therefore equate it with sin or loss of innocence. At an allegorical level this can be seen as the Church's work to eliminate sin conflicting with the need for free will. As the characters rediscover this dust and embrace its life-giving power, they choose to free themselves from the oppressive theocracy of the Magisterium.

===God===
The character of "The Authority" is definitely the [[Judeo-Christian]] [[God]], evidenced by many of his names <ref>http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html</ref>. [[Yahweh]], one of the names mentioned, is a common name for God in the [[Bible]]. The Father the Almighty, another name, is a term from the [[Nicene Creed]].

Despite this, The Authority's traits clearly depart from the God depicted in the Bible. He is mortal and his powers are clearly limited, while the Judeo-Christian God is immortal and omnipotent. In a sense it mocks the belief of Christians and Jews, telling them that the God they worship is a powerless creation and worthy only of pity and disgust.

===Jesus===
[[Jesus]] is only referenced directly once in the books. Near the end of ''The Amber Spyglass'', when talking of her former devotion to the Catholic faith, Mary Malone (a minor character) says:

''"I wanted to take my whole life and offer it up.. and place it in front of Jesus to do as he liked with."'' <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 33, "Marzipan"</ref>

In an April 2004 interview alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pullman stated that he felt that Jesus' teachings were antithetical to organised religion, and wanted to mark this by his absence in the story.
<blockquote>

"...He doesn't figure in the teaching of the church, as I described the church in the story. I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml&page=1</ref>
</blockquote>

===Christianity===
However, the religion started by Jesus appears many times in the books. The Church of Lyra's parallel universe is specifically stated to be a descendant of the [[Calvinist]] faith in ''The Golden Compass''. <ref>''The Golden Compass'', Ch. 2, "The Idea of North"</ref>

===Angels===
[[Angels]] are a separate race in the books' world, complete with their own backstory. Apparently, most of the angels were formed out of the substance known as Dust at sometime in the past, and are very old. The Authority was the first angel formed, and convinced the following angels that he had created them. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref>

[[Human]]s can become angels somehow, although the process is not described in detail. The characters Baruch and Metatron were once human brothers. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 5, "The Adamant Tower"</ref> Metatron's former name was Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalalel. These three names are commonly cited as direct descendants of [[Adam]]. <ref>[http://www.marshallgenealogy.org/bible/pafg35.htm Bible Genealogy, Descendants of Adam]</ref>

===Homosexuality===
Though it is not a major part of the story, it is extremely heavily implied that the angels Balthamos and Baruch have a [[homosexual]] relationship. This is most seen in several instances of them or other characters referring to the two as "loving each other with a passion" or similar phrases. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref> It is unclear whether the same rules of gender apply, due to their non-human ancestry, but Pullman stated in an August 2000 interview that he "liked the idea of two male angels who love each other and who are, themselves, very different characters. They play an important part in the moral education, so to speak, of Will, but also in the outcome of the story."<ref>http://www.powells.com/authors/pullman.html</ref>

==Religious Response==
Online Christian criticism brands the trilogy overly [[atheist]],<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58341</ref> [[pantheism|pantheist]]<ref>http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pullman.php</ref> or [[humanist]].<ref>http://literarycatechist.blogspot.com/2007/11/his-dark-materials.html</ref> It has also come under heavy fire from several [[Christian]] groups, most famously the Catholic League, who called for a Christian boycott of the film adaptation.<ref>http://catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=October&read=2322</ref>
There are some Christian supporters of the books, most notably Rowan Williams, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]].<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml</ref>

==Awards==
The series has won some awards<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/features/pullman/author/author.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.philip-pullman.com/about_the_author.asp</ref>
*the Astrid Lindgren Award
*the Carnegie Medal
*the Guardian Children's Book Award
*the Whitbread Book of the Year award, the first time it had been given to a children's book

==References==
<references/>
==See also==
{{Nb Atheism}}

[[Category:Novels]]

Middle Ages Terms K

2008-08-06T18:53:00Z

BeReasonable: kamikaze - not a medieval term

{{Medieval Index}}

[[Ka'aba]]

[[Khanate of the Golden Horde]]

[[Kiev]]

[[King Arthur]]

[[Knave]]

[[Knight]]

[[Koran]]

[[Koryu dynasty]]

[[kowtow]]

[[Kublai Khan]]

American History Lecture One

2008-08-06T18:49:18Z

BeReasonable: /* Exploration */ Columbus' intended destination was Japan, not India. On arrival in the Caribbean, he believed he had reached India instead. Hence the widespread confusion about this.

Welcome to "American history," also known as "United States history." This will become your favorite course. It has something for everyone: heroes, villains, criminal trials, funny mistakes, competitions, politics, literature, gold, silver, war, and peace. You name it, American history has it. We are going to have some fun in this course.
 
We will start without a textbook, to encourage students to be more proactive in learning history. If we can find a good textbook or reference source, then we'll distribute it a few weeks into the course.
 
The Pilgrims came to America with a group not much bigger than our class, traveling a boat called the "Mayflower" that was not much bigger than our classroom. Just before arriving on shore, they agreed to a written agreement or "compact" to bind them after they arrived. The very first words of their "[[Mayflower Compact]]" were "In ye name of God Amen."
 
Just as our Nation's founders started with a prayer, so do we. Prayer clears out the noise in our minds. We are looking for knowledge and inspiration here, and that comes from God. In most countries parents do not have the freedom even to have a class like this. The main reason we have freedoms is because America was established on principles of liberty, and religious devotion in America remains among the strongest in the world today, as it was 250 years ago.
 
Today is a critical time in our nation's history, and this class may be as important to the future as the Mayflower voyage was. Let's begin.

== College Board Exams ==

This course will give you the foundation for taking three different College Board exams (usually a student takes only one of the three): the [[CLEP]], the [[AP]], and the [[SAT II]]. The CLEP is a multiple-choice exam that is recognized by most (but not all) colleges as a way to earn college credit. It costs about $50 and is administered on computers at local colleges, usually once a month. The AP, or Advanced Placement exam, is given only once a year in May at local high schools, and is more expensive. It includes both multiple-choice and essay questions, and is used by different colleges to give credit for courses. In 2009, the AP exam for U.S. History is scheduled for Friday, May 9.
 
The SAT II in American History is an inexpensive multiple-choice exam that takes only an hour and is given at high schools on Saturdays once a month, October through June. No college credit is given for it, but it is used for college applications to recognize achievement. The SAT II is the most biased of the three exams, and is known for emphasizing liberal culture and matters of race and gender. The CLEP exam is probably the least biased on the three.
 
Each of these College Board exams can be taken as often as one likes, though it is difficult to take the AP exam more than once because it is offered only once a year, and it is expensive to retake the CLEP exam. The SAT II, which is cheaper, is the easiest to take more than once and colleges only look at the highest score.
 There is absolutely no requirement to take any of these College Board exams as part of this course, and references to the exams are used more as a way of helping you see the "big picture," as in how much time should be spent on a particular period or historical topic. Our class has only two required, multiple-choice exams: a midterm and a final. This course will also help students improve their test-taking skills on multiple-choice exams. We will also have weekly homework assignments consisting of short-answer questions.
 

== What Students Find Challenging About History ==

Students find the following aspects of American history challenging:

* interpreting political cartoons
* keeping the different periods of American history separate, yet connected; seeing the trends
* understanding the importance of economic issues in shaping history
* improving speed in reading and retaining historical information, such as answering history questions quickly
* dealing with [[liberal]] bias in the selection and presentation of questions on College Board exams:
** denial of [[Christian]] and [[conservative]] achievement
** overemphasis on [[liberal]]s and their beliefs, and denial of their failures
** obsession with materialism and inborn characteristics like race and gender

Common mistakes by students in history courses include:

* failure to recognize that American politics is always a battle between two sides
* memorizing dates without understanding the sequence of events (exams rarely ask about dates, but do ask about sequence)
* getting bogged down in detail and failing to see the big picture
* misunderstanding questions
* forgetting that people in the past were similar in nature to people today; they were motivated by religion, money, power, etc., and laziness has always been a problem

== The Key to Mastering History ==

The key to mastering history is to find what you like and understand, and then use it as your foundation to learn everything else. In other words, first find and learn what you like, and then learn everything else by connecting it to what you know. Use the same technique that we all use to for directions: pick a landmark or a place that you know how to get to, and then figure out how to go from there to where you need to go.
 
For example, if you are most interested in religion, then learn about the 13 colonies based on their different attitudes towards religion. If you are most interested in one colony, then learn about it and how it relates to other colonies. If you like military history, then use that as your starting point.
 
Perhaps you like politics the most. In that case, you'll want to memorize the presidents and leaders of Congress, and relate historical events to their times in office. Or perhaps you enjoy legal issues, and reading about what the courts do. If so, then you'll want to focus your attention on the major rulings of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] throughout American history, and relate other historical events to those decisions.
 
On the SAT II U.S. History exam, the breakdown by subject matter is as follows:
 Political History - 32-36%
 Economic History - 18-20%
 Social History - 18-22%
 Cultural and Intellectual History - 10-12%
 Foreign Policy - 13-17%

The biggest part of the exam by far is politics, mostly concerning what happened in the federal government in [[Washington, D.C.]].

The "cultural and intellectual history" portion seems important to the exam but actually it is mostly cultural rather than intellectual history, and the questions are liberal in nature (e.g., asking about an artist who liberals like). Also, what counts as "economic history" is not what you might expect. There are almost no questions about the [[conservative]] gold standard, for example, even though that issue the political scene throughout history (and was even an issue in [[Ron Paul]]'s campaign for presidency in 2008). Instead, questions about economic history on the SAT II are likely to be about unions, the treatment of workers, alleged corruption of big business, and gender and racial issues.

Notice what is missing on the College Board exams: military history. Unfortunately, many educators in the [[United States]] dislike the military, and that bias shows up on the exams. No questions are there about battles or key military strategies and decisions. The only time the military shows up on these exams is when they have a political impact, and then they qualify as political history.

== Periods in American History ==

American history can be broken into about 20 time periods:

* settlement by paleo-indians
* discovery by Europeans, exploration by Europeans and settlement by Europeans
* colonial
* birth of the nation
* growth of the nation
* Jacksonian Democracy
* pre-Civil War
* [[Civil War]]
* [[Reconstruction]]
* [[Gilded Age]]
* [[Imperialism]]
* World War I
* Roaring Twenties and followed by the [[Great Depression]]
* World War II
* [[Cold War]]
** Korean War
** Vietnam War
* Reagan [[conservatism]]
* Post-Reagan Prosperity and the dot-com boom
* [[9/11]] and terrorism

On the SAT II in U.S History, the breakdown of questions is like this:

 Pre-Columbian history to 1789 - 20%
 1790 to 1898 - 40%
 1899 to the present - 40%

Hence nearly half the exam is on the last century on the SAT II, and only about 18 or 19 questions are devoted to all of pre-exploration, exploration, settlements, the colonies, the documents that founded the nation, the American Revolution, and the election of George Washington. That means there are no more than 3 or so questions (out of a 90-95 questions on the exam) about the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

== Why America? ==

Maybe we could write most of American history just by predicting what would probably happen. Imagine a big chunk of land in between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. There are people who live on the land. Ask yourself: why would Europeans want to go there? What reasons can you think of?
 
Search for gold. Convert the natives to Christianity. Conquer the natives. Obtain freedom. Why do your parents homeschool? For some of the same reasons. Go there for the same reason people climb a mountain: because it is there! Escape where you are. Set up a special religious community. Meet new people and make new friends. Trade goods with the people. Learn from the people. Have adventures and then write about them.
 
What is likely to happen if a bunch of Europeans go this land? Conflicts with the natives. Conflicts with other European countries. Conflicts with the mother country that sent the settlers. New opportunities for improvements, for new products, for new businesses, for new religions, for new systems of government.
 
Who is going to pay for exploration and settlement? Kings. Investors. Do-gooders. Churches. Mostly nobody.
 
Who is going to do the hard labor needed to set up a new community, like chopping down trees, working the farms, constructing buildings? There is almost no money to pay anyone. Families might do some. [[Indentured servants]]. Slaves.
 
It also helps to look for unifying themes to organize events in your mind. One theme that helps explain American history works well is the overall expansion of Christianity, for 2000 years. Why did [[Christopher Columbus]] and other explorers risk their lives to come to the New World? To spread Christianity. Why did families then risk their lives to settle here? To establish religious communities free of persecution. Two hundred years later, why did Massachusetts prohibit slavery and why did abolitionists President [[John Quincy Adams]] devote their lives to ending slavery? Because their religious values told them slavery was wrong.
 
There are other possible themes also. How about the desire to make more money, or make some money? How about the urge for self-government, to be in charge of oneself free from a monarchy? How about the advance of technology and its affect on how we live? There are many possible themes to American history and we will have fun debates about them.
 
From 1789 until today, we have had an American President. He is not more important than others. If I had to name the ten most important Americans in history, I would only include one president in the list (the first one, [[George Washington]]). But memorizing the list of 43 presidents can help you organize all the other facts. When someone asks me what was happening in 1962, then I think of who was president and then remember the issues of that time. The presidents become like drawers, one per president, filled with issues and events.
 
But before 1789 there was no president. How are we going to organize that? One way is to focus on the three most important colonies, [[Virginia]] (1607), [[Massachusetts]] (1620) and [[Pennsylvania]] (1681), and relate the other 11 colonies and events to them. Another way is to look at the battles that occurred before the [[American Revolution]], such as the [[French and Indian War]] in 1754-60.
 
Regardless, by the end of this course, you will be able to hear an event and describe what was going on at that time. You will be able to tell me what happened before the event, and what happened afterwards.
 
Don’t try to memorize hundreds of dates. Instead, when you see a date, think what happened before and after it. There are only about ten dates that you need to know. All other dates, such as those in the event list, are there just for the purpose of ordering events. For example, no one will ask you when Georgia was founded as a colony. But you may be asked whether it was the first or last colony founded. (It was the last colony established.) Another example: [[Quebec]] was founded in 1608. Don’t remember the 1608, but remember that Quebec was founded one year after [[Jamestown]] was established (1607 – one of the few dates you should memorize!)
 
If you have a good memory, then memorize the facts. If memorization is difficult for you, then focus on the trends and movements in history. This course gives you four different ways to learn the material: (1) the lectures, (2) Conservapedia, (3) the event list and (4) the homework assignments. Different students will learn better from some approaches than others. It’s your job to find what works best for you. At the end your progress will be measured by multiple choice exams.
 
This class is a different approach to American history than most courses that take all year. Learning in a simple and quick manner can sometimes be better. It’s easier to see how events relate to each other. It’s easier to see the big picture. When you want to find your way somewhere, do you want a road map that has every single detail and building on it? No, that is too hard to read. You want a map that has the important things on it. Same with studying history: don’t allow yourself to be sidetracked by unimportant details. Focus on the big stuff.

== Settlement ==
Paleo-indian peoples migrated to the Americas in four main periods of migration, beginning 15000 years ago and lasting until 4000 years ago, stabilizing populations in the mainland and surrounding islands over the following period and developing a wealth of culture and unique advancements. Some of these, such as the Adena burial mounds and Mississippian platform towns, have lasted even into the current era.<ref>Melissa L. Meyer, Dean R. Snow, Charles L. Cohen, Russell Thornton, Donald A. Grinde Jr., Leah Dilworth "Indian History and Culture" The Oxford Companion to United States History. Paul S. Boyer, ed. Oxford University Press 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Tampa. 4 August 2008 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t119.e0758-s0002></ref>

== Exploration ==

Starting in the Middle Ages, Christian Europe began to use its knowledge, wealth and [[faith]] to extend move beyond its horizons. Christian Europeans fought the Holy [[Crusades]] from 1095 to 1291 to protect pilgrims to [[Jerusalem]] against Moslem attacks. Some Europeans were motivated to spread the [[Gospel]]. Others were motivated by a desire to increase their wealth, such as by finding gold. Supporting both types of people was increased knowledge about science and geography: Europeans knew that they could reach the Orient by traveling West '''''around''''' the world. What they did not know is what they would find, if anything, by sailing West, before they reached the Orient.
 
It took enormous courage, determination and financial support to sail West into the complete unknown. It also took more than a desire to get rich, because there were easier ways to make money. That additional desire was a passion to spread Christianity to new civilizations. In 1482, a determined Christian Italian explorer named [[Christopher Columbus]] sought financing to sail west in order to reach Japan. He tried Portugal for raising money, but it already had its own successful explorers. Why would Portugal need Columbus? Portugal declined to support him, and Columbus turned to Spain, which was now Christian after having driven the Muslims out. In 1492, Spain funded Columbus' daring proposal to sail West to reach the Orient.
 
Before we describe this further, however, it is necessary to note that around A.D. 1000, the Scandinavian [[Leif Ericson]] discovered [[Vinland]] where the present [[Newfoundland]] is, and even founded a small colony there, although it ultimately failed after probably a few decades of settlement. There appears to be no evidence that they settled further south, in [[New England]]: "People have been looking hard for hundreds of years and there is no archaeological evidence in this part [New England]— it's certainly possible, the Vikings were incredible boat handlers — '''but there is no evidence'''," observed one university history professor.<ref>http://farshores.org/a04viki.htm</ref>.
 
So back to what Columbus did achieve. He set sail in three ships. First sighted land in late 1492. On Christmas eve, December 24, 1492, one of Columbus's ship, the [[Santa Maria]], reached the island of [[Haiti]]. Columbus named the settlement “La Navidad,” meaning “The Nativity,” and dropped off 40 men with a promise to return to them the next year. Columbus then wrote to the King and Queen of Spain the following in his Journal: “In all the world there can be no better or gentler people. Your Highnesses should feel great joy, because presently they will be Christians, and instructed in the good manners of your realms.”
 
But he had grossly underestimated the size of the world, and when he reached San Salvador, Haiti (Hispaniola) and Cuba he thought he reached the Far East. So he called the natives Indians. He left some men there but they were killed by the natives. Columbus reported back that new people had been found to evangelize with Christianity.
 
Soon Spain and Portugal divided the Americas with the [[Line of Demarcation]], drawn by the Pope. The [[Treaty of Tordesillas]] moved the line in 1493. It was a North-South line that gave Spain North America and the western part of South America, but Portugal received Brazil. That’s why Brazilians speak Portugese to this day.
 
<discuss how Columbus returned to Europe, and then found the same location on his second trip> Columbus sailed on three subsequent voyages, but never achieved his goal and died discredited. What was his motivation? Primarily to spread Christianity, but also to find gold to reward his sponsors and fund further expeditions. Ultimately, his purpose focused on a dream to liberate Jerusalem, as the Crusades attempted.
 
What influence did Columbus have? He gave Spain [[Haiti]], [[Puerto Rico]], [[Jamaica]] and [[Cuba]] by 1515. Spain then settled Florida (St. Augustine), and later Santa Fe, New Mexico. Spanish [[Hernando Cortes]] conquered the Aztecs in central Mexico (1521), and [[Francisco Pizarro]] conquered the Incas of Peru (1531). They seized much gold in the process.
 
But while Spanish soldiers came to America, Spanish women did not. So there were not many distinct, permanent Spanish settlements. Also, the Spanish were also entirely subservient to their King back in Europe. Separate governments did not develop.
 
Other European powers were exploring North America also. The French explored the St. Lawrence and settled Quebec, where French is still spoken to this day. The French also explored the Mississippi, and settled the towns of Saint Louis (named after a French king) and New Orleans.
 
The Dutch explored and settled the Hudson River, and calling that region New Netherlands and buying and naming Manhattan New Amsterdam.
 
The Swedish settled in Delaware; Germans settled later in Pennsylvania.
 
Explorer [[John Cabot]] discovered the North American coastline for England in 1497. But no settlements were attempted by the English for about another 100 years.
 
The reason is that North America didn’t have what the explorers were looking for. America lacked valuable natural resources. There was no gold, which is what Europe wanted. In 1576, the British explorer [[Martin Frobisher]] even hauled 200 tons of material back to England, hoping it was gold. It wasn’t.
 
There wasn’t anything else of value to Europe either. New England was too rocky near the coast to develop farms. The mid-Atlantic region or Chesapeake area, where Maryland and Virginia are today, was infested with malaria. Winters were cold, and summers were hot.
 
There was no livestock – no horses and no cattle, until the Spanish imported them. Florida was a swamp, and did not even have orange trees until the Spanish explorer [[Ponce de Leon]] planted them in 1515.
 
North America was a joke to many in England. Its Parliament passed a law in 1597 authorizing the deportations of convicted criminals to America and other colonies. In 1605, a satirical book entitled “Eastward Ho!” was published that mocked attempts to settle in Virginia.
 
Think about it. Would your family uproot and move, at great risk to your lives, to a place that had no civilization or anything of value? Do we see families moving to the middle of the desert in Arizona, or to cheap land in the middle of Wyoming? Only very rarely.
 
England’s first settlement of North America was in 1585, on [[Roanoke Island]] in Virginia. More than 100 families settled there. In a few years they had all disappeared, and it’s a mystery to this day what happened. They could have died from disease or starvation. They could have been killed by Indians. No one knows. It’s called the “[[Lost Colony]].”
 
About the same time, however, England had a huge success in Europe. Spain had ruled the high seas for most of the 1500s, until England destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588. That left England with the potential to gain control of the oceans and world trade over the seas. England could protect its colonies against other European powers.

== Settlements ==

Some Englishmen invested money in what was called a “[[joint stock company]],” which was similar to a modern-day corporation, for the purpose of finding gold or other treasures. Called the “[[Virginia Company]],” it established the first permanent settlement for England in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. It was a disaster and the investors never received a profit. The men who settled in Jamestown were gentlemen who expected to get rich with little effort. They lacked a common purpose and wasted their time searching for treasure, or simply doing nothing at all. Unwilling to work to grow their own food, they almost starved to death.
 
'''1607''' is one of the few dates you should memorize. This was after the Spanish had settled in Florida, but before the French had settled in Quebec. So remember the sequence in settling America: Spanish, English, and then French.
 
Initially, from 1607-1608, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little he worked. This economic system was a complete failure as no one had any incentive to do any work. In September 1608, [[John Smith]] was elected president of the governing council. He ruled for a year and installed a conservative economic system: “don’t work, don’t eat!” Under this new system, food production increased and by 1614 there was plenty to eat.
 
But Jamestown settlers were there to find fortune, and there was not any gold or silver. Indians had discovered tobacco and Europeans were beginning to become addicted on it. Many Europeans recognized that tobacco was bad for them, and some wanted to prohibit it. In 1613, Englishman [[John Rolfe]], who married the Indian [[Pocahontas]] in Virginia, began growing tobacco to export to Europe. The King banned the growing of tobacco in England, so Rolfe had no competition. Cash began pouring in for the tobacco, and this so-called “cash crop” became highly profitable for the Jamestown settlers. Tobacco continued to be very profitable throughout a large part of American history, particularly in the south.
 
Despite profiting from the sale of tobacco, the Jamestown settlement had other difficulties. It had made peace with Indian [[Chief Powhatan]], whose daughter Pocahontas married settler [[John Rolfe]]. But after Powhatan died, his brother led a sudden attack on the settlers in 1622, massacring 357 out of a total of only 1200.
 
But Indian strife was only one of many problems. Labor was in short supply for working the fields. Settlers began importing indentured servants, who received free travel to the colonies in exchange for a promise to work for seven years. But Virginia also turned to a cheaper approach to labor: importing slaves from West Africa beginning in 1619 to work the crops.
 
In 1624 King James (of “King James Bible” fame) took back the Virginia colony and established it as a royal charter. King James was left with a problem colony that enslaved workers and grew tobacco. More trouble lay ahead. In 1676, Nathanial Bacon was a Virginia settler who decided to take the law into his own hands. He first massacred Indians in western Virginia, then took his small army of rebels to Jamestown, where he burned it down because the governor had refused to allow him to kill the Indians. Bacon himself soon died from a disease. The governor returned and hung two dozen of his supporters. How Virginia produced four of our first five presidents is amazing. You can think about this and answer on the homework assignment.
 
By then there were many other settlements in North America. The most important were two settlements in Massachusetts, which has a much harsher climate than Virginia, particularly in the wintertime. But their motivation was religious, not financial. Puritans were unhappy with the direction of the Church of England, feeling it was too much like the Catholic Church. Two different groups of Puritans set out for North America. One group wanted to purify the Church of England by remaining in the Church but in a more perfect community. The other group wanted to separate completely from the Church of England. Both groups landed by chance within 100 miles of each other in Massachusetts.
 
The first group, the “Pilgrims”, set sail from Plymouth, England and intended to land near the mouth of the Hudson River (now New York City), which was the northern part of the Virginia Company’s territory. But their ship, the “Mayflower”, was blown off course and they landed up on Cape Cod in Massachusetts in 1620. Outside of any official government, they decided on the boat to establish the first civil government in North America by signing the Mayflower Compact. They landed in December, and half died due to disease in their first New England winter. But the following spring a friendly Indian introduced them to corn, or maize, the marvelous food discovered by Indians. They had a plentiful harvest that fall, and celebrated their first Thanksgiving with the Indians that fall. In 1623, their new Governor [[William Bradford]] gave every member a plot of land and allowed the free market to develop. By 1624, the community was doing so well that it was actually making more food than it could consume and began exporting its corn. [[William Bradford]] and [[Edward Winslow]] kept diaries during the settling of Plymouth, which are recorded in a small, but fascinating book called ''Mourt's Relation''.
 
Corn is a tremendous contribution by Indians to the world that increasingly sustains peoples worldwide. Corn did not exist in Europe during the Middle Ages. Cheap and easy to grow, corn has become one of the most popular foods worldwide, rivaling rice and soybeans. For that we can thank the Indians.
 
Encouraged by the success of the Pilgrims, a new groups called the [[Massachusetts Bay Company]] obtained a royal charter and sent a larger group of Puritans to settle in New England, though this time with the purpose of purifying the [[Church of England]] with a more perfect community than in England itself. It was well-financed and led by the very capable [[John Winthrop]], who had been trained at Oxford. It landed in Salem, Massachusetts in 1629 and immediately moved to Boston Harbor. It never looked back, thriving almost immediately despite the harsh winter climate. Within five years the [[Great Migration]] of religiously motivated settlers followed them from England. Their numbers and power grew. By the 1640s, the community was participating in robust trade by sea with England, the West Indies and on occasion West Africa.
 
What is a “colony”? “Colony” defined: “a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state.” (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
 
The growing colonies in Massachusetts and Virginia could not have been more different from each other, and it is remarkable they ever joined the same country. Massachusetts was highly religious and motivated by faith. Virginia was marginally religious and motivated by money. Massachusetts, more religious, had vocal opponents of slavery and neighboring Vermont was the first state to prohibit slavery in its Constitution, in 1777. Virginia welcomed slavery. Massachusetts grew the Indian crop of corn. Virginia grew the Indian crop of tobacco. Massachusetts settlers made greater efforts to get along with Indians and treat them fairly. Massachusetts attracted new settlers based on religion. Virginia attracted new settlers based on the “headright system,” by which land (usually 50 acres) was given to those who paid for the passage to the colony of an immigrant, who usually agreed to work as an “indentured servant” for free for fixed number of years on the land.
 
The stark contrast between Massachusetts and Virginia would ultimately lead, nearly 250 years later, to the Civil War.
 
While Virginia institution of slavery was spreading to the colonies of [[Maryland]], [[Carolina]] and, later, [[Georgia]], [[Massachusetts]] was spreading a different sort of institution: religious intensity. [[Roger Williams]] was an extraordinary individual of such great faith that found even the Puritans lacking in their treatment of Indians. Williams also disagreed with how the Puritans combined government and religion, and had even executed several Christians based on differences with the Puritan faith. Williams was fabulous with languages and learned to communicate with many different Indian tribes, and even lived with them at times in spite of the danger. He left the Puritans in Massachusetts and started the colony of Rhode Island, which to this day has prided itself on its independence. Rhode Island was the only state to refuse to support a colonial tax on imports after the Revolution, and the only colony to refuse to ratify the Constitution until long after [[George Washington]] was President. Rhode Island, under Roger Williams’ direction, separated state government from religion. No mandatory church attendance, and no funding of churches with tax revenues were allowed in Rhode Island.
 
But while Roger Williams was highly moral, others in Rhode Island made it the biggest importer of slaves in all the colonies. So censoring religion may have a price. In contrast, in the larger Massachusetts, taxes funded religious institutions for nearly 200 years, until at least the 1830s. It successfully prohibited slavery. Another devout Christian who disagreed with the Puritans and left them was named [[Anne Hutchinson]]. She, however, was later killed by Indians.
 
One prominent text claims, under “Rhode Island,” that “This belief [by Roger Williams] in the separation of church and state became a cornerstone of the American Constitution in 1787.” That is completely false. Roger Williams was long dead by 1787, and there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Rhode Island did not even send any representatives to draft the Constitution and it had no role in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. In fact, Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until after George Washington was elected president, and even then it took much arm-twisting to compel Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution. But some people want to keep religion out of government, and they refuse to admit that the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a national church by the government.
 
In between Massachusetts and Virginia there was a third approach: that taken by Pennsylvania. William Penn was another extraordinary Englishman. He converted to become a Quaker in England and began practicing that religion in violation of English law. He was arrested and prosecuted, but the jury refused to convict him. The king owed his father money, and gave the son what is today Pennsylvania. It was nothing but woods at the time. But William Penn founded his colony based on one principle: religious freedom for all. He advertised in Europe and attracted peoples of many nationalities in addition to the English.
 
Penn was very kind to the Indians and soon had the most popular colony in America. Philadelphia became America’s greatest city, surpassing Boston in population in the 1700s. Only Pennsylvania and Maryland survived in the long-term under private ownership. Virtually all the other colonies were eventually taken over by the King of England, often due to troubles that arose in the colony.
 
There were other colonies. Pennsylvania was founded over 50 years *after* Virginia and Massachusetts. Georgia was founded over 50 *years* after Pennsylvania, which means over 100 years after Virginia and Massachusetts. Philanthropist [[James Oglethorpe]] founded Savannah in Georgia in 1733 for poor debtors in jails of England. Also created a buffer colony between South Carolina and Spanish Florida. Oglethorpe was very religious and very strict. Too strict for the King, who took over the colony in 1751. The colony was not nearly as strong and developed as the other colonies, so the other colonies did not take it very seriously.
 
Topics for discussion:
*Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?
*Did the Vikings settle North America before Columbus did?
 
[[Category:United States History]]

Christopher Columbus

2008-08-06T18:43:37Z

BeReasonable: /* First Voyage */ Columbus's intended destination was Japan, not India

[[Image:columbus.jpg|thumb]] '''Christopher Columbus''' (1451-1506) was a [[Genoa|Genoese]] explorer who explored the [[West Indies]] for [[Spain]] from 1492 to 1502. Christopher Columbus headed the first expedition from the European mainland to reach the Americas, the first expedition to America being led by the [[Norse]] explorer [[Leif Erikson]], whose discovery produced no enduring settlements. There is archaeological evidence that Viking settlements in Newfoundland lasted until the early 12th century, and [[Basque]] fishermen had been visiting the [[Grand Banks]] off [[Newfoundland]] for hundreds of years.

==First Voyage==
He went to [[Queen Isabella]] and King [[Ferdinand of Spain]] to ask them to finance his journey to the Far East (China and Japan); his plan was to sail west to get to the east: contrary to popular misconceptions, it was well known at the time, that the world was round - however its true circumference was unknown, so it seemed feasible to Columbus, to be able to sail from Europe to Asia within a reasonable amount of time. His first appeal to the king and queen was disappointing but the second time they furnished him with three ships ([[The Niña]], [[The Pinta]] and The [[Santa Maria]]). Leaving August 3 1492, he sailed for months without sight of land while his crew was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the voyage believing themselves to be sailing towards their deaths; they began plotting [[mutiny]].

[[Image:Christopher-columbus.jpg|thumb|October 12, 1492]]
Finally they came to land in the West Indies (October 12, 1492). When they explored a little they found the natives to be friendly and they found many new things that no European had ever seen before. Columbus thought he had landed in India, so he called the native people "Indians" - a designation which remains common to this very day. As they prepared to return to [[Spain]] the Santa Maria ran aground on a coral reef and could not be repaired. Columbus saw this as a sign from God and established a trading outpost he called Navidad (after the Christmas holiday).

However he still had the Nina and Pinta, and so he took most of his crew up the Windward Passage and onwards to Spain. The king and queen were amazed by the colorful birds and strange foods that Columbus brought with him. Columbus was then called Admiral.

==Second Voyage==
When Columbus sailed back to the new world in 1493, he found no sign of Navidad or of his crew. It is unknown what became of the crew, but one widely believed theory is the local Indian population grew tired of being harassed for gold and killed the sailors. Columbus then built a new settlement called Isabella (after the queen), then left it in the charge of his brother Diego and went exploring. He was puzzled that his maps of the east did not match with what he had seen. When he reached modern day [[Cuba]] he believed that this was the mainland and forced his crew to swear that it was. He also discovered [[Jamaica]] shortly afterwards.

==Third Voyage==
[[Image:Sm skyline.gif|thumb|left|The Issabel]]
In 1498, Columbus left Spain with 17 ships carrying 1,200 colonists. He explored [[Trinidad]], [[Tobago]], [[Grenada]] and the coast of [[Venezuela]].

When he returned to Isabella he found it in a state of confusion that he was unable to control. Because there was no gold he sent 500 Indians to Spain as slaves against the will of the king and queen. This brought much ridicule on Columbus. He sailed back to Spain to defend himself and the king and queen refused to furnish him with the necessary ships for continued exploration for three years.

==Fourth Voyage==
When rumors of the confusion in Isabella reached Spain the king and queen sent Francisco de Bobadilla to investigate. Bobadilla arrested Columbus and his brother in the name of the crown, took charge of Isabella forcefully and sent them back to Spain. Columbus begged for one more chance to explore “Asia”. They gave him four broken down ships. His fleet was beaten with storms and he was forced to give up his last journey. He started back for Spain, but his ships were on the verge of collapse and he was forced to stay at Jamaica. He sent one of his crew to Isabella in a canoe to get rescue ships. Seven months later the ships came and took him back to Spain.

==Death==
Columbus died a wealthy man in Spain at the age of 55. He still believed he had reached Asia at the time. In more recent times stories have been dispersed of Columbus dying in poverty and relative anonymity.

== See also ==
*[[Ibn Battuta]]
*[[Marco Polo]]

== References ==
*http://www.eesd.org/Matsumoto/TM30/history/Explorers/colom.html
*http://www.italian-american.com/columbus.htm
*http://www.mariner.org/educationalad/ageofex/columbus.php

{{DEFAULTSORT:Columbus, Christopher}}
{{Nb_explorers}}

[[Category:European History]]

Johnny Cash

2008-08-06T14:17:38Z

BeReasonable: Removed misleading statement re conversion to Christianity. Cash was ALWAYS a Christian. He was raised a Christian. Many of his earliest recordings at Sun & Columbia were gospel songs & hymns.

'''Johnny Cash''' (1932-2003) was an [[United States|American]] country singer. He is one of a small number of people to hold dual membership in both the Country Music Hall of Fame and the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. The 2005 critically acclaimed film ''Walk the Line'' was a portrayal of his life.

Originally from Arkansas, he broke into both country music and early rock and roll on the famed [[Sun Records]] label of [[Memphis]], [[Tennessee]], with his biggest hit from those years being "I Walk the Line". In 1958 he made the jump to [[Columbia Records]] where he remained until 1987. He recorded a series of concept albums in the 1960s ranging from several albums of [[Gospel music]] to albums about [[American history]] (''Ride This Train'' and ''Songs Of Our Soil''), [[blue collar]] workers (''Blood, Sweat, and Tears''), [[American Indian]]s (''Bitter Tears''), and novelty songs (''Everybody Loves a Nut''). He continued to hit with major hit singles during this period as well, with songs like "Ring of Fire". However his career ran into increasing trouble because of a spiraling drug problem.

His marriage to [[June Carter Cash]] marked a turnaround in his career. He got off drugs, and recorded two very popular albums, ''At Folsom Prison'' (1968) and ''At San Quentin'' (1969), both recorded live before [[prison]] audiences. His early 1970s albums continued his commercial success and included a few Christian songs on each album. Typical was his 1971 album ''Man In Black'', which introduced the nickname he would be known by ever since, included another major hit single in the title track, and featured [[Billy Graham]] on one Gospel track. However his commercial success began to fall off considerably after 1976. His last major hit single was "One Piece at a Time" in 1976. He continued to record throughout the rest of the 1970s and the 1980s.

Cash's career made another comeback starting in 1994 after being signed by producer [[Rick Rubin]]'s American label. The series of albums that followed, starting with ''American Recordings'', introduced Johnny Cash's music to a brand new, younger audience. A cover of "Hurt", which was originally by [[Nine Inch Nails]], became a major hit and the video for it won several awards.

In 1980 Johnny Cash was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame.

In 1997 Johnny Cash was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

In 2007 Johnny Cash was inducted into the Hit Parade Hall of Fame.

[[Category:Musicians|Cash, Johnny]]

Country Music

2008-08-06T14:14:45Z

BeReasonable: /* Artists */ can't forget ol' Hank

'''Country music''' is a [[genre]] of music which originated in the rural Southern and Western [[United States]]. It is tipified by the heavy use of [[guitar]]s, [[steel guitar]]s, and [[fiddle]]s, and, like its root style [[blues]], an accented 2nd and 4th beat in the drums.

==History==
Modern country music (in the later half of the 20th century and beyond) evolved from "hillbilly music," or [[bluegrass]] (which itself has roots in the folk music of the [[Appalachia]]n hills), as well as early blues from the [[deep south]].

==Artists==
Some famous country musicians include:
*[[Hank Williams]]
*[[Toby Keith]]
*[[Johnny Cash]]
*[[Garth Brooks]]
*[[Willie Nelson]]
*[[Tim McGraw]]
*[[Eddy Arnold]]
*[[Carrie Underwood]]

Several organizations present awards to outstanding country performers including the [[Academy of Country Music]].

[[Category:music]]

Hank Williams

2008-08-06T14:14:15Z

BeReasonable:

[[Country music]]ian, singer and songwriter '''Hiram "Hank" King Williams''' was born on September 17, 1923
at Mount Olive, [[Alabama]]. Small and fragile, his pain would start
early due to a disorder of the spinal column that would lead to
[[alcohol]] and drug use throughout his life.

At seven years of age his father was hospitalized for the remainder
of Hank’s childhood. His mother would send him at ten to live with
his uncle and aunt, where he learned to play the guitar. In his early
teens, while living in Montgomery, Alabama Hank Williams was
invited to perform on WSFA radio, where he would
host is own 15 minute show twice weekly.

Dropping out of [[school]], Hank was soon traveling the area with
his own band, the “Drifting Cowboys”. In August of 1948, he
joined the Louisiana Hayride in Shreveport, [[Louisiana]] that
was broadcast into living rooms all across the south. The stage
was set for his first big hit, “Lovesick Blues” that reached the
top of the country Hit Parade in the spring of 1949.

A year later Hank’s chart topping success would repeat with
“Long Gone Lonesome Blues”, “Why Don’t You Love Me”
and “Moanin’ the Blues”. In 1951, “Cold, Cold Heart” and
“Hey Good Lookin’” reached #1. “Jambalaya”, a Grammy Hall
of Fame winner topped the charts before Hank Williams’
“I’ll Never Get Out of This World Alive” was the #1 song at the
time of his death on New Year’s day, 1953. Three more reached
number one that year, “Kaw-Liga”, “Your Cheatin Heart” and
“Take These Chains from My Heart”.

Among other Hank Williams top ten hits were, “You Win Again”,
“My Bucket’s Got a Hole In It”, “Howlin’ at the Moon”,
“I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry”, “Settin’ the Woods on Fire”,
“I Can’t Help It If I’m Still In Love With You”, “Honky Tonk Blues”,
and “Half as Much”. Many of the songs Hank Williams wrote would
become big hits when recorded by pop artists then and now.

On January 1, 1953 Hank Williams died while in route from
Knoxville, Tennessee to *Canton, Ohio for a show. At just 29 years
of age, he achieved legendary status as a country music icon.

[[Category:Musicians]]

Hank Williams

2008-08-06T14:13:58Z

BeReasonable:

Country musician, singer and songwriter '''Hiram "Hank" King Williams''' was born on September 17, 1923
at Mount Olive, [[Alabama]]. Small and fragile, his pain would start
early due to a disorder of the spinal column that would lead to
[[alcohol]] and drug use throughout his life.

At seven years of age his father was hospitalized for the remainder
of Hank’s childhood. His mother would send him at ten to live with
his uncle and aunt, where he learned to play the guitar. In his early
teens, while living in Montgomery, Alabama Hank Williams was
invited to perform on WSFA radio, where he would
host is own 15 minute show twice weekly.

Dropping out of [[school]], Hank was soon traveling the area with
his own band, the “Drifting Cowboys”. In August of 1948, he
joined the Louisiana Hayride in Shreveport, [[Louisiana]] that
was broadcast into living rooms all across the south. The stage
was set for his first big hit, “Lovesick Blues” that reached the
top of the country Hit Parade in the spring of 1949.

A year later Hank’s chart topping success would repeat with
“Long Gone Lonesome Blues”, “Why Don’t You Love Me”
and “Moanin’ the Blues”. In 1951, “Cold, Cold Heart” and
“Hey Good Lookin’” reached #1. “Jambalaya”, a Grammy Hall
of Fame winner topped the charts before Hank Williams’
“I’ll Never Get Out of This World Alive” was the #1 song at the
time of his death on New Year’s day, 1953. Three more reached
number one that year, “Kaw-Liga”, “Your Cheatin Heart” and
“Take These Chains from My Heart”.

Among other Hank Williams top ten hits were, “You Win Again”,
“My Bucket’s Got a Hole In It”, “Howlin’ at the Moon”,
“I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry”, “Settin’ the Woods on Fire”,
“I Can’t Help It If I’m Still In Love With You”, “Honky Tonk Blues”,
and “Half as Much”. Many of the songs Hank Williams wrote would
become big hits when recorded by pop artists then and now.

On January 1, 1953 Hank Williams died while in route from
Knoxville, Tennessee to *Canton, Ohio for a show. At just 29 years
of age, he achieved legendary status as a country music icon.

[[Category:Musicians]]

Bill Monroe

2008-08-06T14:12:40Z

BeReasonable:

'''William Smith Monroe''' (1911-1996) was an [[American]] singer and mandolinist who is popularly referred to as the "Father of [[Bluegrass]] Music." In the 1930s he performed as a duo with his brother Charlie, and in 1939 he formed his most famous band "The Bluegrass Boys" with whom he continued to perform (through many, many lineup changes) until his death. His most well known song is probably "Blue Moon of Kentucky" which was covered and made famous by [[Elvis Presley]].

Other hits included "Uncle Pen," a tribute to his uncle Pendleton Vandiver, "Muleskinner Blues" a reworking of a [[Jimmie Rogers]] song, and "Jerusalem Ridge" a [[fiddle]] tune commemorating a ridge near his birthplace.

[[Category:Musicians|Monroe, Bill]]

Bluegrass

2008-08-06T14:12:05Z

BeReasonable: there was no bluegrass in the 1920s!!!

'''Bluegrass''' is a [[genre]] of [[country music]] developed by [[Bill Monroe]] during the 1940s, which is typified by the use of [[fiddle]]s, [[banjo]]s, [[mandolin]]s, [[guitar]]s, [[string bass]], as well as high falsetto vocals. Bluegrass has strong links to the traditional folk musics of [[Kentucky]], [[North Carolina]], and the [[Appalachia]]n hills.

The genre is named after Monroe's band, the Bluegrass Boys, which is turn was named after his home state of Kentucky, the 'Bluegrass State', so called because of the plant ''bluegrass'' which is common in parts of Kentucky. Bluegrass music was most successful from the mid 1940s to the mid 1950s, but is still popular among bluegrass enthusuasts around the world today.

[[Category:Music]]

His Dark Materials (novel)

2008-07-29T21:49:52Z

BeReasonable: /* Awards */ interesting comparison

'''''His Dark Materials''''' is a trilogy of children's [[fantasy]] novels written by [[Britain|British]] author [[Philip Pullman]]. Modeled on classics like [[C. S. Lewis|C.S. Lewis']] ''[[Chronicles of Narnia]]'' and [[John Milton|Milton's]] ''[[Paradise Lost]]'', the trilogy is an [[allegory|allegorical]] indictment of organised religion and has been widely perceived as an attack on traditional Christian [[theology]].

The trilogy consists of ''[[The Golden Compass]]'' (originally published as ''Northern Lights'' in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1995), ''[[The Subtle Knife]]'' (published in 1997) and ''[[The Amber Spyglass]]'' (published in 2000). The title of the trilogy refers to a line from the 17th century poem ''[[Paradise Lost]]'' by [[John Milton]], <ref>http://www.kirkcenter.org/bookman/44-1-bernthal.html</ref> a line that is stated at the start of ''The Golden Compass''.

==Plot==
{{Spoiler}}

The main action of the trilogy centers around Lyra Belacqua, an 11-year old girl raised in [[England]] in another universe, and Will Parry, a 12-year old boy from London in our [[universe]].

===The Golden Compass===
The first novel is primarily concerned with Lyra, a girl living in [[Oxford]]. In Lyra's world, a person's [[soul]] is represented as an animal known as a "daemon". Children's daemons can change their shape at will, but once a person reaches maturity their daemon becomes "fixed" and stays in one shape for the rest of its life. Lyra's world is ruled by "The Church", a [[religion|religious]] organization that wields immense power. The Church worships a powerful being known as "The Authority"

The story follows Lyra as she travels across the North to rescue her friend Roger, a servant at the college in which she lives, who has been kidnapped by a mysterious organization known as the Gobblers. She is also on a mission to rescue Lord Asriel, her father and an explorer, who has been imprisoned at a castle ruled by talking bears. Her primary assistance on this journey is a golden, compass-like object called an alethiometer, which can tell the future. Along the way, she encounters allies like flying witches, aeronauts (balloon operators), and tribes of seafarers called Gyptians.

Eventually, she is captured by the Gobblers and learn that they are a branch of The Church known as the General Oblation Board. The Board is led by Lyra's mother, Mrs. Marisa Coulter. Their goal is to separate children from their daemons to prevent a mysterious, invisible substance known as "Dust" from settling on them. This Dust is believed to be [[Original sin]] by the Church. Unfortunately, the separation of a child and their daemon always results in the death of both. With the aid of her allies, Lyra escapes the Oblation Board with Roger, freeing the other prisoners in the process.

She ends up in Svalbard, the kingdom of talking, armored bears known as ''panserbjorne''. With her bear ally Iorek Byrnison, she topples the corrupt bear king and frees Lord Asriel. However, Asriel betrays her and uses Roger's daemon to open a massive portal to another world. The process of opening this portal results in Roger's death. Lyra vows to find the source and identity of Dust, and enters the portal.

===The Subtle Knife===
The second novel takes place several weeks after ''The Golden Compass'', and introduces Will Parry, a 12-year old boy who lives with his mother in Oxford in our world. His father has been missing for many years after going on a voyage to the North. At the start of the novel, he accidentally kills a thief, and is forced to go on the run from the law. He finds a portal to another world and meets Lyra, who has been searching for knowledge about Dust.

Meanwhile, a minor character from ''The Golden Compass'' receives a major storyline: Lee Scoresby, an aeronaut from the [[Texas]] of Lyra's universe. He undergoes a quest to locate Stanislaus Grumman, an explorer who may hold answers to some of the mysteries surrounding Dust and be able to help Lord Asriel, who is amassing forces in another world. Eventually, Lee finds Grumman, where it is revealed that the explorer is John Parry, Will's long-lost father, who accidentally went through a portal on his expedition. The pair are followed by large war zeppelins and soldiers loyal to the Church. While holding them back, Scoresby is sadly killed, but his sacrifice enables Parry to continue on his journey.

Lyra and Will try to unravel the mysteries of Dust, meeting Mary Malone, a scientist from Will's world. She has been studying Dust and discovers that it mostly settles on objects of human design and origin, while avoiding natural objects such as plants or uncarved wood. Will and Lyra avoid the people looking for Will and return to Cittagazze, where they find an unusual device known as the Subtle Knife. This knife, which can create portals to many different worlds, also wards off Specters.

This discovery inadvertently results in the original owner being attacked by Specters, which angers the children who still reside in the city. They almost kill Lyra and Will, but the two are saved by Lyra's witch allies who have entered Cittagazze. The protagonists learn that the Subtle Knife would be helpful to Lord Asriel, who is amassing a large army to combat the Authority. Before this can happen, however, they are attacked by Specters under the control of Mrs. Coulter, and Lyra is captured.

Will, confused and disoriented, meets a wandering man who introduces himself as Stanislaus Grumman. He tells Will to give the Knife to Lord Asriel. As they see each other's eyes, they realize their familial connection. Unfortunately, before father and son can be truly reunited, John Parry is killed by a witch whose love he scorned because of his faithfulness to his wife. This witch commits suicide shortly thereafter. As Will tries to decide what to do, he encounters two invisible beings who introduce themselves as [[angels]] and promise to take him to Lord Asriel.

===The Amber Spyglass===
''The Amber Spyglass'' begins shortly after the end of ''The Subtle Knife''. Lyra has been taken captive by Mrs. Coulter, who keeps her sedated in a cave in yet another new world. Despite her strong loyalty to the Church, Mrs. Coulter's motherly instincts take over, and she decides to hide Lyra from both the Church's forces and Lord Asriel's.

Will goes on a journey to find Lyra, led by one of the two angels, Balthamos. The other angel dies early in the book while delivering a message to Lord Asriel. From the angels, Will learns that The Authority is only the first and most powerful angel, formed from Dust, who has convinced everyone that he created everything. Since he is so old, The Authority is now senile, and his Regent, Metatron, rules in his stead. A select few of the angels have rebelled against The Authority and Metatron, and now join forces with Asriel to defeat them and end their rule over everything.

Meanwhile, Dr. Mary Malone of Will's Oxford is being hunted by authorities and enters the same portal Will went through in ''The Subtle Knife''. She enters a strange world populated by intelligent, elephant-like creatures called "mulefa". She learns about Dust from their legends and customs, and constructs a spyglass with an amber lens, through which she is able to see Dust as particles of light. She discovers that Dust is slowly leaving the worlds, which will eventually result in disaster.

Traveling throughout the worlds, Will, Balthamos, and Iorek Byrinson the new bear king eventually reach Lyra and help her escape. The forces of Asriel and the Church wage battle all around them and Balthamos flees in terror. Will and Lyra attempt to enter another world, but the Subtle Knife breaks as a result of Will's emotions. Iorek fixes it using a makeshift forge. The two children eventually decide to enter the [[afterlife|world of the dead]] in an attempt to help Roger, John Parry, and Lee Scoresby.

Mrs. Coulter is captured by Asriel's army and taken to his fortress. She escapes using a powerful flying machine and returns to the Church. However, she learns that the Church plans to kill Lyra, using a form of odd science, before she can face some "temptation" that has the potential to destroy everything the Church stands for, an explicit analogy to [[Eve]]. Mrs. Coulter again switches sides, and is able to prevent this murder from happening, returning to Asriel's fortress.

Will and Lyra are aided by two spies of Lord Asriel, members of a race of extremely small people called "Gallivespians", in their efforts to reach the land of the dead. They eventually enter it by use of the Subtle Knife, but Lyra is forced to leave her daemon behind, an act of complete betrayal. Though the protagonists are reunited with their loved ones, they learn that the afterlife is little more than a [[prison]], where all of the dead are emotionally tortured by monsters called harpies who feed on their sadness. They manage to convince the harpies to let them lead the dead out of the afterlife, and they cut a portal that leads them through the center of the world.

The final battle between the forces of Lord Asriel and the forces of The Authority and Metatron has officially begun, and Lyra and Will lead the dead right into the middle of it. Mrs. Coulter uses the flying machine to go to The Authority's palace, where she sees The Authority being carried out in a large glass cage. She eventually seduces Metatron into following her to the center of the world, where she says Lyra is being held. In reality, it is a trap for the angel laid by her and Lord Asriel, and they both push Metatron over the edge into an abyss, killing themselves in the process.

Lyra and Will find the cage containing The Authority, who is being attacked by animals. They drive off the animals, and free the being from his cage. Unfortunately, his frail body can not withstand a gust of wind, and he dies. The battle is not yet over, and Lyra and Will are saved from soldiers by the dead. After their task is done, the dead dissolve into the air, becoming one with the world.

Lyra and Will escape the battle by entering another world, the world of the mulefa. They meet Mary Malone again, and she tells them of the time that she lost her faith in [[Catholicism]]. Because of her descriptions of love, Lyra and Will realize that they are in love, and it is implied, but not clearly stated, that they engage in intercourse. This somehow makes the flow of Dust return to normal, and fulfills the "temptation" mentioned earlier in the series. Not long after this, Lyra is reunited with her daemon and Will is able to see his for the first time.

A [[priest]] sent by the Church to kill Lyra is almost given a chance to kill her and Will, but is stopped by Balthamos, who is ashamed of leaving Will and Lyra before. The assassin is accidentally killed, and it is implied that Balthamos dies of his wounds.

Will and Lyra delight in their new-found love, but they soon learn that the many holes cut by the Subtle Knife will need to be closed before the supply of Dust runs out. They also learn that staying in a different world for a long period of time will eventually cause a decline in a person's health, killing them. They decide that despite their feelings that they cannot stay with each other, since they have to leave one portal open to allow the dead to return to the living world. They each go back to their respective Oxfords, and resume their normal lives, basing them around teaching other people to live their lives to the fullest and not bother with [[faith]].

==Religious Views==
Dust is a primeval substance from which all life, consciousness and free will sprang. However the Authority and Magisterium seek to suppress this knowledge because it contradicts their doctrine of supremacy, and therefore equate it with sin or loss of innocence. At an allegorical level this can be seen as the Church's work to eliminate sin conflicting with the need for free will. As the characters rediscover this dust and embrace its life-giving power, they choose to free themselves from the oppressive theocracy of the Magisterium.

===God===
The character of "The Authority" is definitely the [[Judeo-Christian]] [[God]], evidenced by many of his names <ref>http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html</ref>. [[Yahweh]], one of the names mentioned, is a common name for God in the [[Bible]]. The Father the Almighty, another name, is a term from the [[Nicene Creed]].

Despite this, The Authority's traits clearly depart from the God depicted in the Bible. He is mortal and his powers are clearly limited, while the Judeo-Christian God is immortal and omnipotent. In a sense it mocks the belief of Christians and Jews, telling them that the God they worship is a powerless creation and worthy only of pity and disgust.

===Jesus===
[[Jesus]] is only referenced directly once in the books. Near the end of ''The Amber Spyglass'', when talking of her former devotion to the Catholic faith, Mary Malone (a minor character) says:

''"I wanted to take my whole life and offer it up.. and place it in front of Jesus to do as he liked with."'' <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 33, "Marzipan"</ref>

In an April 2004 interview alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pullman stated that he felt that Jesus' teachings were antithetical to organised religion, and wanted to mark this by his absence in the story.
<blockquote>

"...He doesn't figure in the teaching of the church, as I described the church in the story. I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml&page=1</ref>
</blockquote>

===Christianity===
However, the religion started by Jesus appears many times in the books. The Church of Lyra's parallel universe is specifically stated to be a descendant of the [[Calvinist]] faith in ''The Golden Compass''. <ref>''The Golden Compass'', Ch. 2, "The Idea of North"</ref>

===Angels===
[[Angels]] are a separate race in the books' world, complete with their own backstory. Apparently, most of the angels were formed out of the substance known as Dust at sometime in the past, and are very old. The Authority was the first angel formed, and convinced the following angels that he had created them. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref>

[[Human]]s can become angels somehow, although the process is not described in detail. The characters Baruch and Metatron were once human brothers. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 5, "The Adamant Tower"</ref> Metatron's former name was Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalalel. These three names are commonly cited as direct descendants of [[Adam]]. <ref>[http://www.marshallgenealogy.org/bible/pafg35.htm Bible Genealogy, Descendants of Adam]</ref>

===Homosexuality===
Though it is not a major part of the story, it is extremely heavily implied that the angels Balthamos and Baruch have a [[homosexual]] relationship. This is most seen in several instances of them or other characters referring to the two as "loving each other with a passion" or similar phrases. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref> It is unclear whether the same rules of gender apply, due to their non-human ancestry, but Pullman stated in an August 2000 interview that he "liked the idea of two male angels who love each other and who are, themselves, very different characters. They play an important part in the moral education, so to speak, of Will, but also in the outcome of the story."<ref>http://www.powells.com/authors/pullman.html</ref>

==Religious Response==
Online Christian criticism brands the trilogy overly [[atheist]],<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58341</ref> [[pantheism|pantheist]]<ref>http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pullman.php</ref> or [[humanist]].<ref>http://literarycatechist.blogspot.com/2007/11/his-dark-materials.html</ref> It has also come under heavy fire from several [[Christian]] groups, most famously the Catholic League, who called for a Christian boycott of the film adaptation.<ref>http://catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=October&read=2322</ref>
There are some Christian supporters of the books, most notably Rowan Williams, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]].<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml</ref>

==Awards==
The series has won some awards<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/features/pullman/author/author.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.philip-pullman.com/about_the_author.asp</ref>
*the Astrid Lindgren Award
*the Carnegie Medal
*the Guardian Children's Book Award
*the Whitbread Book of the Year award, the first time it had been given to a children's book

It is interesting to note the change in attitude over time that a work that tries to destroy God is considered to be an exemplary example for children in the minds of those who make decisions. It is not in any way similar to [[Al Gore]] writing about [[global warming]], and somehow being awarded the [[Nobel Peace Prize]].

==References==
<references/>
==See also==
{{Nb Atheism}}

[[Category:Novels]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-07-28T00:43:55Z

BeReasonable: /* Wikipedia acknowledges all subjects and opinions. Conservapedia does not. Hmmm, which one is biased? */ new section

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



==Religious affiliation of Wikipedians==
I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--[[User:Java7837|Java7837]] 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place. It was put there by [[user:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]], but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from. Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus. And by the way, the graph ''does'' include agnostics, and how does 515 <s>outnumber</s> mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]" ==

I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 01:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==

Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?

The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.

That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?

I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.

It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …

Well lets hope not ...

{{unsigned|Qgobo}}

:Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe. That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Faith]] is a uniquely Christian concept. It is being used incorrectly above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". {{unsigned|Qgobo}}

::: That's a meaningless category. It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A". They disagree among themselves.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia. Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all. It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.

:::: I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest <s>faith</s> {non- atheists} group on it).

:::: Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy. So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith". They ''all'' have faith: Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.

The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.

Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of [[faith]]. Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis.[11]

doesn't this seem like a moot point simply because of the number difference does the wikipedia article mention that in the more atheistic countries it's the opposite?

== People for the American Way ==

Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: That does look biased. Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Why some of these problems don't count==
Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!

Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.

{{unsigned|Margheritapizza}}

: No, you're wrong. Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the [[Wikipedia police]], even though [[Wikipedia]] has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==WP: Sexist?==
Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Reversion==
I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true. In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is ''"Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988."'' Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==43==
Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. [[User:Mwaetht|Mwaetht]] 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?
: How is No. 33 an ''ad hominem'' argument? An ''ad hominem'' argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument. No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
: And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Smoking example ==

I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking. Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page ==

== Question ==

Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is biased...how can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: My [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes part way to answering your questions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case. For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it). It was not an article ''about'' Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong. And ''numerous'' editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them. It truly was a mobocracy. I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism. I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles. See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page] for more detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does '''not''' mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly ''about'' Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance. In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is ''not'' neutrality, but majority rule. Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory. "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight". And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be ''fair'', but it's hardly ''neutral''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID. Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space. By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of [[liberal style]]: overreliance on [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things '''with an open mind'''. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., [[Exobiology]]. Rest assured I was not ''relying'' on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of [[liberal]] falsehoods on my own talk page. Please illustrate point 11 of [[liberal style]] somewhere else. In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.

: Further attempts at [[liberal]] [[last wordism]] on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Translation: "It's my website, so I get the last word." (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy. I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5, you're clueless also. We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with [[Wikipedia]]. See point 11 in [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Insist on [[last wordism]] on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Maths, anyone? ==

''"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."''

700 out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%. That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave. Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?

Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.

- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

--[[User:Tommy|Tommy]] 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim. Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point. Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It should be made clear what "reject evolution" means, or this debate is kind of pointless. I'm also not sure why the 'religious' comment and the link are relevant. I think the key to that objection what the first percentage, indicating that 0.0014% of scientists definitely "reject evolution". By the way, it should actually be 0.14%; 700 / 500,000 = 0.0014, but you must multiply by 100 to get the percentage. Either way, the figure is small. Aschafly is correct that assuming that ''all'' other scientists (the remaining 99.84%) "support evolution" (which doesn't mean any more than "reject evolution" does) is not necessarily valid, but as a student who knows and has spoken at length with many scientists and professors on a variety of issues, I would consider it fair to assume that ''most'' scientists have some conviction about the correctness and utility of our current theories on evolution. It is not nearly so black-and-white an issue as simply "supporting" or "rejecting" evolution. Is this covered in one of the points on this article? This probably should be changed on Wikipedia, if only because it sounds to me like this poll was conducted in improperly simplified terms. I'll look for it. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 10:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I've looked into this reference on Wikipedia, in their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution Level of support for evolution] article in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support Scientific support] section. Due to the subtleties involved in this debate, I would still like to know more about how the poll discussed there was conducted. I did find a lively debate over the validity of using this poll in the article in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution/Archive_3#Newsweek_article article's 3rd and most recent talk page archive]. There did not appear to be a consensus. If it makes any of you feel better, consider the context of this poll and remember that it was conducted in 1987 and appears to have used blunt, oversimplified questions. It's more of a historical reference than a current item now. Either way, the debate goes on.

By the way, I'm curious to know if any of you can direct me to any papers published in peer-reviewed journals that presented data or explained experiments whose results clearly supported Intelligent Design. I've read about ID supporters' thought experiments and probability-based arguments, but I don't know anything about their supporting data or experimental evidence. If any of you know where I can find papers on this data and evidence, let me know. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 11:01, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obvious bias in liberal page ==
Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for [[Liberal]], there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Liberal Myths]]), while the same section for [[Conservative]] has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?

--[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Administrator names? Huh?==

This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate ''what'' it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with ''how'' its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't ''create'') the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a [[liberal]] [[Socialist]] [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] who once referred to [[Christianity]] as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I concur. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:

* criticizing anti-intellectual user names
* criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance

: That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer. And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:Huh?--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peter Singer==
New to this site. Check out the article on Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide. The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book. An excerpt from one of his books can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm [[User:Egd|Egd]] 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

* Quotes such as '''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person''' were ''removed'' as being POV

:Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Deleted_content] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question of Logic ==

The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded. While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals. Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world. 
 
To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian). I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think '''this''' community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous. As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others. If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. [[User:Zebu1911|Zebu1911]] 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Creation "myth" ==
Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth {{unsigned|Cal05000}}

: Wikipedia is redefining words to advance its [[liberal]] agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::What does wikipedia define myth as, and what is myth defined as? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 18:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia does specify that the definition of "myth" is just a traditional story with no implications of truth or un-truth. I can confirm definition this in several dictionaries. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 20:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The word "myth" plainly connotes falsity, which is what the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia want to connote about [[creation]]. See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth Webster definition]. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::::: Aschlafly you should sign your posts. And if you read the beginning of the article you can see that the author of the article goes out of their way to define myth. The article is about creation stories, including every major religion. Not just christianity. I fail to see your problem with this. But realizing no matter what I say you will never change your opinion, or for that matter admit you were wrong. So feel free to not comment back. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You are both right. "Myth" does not imply truth or falsity ''when used in a scholarly sense''. The Merriam-Webster definition 1 (see Aschlafly's link) reflects this. But when used in an everyday sense, it implies something that is not true, as per Merriam-Webster definitions 2b and 3. Wikipedia uses the first definition as an excuse to tar creation accounts as unreliable, but contrary to your claim about "every major religion. Not just christianity", does not include atheism and apply the term to its origins account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Great points, Philip. In sum, Wikipedia's [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]] bias is demonstrated by how it applies the term "myth" to [[creation]] but not to [[evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I completely agree that the word "myth" carries connotations of falsity, and for a while I was of the opinion that the title in question was not NPOV, but after reading the arguments on Wikipedia, there are several definitions of the word which do not define a myth as either true or false, which describe the topic in hand far more accurately than something like "story" or "belief". Here are some examples of the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 dictionary websites I found:

::*''"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."'' ([http://www.dictionary.com])
::*''"an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts"'' ([http://dictionary.cambridge.org])
::*''"a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"'' ([http://www.merriam-webster.com])
::*''"ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior"'' ([http://encarta.msn.com])

::In my opinion, the definition of the word "myth" is perfectly inline with the definition of Creationism, while it doesn't describe recent scientific theories like the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The fact that the article clearly explains that it is using the strictly academic definition of the word makes it an acceptable title, and I don't think a more vague, politically correct word is needed. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 22:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::: [[Wikipedia]] is a good home for you then. You selectively quote from the dictionary definitions about myth and then, once you settle on a misleading meaning, you apply it in a biased way against creation but not evolution. You've illustrated and embraced the bias at Wikipedia well. Enjoy it there. We don't allow such bias here on our content pages.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I did not selectively quote dictionary definitions, I clearly stated that I chose the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 (and, in fact, only) dictionary websites that I looked at (typed "dictionary" into google and chose from the first page of results). I acknowledged that "myth" carries negative connotations, and that at first I felt that the title did need to be changed. However, I felt after consideration, that due to word (or at least the primary definition of the word) being far more descriptive of the topic at hand than other potential replacements, along with the definition of the word within the article itself, it was better to keep the title than to change it because of the connotations it carries. This is of course my opinion, and is based on my view of how negative the word "myth" is. Others are likely to have different perceptions, and thus disagree with me.

::::The other main definition of "myth" seems to be ''"false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief"'' (encarta). Both Evolution and Creationism could fall under this description, depending on your POV/bias. Evolution however, in my opinion, does not fall under the other definition, as it is in no way "traditional", "supernatural", "historical" or has anything to do with "deities", whereas Creationism does (if you disagree I would be happy to hear your points).

::::I do not support any form of bias in this context, and agree with Conservapedia that there is significant bias throughout Wikipedia that needs to be amended. I hope that I have cleared up my views on the matter. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 00:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: Evolution wasn't invented by Darwin. He merely popularised it by giving it a pseudo-scientific explanation. The general idea of evolution is ancient, so it ''does'' fit some of the definitions you provided (note that reference to a deity was not in all definitions, and not a requirement in others). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia obviously cant say it isnt a myth either so how you put it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip you make a good point, but you have one flaw in your logic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is the present factual information based on the official definitions. Yes, popular and actual definitions are often at odds, but encylopedias present the actual definition. I disagree that a evolutionist/atheistic view of creation should be added. The page is about religious creation myths, and it does include a link to the article on evolution. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 13:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not aware that anyone has decreed that encyclopedias can only use "official" definitions.
: If the page is about ''religious'' creation myths, then why exclude the "creation myth" of atheistic religions? This is part of the atheist agenda: Label everyone else's worldviews/beliefs as "religious", but their own as "non-religious" or "rational" or whatever, and label everyone else's beliefs about origins as "creation myths" but their own as "scientific". Such artificial self-serving distinctions are not accepted on Conservapedia. Granted, Wikipedia does define how it is using the term "myth" in that particular article, but, as pointed out, does not include the atheistic origins myth. Further, at the top of the page are links to "scientific" views, a non-so-subtle inference that the "creation myths" are not scientific.
: And the only link to evolution ''per se'' is buried within the "Hermeticism" section half way through the page.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

While that may be so Philip I think it prudent to mention that many links on this website either redirect to another conservapedia page, are missing altogether or are linked to a page that says nothing in regards to the intended point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to the discussion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you said the only link to evolution in wikipedia when discussing the 'creation myth' was buried ''per se'' (in what I gather) rather obscurely. I was pointing out that many CP links demonstrate this also, if not worse.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: My ''criticism'' was that Wikipedia treats creation but not evolution as a "myth". My reference to an evolution link was simply a reply to your claim that the Wikipedia article did link to evolution. It does, but not in any way that could be construed as including evolution as a "creation myth". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Has anyone else noticed the further evidence of systemic bias in the Wikipedia Creation myth page? "Some Jews and Christians believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Every other subsection starts without such a qualifier:
* "The Aztec narrative describing creation proceeds with..."
* "In the beginning, there was just water..." (Cherokee)
* "The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean..." (Shinto)
* "The Voluspa opens with the Norse account of the creation of the present universe :"
Wikipedia insists on qualifying every statement regarding Christianity to suggest that those who believe in the Bible, or in this case that Genesis is the Christian story of creation, are offshoots of the mainstream. [[User:Egd|Egd]] 10:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Right. The hostility and bias on Wikipedia against Christianity are undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, I've seen that sort of thing before, although probably not that particular example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Also wikipedia has a categories for alleged Christian mythology and Jewish mythology -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I just removed a 'bias' example regarding the Wikipedia article "Creation myth" because it talks about myths from all sorts of religions and cultures. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Categorization ==

Would anyone object to an effort to categorize the examples in different sections, such as Wikipedia attacks on religion, Wikipedia pro-liberal bias, examples that have been corrected and so on? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: That's OK, provided it does not dilute the entry or introduce [[placement bias]] by moving stronger and more recent points lower in the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== #12: Ron Paul smear ==

As a huge Ron Paul supporter, #12 sent me to straight to wikipedia in hopes of setting things straight, only to find that the article clearly shows that the comments were not made by Ron Paul. I fail to see the smear here. -[[User:Crimson30|Crimson30]] 14:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why is the smear so extensive on Ron Paul's entry given that, as you say, he did not author the comments? When the entry is about a [[liberal]], Wikipedia does not smear the person in such a manner. Hence this illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:: How is the entry in the Wikipedia article a smear? It's responsible of the article to mention the controversy over the newsletters given the widespread coverage it has in anti-Paul propaganda online, and the article clearly states that Ron Paul is not the source of those comments and that they are not his beliefs. If there was a Wikipedia article about you, and there was a widespread story on the internet that falsely attributed Holocaust denial remarks to you, would you think Wikipedia worse for noting this story and refuting it? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia is like the National Enquirer, then, in simply repeating smears about people without any educational value.

::: But the reason the point is here, as I said, is because Wikipedia does NOT smear liberals as it smears conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: But it *does* have educational value - it informs people that Ron Paul did not write those things, does not believe those things and that he finds what was written morally reprehensible. It's not a smear, because it presents the facts of the matter. And if it's not a smear, the point has to be made with a different article. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 17:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Wandering", it obviously is a smear. If you can't admit that, then this discussion is a waste of time. Ron Paul's opponents used that information to attack and smear him. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: They cannot use that information to smear him, because the information directly indicates that it is not smear-worthy material. The information clearly shows that Ron Paul did not write and in fact repudiates the controversial content from the newsletters. I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read that portion of the article word-for-word, instead of just skimming it. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Points #1, #4 ==

I do not see how the image of the minuteman statue is presented as "proof" (although the caption is admittedly quite poor). On the point of the two articles concerning religious terrorism, "body" seems somewhat of a misnomer, since the articles are not essays. Regardless, reference link 6 is broken. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Defamatory material in American Family Association article ==

Wikipedia's article for the group includes numerous defamatory assertions which are either unsupported or poorly supported (e.g. with biased references). For example, the article claims the AFA supports "the criminalization of homosexuality," yet neither source supports such a blanket assertion (one of the sources actually says the AFA supports criminalizing ''public displays'' of homosexuality). Another example, the article states, "The March 2005 issue of the AFA's Journal contained an article which insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society," yet the article in question makes absolutely no such insinuation. Wikipedia also categorizes the article under "Homophobia" even though phobias are disorders requiring a clinical diagnosis to identify. Attempts to correct material within the article are met with vicious and unrelenting opposition by homosexual and pro-homosexual editors. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
:Check out the recent edit history. WP editor (who is gay, unsurprisingly enough) is reverting my properly rationalized edits for no good reason. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The Wikipedia entry does misrepresent what the [[American Family Association]] article says, probably in a misguided attempt to smear the [[American Family Association]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Family_Association&diff=216091906&oldid=216091846] Let's see how long Wikipedia persists in its misrepresentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to admit that there was a show of bias on the part of WP editors, or to be more precise two of them. If you follow guidelines like I did and initiate discussion rather than just engaging in all out edit wars you will find that the greater community is more than willing to listen. Try doing that next time, the talk page is there for a reason. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:59, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't see any improvement. Illustrating its bias, [[Wikipedia]] simply reverted or overwrote the corrections in order to continue to smear the [[American Family Association]]. The [[Wikipedia]] entry even resorts to smearing the [[American Family Association]] for something it did not even write in one of the widely read textbooks of all time. Contrast that with how [[Wikipedia]] does not criticize John Scopes and the [[ACLU]] for defending the [[racist]] textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Look closer, if you have any problems with the current article perhaps you could list them here and we could see if we can try to fix them. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:07, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It's essentially the same as when I (and Jinxmchue) complained. The Wikipedia entry is a complete hatchet job. No, I'm not going to waste all night on this. The [[anti-conservatives]] running [[Wikipedia]] will revert any corrections to this entry. This is a determined smear by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Well the thing is Jinx didn't complain, he engaged in an edit war. Just list a couple of things here and we'll see if we can't get them changed. If they aren't then that's that, if they are then we can start working on other problems with the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:19, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Edit war. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no one else there was involved in any edit war. Nope. They can revert edits they don't like without any sort of attempt to address issues, get their friends involved to subvert the three revert rule, but they aren't ever accused of starting edit wars. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:29, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::I didn't say the others weren't also involved in an edit war, obviously you would need two sides to do it. However, if you observe what I did (discussed, rather than continually revert and get blocked for it) you will see that I achieved my goal (as stated on the article's talk page). Now, give me something else wrong with the article and we will see if we can change it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:31, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If you want to see what I did, check the edit history for AFA's article over there. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted. There's just a couple of AFA-hating gay editors who want the article to be a hit piece. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

<- Yes there were a couple of anti-AFA editors who chose to revert the article, and if you look closely they also got blocked for it (one has since left). If you did what I did and tried to initiate discussion on the article's talk page you would not have gotten blocked, and others would have come to your assistance, as they came to mine. The AFA article has also been reported to ANI/NPOV for further assessment of bias against the organisation. Now, if you or Andy would care to give me another problem with the article then we will see if we can get that changed too. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:36, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: We did. See the first and fifth paragraphs above. Those smears are still in the Wikipedia entry about the [[American Family Association]] despite the high-level review that you apparently initiated, and despite Wikipedia not smearing liberals like that. If AFA supported the [[homosexual agenda]] rather than opposing it, then you can be sure that Wikipedia would have a very different and favorable entry about it. So, the bottom line is clear: this is yet another example of bias at Wikipedia, and it's not likely to change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:I am making some corrections now. We will see if the one remaining gay editor who wants to control the page will leave them be. I doubt it, but then years of experience with such people have turned me into a cynic. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::My cynicism was well-founded. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Point #44 re: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ==

The reader who submitted this comment claims that it was "guilt by association" to repeat "a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS."

However, the factual basis for associating AAPS with the John Birch Society is much stronger than a mere "newspaper claim". For example: in the early 1960's, the AAPS Board of Directors included Dr. Granville Knight (a JBS National Council member), Dr. Charles W. Pavey (a JBS member),Dr. James L. Doenges (a JBS endorser) and Dr. George J. Hess (a JBS member who was AAPS President in 1962).

Furthermore, AAPS annual conventions featured speakers and exhibitors which were recommended by the the JBS in its own literature. In fact, the exhibitors often were organizations that were created or led by JBS members, endorsers and sympathizers -- including, for example, Southern States Industrial Council, National Education Program, National Committee For Economic Freedom, and American Opinion magazine (the JBS magazine!). AAPS described these organizations as "freedom organizations". Speakers at AAPS conventions included prominent JBS members and sympathizers such as JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver.

Incidentally, senior FBI officials (including Director J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Division Chiefs, and Supervisors within its Domestic Intelligence Division) routinely referred to the JBS in FBI memos as "irrational", "extremist",
"irresponsible", "fanatics", and "lunatic fringe". They did not describe the JBS as a "freedom organization".{{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

: Your 40-year-old [[gossip]] is silly and unsupported. Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc., also belong to numerous organizations. Smearing through use of guilt-by-association is criticized by [[liberals]] and against official Wikipedia policy. So why this reliance on 40-year-old gossip against this organization? This selective smearing illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: : REPLY TO ASCHLAFLY: Not sure why you describe what I presented as "gossip". The details concerning JBS member connections to AAPS come from AAPS publications. Is that "gossip"? The info I provided regarding comments made by top FBI officials originate in FBI internal memos---all of which I have in my possession. Is that "gossip"? You can certainly disagree with their judgments -- but why misrepresent and de-value the quality of the data as nothing more than "gossip"? {{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

::: You lack dates, sources or logic for your gossipy accusations. The accusations have no relevance today. Do you spread the same silly gossip about the Democratic Party, such as claiming that many KKK members were delegates at Democratic Party conventions a hundred years ago? No, Wikipedia only uses this silly smear campaign against conservative organizations. That's called bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

With respect to your larger point (i.e. unsavory people belong to all sorts of organizations) -- yes, that's true but you conveniently ignore the salient difference i.e. such individuals did not represent the official position of those organizations nor were they knowingly embraced by such organizations. In fact, if "Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc." were identified -- most organizations would expel them. BY CONTRAST, AAPS enthusiastically welcomed JBS members and even invited them to be speakers and exhibitors at AAPS functions!

== Reversion explained ==

The recent edits by [[User:Dnotice]] had an egregiously misspelled word, several inappropriate edits, and did not recognize that some Wikipedia improvements were after (and probably the result of) criticisms here. Some of the edits reverted had some value if presented properly. We welcome proper update of the points edited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Egregiously misspelled"? "Inappropriate edits"? Which are you referring to? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Dnotice, you have this backwards. Please fix your own misspelling, and don't make as many potentially objectionable edits without discussing them here. OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The whole idea of a Wikipedia-style website is that if a mistake is noticed, e.g. spelling, then the next user amends that error, instead of removing all of the previous user's edits on that page. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, which parts of my edits are are you specifically referring to? If I know which are incorrect or "potentially objectionable" on this site, I can ensure that future edits don't fall into that category. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::As you've made amendments to my further edits, any chance of a response to my questions? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 05:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Dnotice, you have to try harder first. Sorry, I wish I had the time to correct your mistakes, but I don't. In addition to an egregious misspelling, your edit to the point about Conservapedia being supportive of YEC was improper as it does not properly reference the prior version of the Wikipedia entry that illustrated the bias, and does not note how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Unless you fix your edit yourself, I will probably revert it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is Conservapedia supportive of YEC? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: StatsMan, please read the relevant points in the entry first before asking questions that distract from the issue at hand, and then stick to the issue of how Wikipedia falsely portrayed Conservapedia in order to try to smear it in front of the Wikipedia audience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You didn't answer his question. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::My edit took a direct quote from the link that was already in place. Anyway, it's odd that you've now decided to keep in my effective re-instatement of your deletion of this point... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 11:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, I'm hoping you'll fix your edit to reflect how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Will you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::How could I show that? Especially when you don't deny what I said about my edit reflecting the what the quote actually said. With all respect, the previous edit was guilty of [[Quote mining|quote-mining]] as the Wikipedia article (even at that particular time) had a lot more than what this site portrayed it did. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==Criticism of Conservapedia "rare or non-existent"==
Your suggestion that criticism of Conseravpedia "are rare or non-existent" seems blind to the day-to-day reality of Conservapedia. Criticism of your articles here features loudly on many, many Talk pages, much of it vandalism, yes, but much of it also well founded, well reasoned and intelligent criticism. And this is not just criticism based on ideology - this is often criticism of factual inaccuracy and misleading information. I think it's only fair to point this out in the interest of Fair Balance. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

: You misunderstood what your quote refers to, and falsely stated that the quote applies to all criticism. Of course many people who do not like the truth are going to criticize the truth, but that is not what the quote refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:07, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Correct me if I'm confused, but were you not referring to the sentence in the WP article which states "The site has come upon much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias"? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, but there are few or no criticisms of Conservapedia for "factual inaccuracies." The citation by Wikipedia for its claim is to a New York Times article that actually criticizes Wikipedia for harping on such a claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Belfast Agreement==
Although both 'Belfast Agreement' and 'Good Friday Agreement' are used almost interchangeably, it has become common for Irish and UK people to refer to this agreement as 'Belfast Agreement'. Some references from major Irish news sources are listed here - [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0527/breaking59.html], [http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0408/north.html], [http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dissecting-north-agreement--for-all-its-worth-363083.html]. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:27, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:But it is better known as "Good Friday Agreement" elsewhere. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I am British and would say that use of 'the Good Friday Agreement' is far more common, in Great Britain at any rate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Where is the 'elsewhere' you refer to WilliamH? Even the Northern Ireland Office refers to it as both [http://www.nio.gov.uk/the-agreement]. I am Irish and would say 'Belfast Agreement' is much more commonly used on our island. I'm mostly curious to know why Wikipedia's use of one term over the other is considered 'bias' here? It reeks of grasping at straws, as it's perfectly appropriate to use either term. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::'Elsewhere' as in everywhere else outside Ireland or the UK. (I might have forgotten a few places or two, but the point stands.) [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 20:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, I've removed the reference from the article, because while facts usually contain a 'liberal bias', I don't believe they're geographically biased. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 21:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Google shows that uses of "Good Friday Agreement" outnumber "Belfast Agreement" '''by more than a 3:1 ratio.''' It's irrelevant that Ireland newspapers prefer "Belfast Agreement" because Wikipedia does not ordinarily defer to an Irish point-of-view!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The popularity of a term "on Google" is simply not a metric on which to base an encyclopedia - if you go down the road of determining 'fact' based on Google cites, you're in deep trouble. The simple fact is, to those for whom the Agreement matters, both terms are interchangeable, and in fact Belfast Agreement is probably more commonly used. Finally, to use the choice of one term over the other as implying 'bias in Wikipeida' is to invent controversy where there is none, and in itself, biased - in this case, against Wikipedia, the editors of which can fairly choose to use whichever term they want. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: An illustration of bias is how decisions that could go one way or the other (i.e., "interchangeable) are, in fact, always decided one way. In Wikipedia's case, that bias is against religion. Wikipedia censors religious references every time it can, and insisting on the unfamiliar "Belfast Agreement" rather that the more popular "Good Friday Agreement" is merely one of many examples. Alone it may not be significant, but with numerous other examples it reinforces the existence of the bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: You are guilty of trying to foist a conspiracy theory into on an 'encyclopedia' article. Have you considered that those who would be most knowledgeable about the Belfast Agreement might, in fact, be from Ireland? And that therefore the Wikipedia articles may well be written by Irish editors? And that they may simply be using the term that is most familiar to them? And that the choice to not use the term containing a religious holiday reflects no "conspiracy against religion" as you have invented? Not everyone in the world is American, you know - in fact, Americans barely make up 5% of the world's population. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Maybe there are more non-Americans in the world than Americans, but there definitely are more Americans in Wikipedia than Irishmen (plus, all the other english-speaking nationalities that don't call it 'Belfast Agreement') so bias is the most plausible explanation. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 23:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: I take it you are certain that the proportion of Irish editors on the Wikipedia article is no higher than on, for example, an article about Alabama? [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 00:00, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Some protestant groups in Northern Ireland do not celebrate Good Friday, preferring to observe the crucifixion on Wednesday, so the neutral term 'Belfast Agreement' gained favour in diplomatic circles in order to avoid suggestions of anti-protestant bias. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 23:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Exactly, Jalapeno. Thank you for pointing out the political sensitivities that those of us on this island take for granted, and foreigners are clueless about. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Walter, you protest far too much, and now you have the fringe below even siding with you. Wikipedia editors are predominantly American and British, far more than Irish.

:::::::::::::: By more than a 3:1 margin the term "Good Friday Agreement" is used by the public. The fact that some Irish newspapers, which are themselves more liberal than the Irish public, use the term "Belfast Agreement" is an awfully weak rationale. There is no sign that the decision at Wikipedia was made by Irishmen. Odds are that this decision was made by the typically liberal editors there who seek to censor Christian. Many other points in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] illustrate the same bias at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::WP's bias is shown by it using the document's official name? (See WaltherPPK's link to the Northern Ireland Office) [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 19:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I protest because I know I am right and that you are wrong. First, I note you continue to assert the Google-sourced 3:1 ratio - except you now claim it's "the public". If Google is equal to "the public", I'll be damned. Please don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes - the world exists beyond the confines of Google, you know. Secondly, you clearly know ''nothing'' about the Irish media landscape (and, in fairness, I wouldn't expect you to), and you obviously haven't read any of my supporting references. Two are from newspapers - one being slightly left-of-centre (Irish Times), and one being right-of-centre (Independent). The third reference was a TV channel. They represent the non-tabloid news sources in the country. The other non-tabloid newspaper is to the right of these, and is only published on Sundays. Given your lack of knowledge of the Irish media scene, how you "know" that Irish newspapers are more liberal than the Irish public, I'd be interested to know. Are you an expert on every country in the world? Finally, you have obviously not looked at the Northern Ireland Office (of the UK Government) document on the Agreement (which I referenced above), which states "The Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement) was reached in Belfast on Friday, April 10 1998". Re-read Jalapeno's comments above as to the reason WHY politicans and public figures in Ireland PREFER the term 'Belfast Agreement to Good Friday Agreement. While your ignorance of the world may be appealing to an uneducated Amero-centric reader base, rest assured those of us from other nations will not lie down and let YOU tell US how we name our institutions, offices, or policy. Good day to you Sir. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:19, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Walter, your ranting is getting out of control. I do know quite a bit about the Irish press, Ireland, and Wikipedia. In fact, I've been quoted in the past in the Irish newspapers. Yes, they are more liberal than the Irish public, and Irishmen have relatively little influence at Wikipedia. The British and American influence, by liberals, is far stronger. It's absurd, frankly, for you to claim that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press.

::::::::::::::::: Want to rely on the Northern Ireland Office? Fine. It provides the "Good Friday Agreement" as the first choice, even though alphabetically it would come second. Use it and please stop pretending that the atheists at Wikipedia lack bias. Read the scores of other examples of the same [[Bias in Wikipedia]] and end your [[liberal denial]]. Godspeed. I expect you will insist on [[last wordism]] now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, Where did I claim "that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press"? We're trying to make you understand the sensitivities of Northern Irish politics - re-read Japaleno's comment above please as to why "Belfast Agreement" is actually the '''preferred''' term - you should be especially sensitive to the fact that the reason it's ''not'' named "Good Friday Agreement" is '''for''' religious reasons. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

===References===
Here's [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=361&docID=219&COMMAND=PRINTER the document itself], which shows that ''technically'', its title is '''The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement'''. (''All other names are therefore colloquial terms''). Here are some references from official Irish government websites showing many different terms used for the Agreement: [http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=507], [http://www.citizensinformation.ie/References/legislative/legislative-background-to-irish-citizenship], [http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/Legislation/TheOmbudsmanAct1980/], [http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=176&lang=eng], or [http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY102655 this one, wherein it is referred to as "The Belfast Agreement of Good Friday"]. A brief scan of any of these will show you that any term is equally usable, and that 'Good Friday Agreement' is simply one of them. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Could someone move [[Camp David Accords]] to [[Constitution Day Agreement]] or [[Saint Lambert Agreement]]? It just happens that September 17th (the day the accord was signed) is a a political holiday in North America and it should be named accordingly. Alternatively, September 17th is also the feast of Saint Lambert and it is disappointing that people are not recognizing the religious significance of the date and instead using the more widely known, secular, place name. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this mean that CP has an anti-Christian and/or anti-American bias? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 18:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
----
Google may not be the same as the public, but it's likely to be fairly close, and is about the best idea of public usage that we have readily available. So Andy's correct point that the term "Good Friday Agreement" is more common that "Belfast Agreement" holds up, pending better evidence to the contrary.

However, I don't think it's a good entry to have in the list, unless we have some evidence of Wikipedia using the Belfast name for (anti-)religious reasons. That may be a plausible explanation (Wikipedia does tend to be anti-Christian), but in this case using the Good Friday name hardly advances Christianity at all, so Wikipedia would have little motive to change it on that basis. So although the argument ''may'' be correct, it would be better to not use this example and stick with just having stronger examples.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Philip, a few points. 1) The specific words written by ASchlafly which I objected to and removed from the article described the term "Belfast Agreement" as "ambiguous and unfamiliar", not 'less popular'. The copious evidence I have provided has shown that the term is neither officially nor colloquially considered "ambiguous and unfamiliar", but is in regular, everyday use in the community where it is most often discussed by both of the Governments concerned and amongst the press and general public; 2) Not only that, but others have explained that there is actually an underlying reason why, for obvious reasons of religious sensitivity to all communities, religious terms are generally ''avoided'' in political debate in Northern Ireland; 3) It seems Mr.Schlafly's Amero-centric view of the world and his ignorance of Irish affairs led him to presume guilt on behalf of the Wikipedia editors where there was none; 4) Finally, I note that the Wikipedia article on the Agreement '''very clearly''' lists the term 'Good Friday Agreement' as "alternatively and widely known" in the opening sentence of their article, and the term Good Friday Agreement redirects to the article as one would expect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement]. In short, not only was the assumption wrong, the facts were wrong, and the case didn't even exist. I notice you too are sometimes upset when foreigners presume to know about Antipodean affairs, so I thank you for your analysis of this mistaken example. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 12:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) I agree. I was responding to comments on this page, not to the wording in the article.
:: 2) This seems to be supporting that Wikipedia's choice of label ''was'' chosen for religious reasons.
:: 3) I can't see what US-centricity has to do with this particular case.
:: 4) I can't see that this is any sort of rebuttal. The fact is that Wikipedia has chosen to not use (as the article title) the official name of the agreement, but what appears to be the lesser-used of the two most-commonly-used unofficial titles. And by the way, I Googled the two unofficial names on all English-language pages, on .au pages, and on .uk pages, and in all three cases, the Good Friday name was the most popular by a significant margin. So it's not as though one is more popular in American and the other in Britain, for example. So although it's unknown why Wikipedia has gone for the lesser-used title, I don't think that it's safe to jump to the conclusion that it's for anti-Christian reasons, although neither should that reason be ruled out.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Walther, Wikipedia has chosen the less popular, but more secular, name. As Philip observes, you now seem to be saying that Wikipedia did do this for religious reasons after all. Maybe what is needed is for Wikipedia to explain its decision. Perhaps the edit history can be checked, and the person responsible can be asked. I'm confident that Irish newspapers had nothing to do with the decision.

::: There may even be a formal Wikipedia policy favoring secular names rather than religious ones. Guess what? I just typed in "Saint Valentine's Day," and Wikipedia redirects me to the secular form, "Valentine's Day." I could repeat that exercise with other examples and I'm confident the same pro-secular result would be obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The edit history shows that the Wikipedia article was started in 2001 as 'Belfast Agreement'. There was a proposal to move the article to 'Good Friday Agreement' in 2005 that failed due to lack of consensus. There is a long and ignoble history of naming disputes in Northern Ireland (e.g. [[Londonderry#Nomenclature]]) and those of us who are familiar with this part of the world know will appreciate that if there is a workable neutral term available then it's almost always best to stick to that rather than risk stirring up sectarian passions. Of course Conservapedia, as an explicitly pro-US site, is free to ignore political subtleties in other parts of the world. Interestingly Conservapedia has ''separate'' articles on [[Belfast Agreement]] and [[Good Friday Agreement]] -- what should we make of that! [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Oh no, we have entries for each! :-) Thanks for pointing that out. What do you suggest we do about it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I'm not really part of this argument, but I suggest they be merged, under whatever name you prefer, with the other redirecting to it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 09:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Given the far greater usage, familiarity and descriptiveness of the term "Good Friday Agreement," I think that is the obvious choice. Wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not sure that "Good Friday Agreement" is more descriptive, but I agree that it appears to be more common. However, rather than take sides on this, why not go with the ''official'' title given above (assuming that's correct; I haven't checked it): "The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement". Both the other terms can be redirects to that. I'm not suggesting this solely to avoid taking sides (I'm happy to take sides where it's warranted), but when there is an official title and two unofficial titles, why not go with the official title? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your suggestion is a good one, assuming that really is the official name. Let's see what others have to say here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Please create the new article as Philip suggested. It is really the only ''correct'' way to title the article, and you can finally claim to have an article that is ''more correctly named'' than Wikipedia. It is the official name for the Agreement, as evidenced by [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/NIPeaceAgreement.pdf this, the official Irish Government PDF version] of the document. All other names are colloquial terms and may be redirects to it. Thank you for finally understanding my position. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: OK, but do you agree that "Saint Valentine's Day" is the correct name for that entry and that Wikipedia is biased in claiming otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Google shows that uses of "Valentine's Day" outnumber "Saint Valentine's Day" by '''more than a 235:1 ratio''', so I think the answer is obviously not, no. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy invited him to kick the football, but then pulled the ball away at the last minute (using incorrect data as well - try "St. Valentine's Day" too). Walther, you just refused to apply your reasoning to an analogous situation, and instead insisted on censoring the religious name a second time. To say your approach just lost credibility would be an understatement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I am using the methodology you recommended [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=465265 in your comment above] - using Google hits to determine 'truth'. As to spellings and typos, it makes little difference - "St.Valentine's Day"=563,000 hits and "Saint Valentine's Day"=176,000, a total of 739,000 hits. "Valentine's Day"=41,500,000 hits, and "Valentines Day"=19,600,000 hits, or a total of 61 million hits, giving a ratio of 82:1 in favour of the non-religious form. Thus, by your suggested methodology as above, all articles regarding the 14th Feb should be retitled "Valentine's Day", and the religious forms should be redirects. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 13:15, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: But you already emphatically rejected that methodology and, besides, "St. Valentine's Day" is unquestionably the historically correct name. "Belfast Agreement" has no historical claim to accuracy. While I was willing to compromise, you were not: you are adamant that the non-religious name be chosen in both circumstances, for contradictory reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::So let me get this right: Your methodology is using Google rankings and hits to decide whether or not to use a certain name for an article on Conservapedia. First of all, you have a go at [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] for not using your methodology and then, after using it and displaying the results, you criticize him even more for doing so? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Rather than creating a new article, one of the existing articles should be renamed. Probably the Good Friday Agreement one, given that it was started first. Of course only a sysop can do that, but there's enough of us around. Are we agreed on that course of action? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia "bias" ==

When Wikipedia says that "Obama entered Harvard Law School in fall 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition", it's because it's [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=full sourced.] The fact that [[User:ASchlafly|you]] disagree doesn't constitute bias.{{unsigned|Tennant}}

: Surely you don't suggest that merely citing a (liberal) source makes something true and unbiased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think the Wikipedia sourcing is somewhat poor, but until there's evidence that he was chosen due to the quota, this "example of bias" should definitely be removed. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah yes, because no non-anglo-saxon person ever has good grades. That sounds a lot like racism on Mr. Schlafly's part. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::To my knowledge, the policy at Wikipedia is that everything must be correctly sourced - i.e., it's enough if the source is reputable, and the entry is relevant. It doesn't matter if the source is liberal, conservative, anarchist, fascist, monarchist, socialist, regionalist, communist, christian, buddhist, atheist, nationalist, chauvinist, et cetera. Thank you. --[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 17:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, the problem with your entry is that if you follow that pattern, then you should insert each and every liberal quote on Wikipedia, from ''every'' article. '''--[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 18:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)'''

:::More to the point there is nothing in the reference we supply here to indicate that Obama was selected on the basis of his race. Does Conservapedia want to have a ''lower'' standard of fact checking than Wikipedia? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Isn't this article biased as well?==
Sorry-I'm new-but isn't this article biased by saying that Wikipedia is biased? This is sort of like a personal account, depending on personal judgement. And plus this sounds like publically directing a criticism against Wikiepdia. PLus I think some of the stuff has already been changed or reverted--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:How does claiming that something is biased constitute bias? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia includes phony quote for over three years ==

The phony quote in question is as follows:
<blockquote>
The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'
</blockquote>
This appeared on at least three pages. Here is how the pages appeared recently before I attempted to remove the quote:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&oldid=219686529#Criticisms Phillip E. Johnson] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&oldid=219162996#The_Discovery_Institute Teach the Controversy] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&oldid=215173365#Origins_of_the_movement_and_strategy Wedge strategy]

And here's where the quote was added for each page:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=12617922 Phillip E. Johnson - April 21, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&diff=prev&oldid=12219123 Teach the Controversy - April 12, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=15250578 Wedge strategy - June 15, 2005]

There's absolutely no indication that this is anything other than a direct quote. I found that the quote was completely bogus [http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/post-4.html here] and [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson here]. According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons] policy, such false material should be removed immediately and without discussion.

This removal didn't sit well with the anti-ID crowd, however, and I came under vicious assault, particularly from one editor. I ultimately prevailed, and though the quote was not removed, it was moved and clarified as being a paraphrase. All the accusations made against me were found to be without merit, but the person making them continues to make them. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Obama's selection as editor==
This article states as if it were a fact that Obama was chosen for this position on the basis of his race. However the references don't say that - they do say that a person ''might'' be selected on the basis of affirmative action, but there is nothing to indicate that Obama's selection was on this basis. We need to fix this. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Michael Moore==
"the lying, deceitful films of Michael Moore". What, are we deliberately trying not to get taken seriously here? How can we go around accusing other people of bias and then expressing what is clearly someone's opinion as if it were fact? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it's pretty much a proven fact that Moore deceptively edits his films. Two examples in particular are his acquisition of a gun at a bank and his manipulation of statements made by Charlton Heston. Those are just two out of many that immediately come to mind. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:It's bias to push this point up front. We don't describe Richard Nixon as "liar and felon" every time we talk about him. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:18, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Analysis of Claims ==

I am One For Logic (also spelled oneforlogic or Oneforlogic), a regular user and editor of Wikipedia for several years. I began reading some articles on Conservapedia a few weeks ago. This is an interesting project. I will readily admit that the quality of writing and sourcing of articles in Wikipedia is not always the highest, so in the spirit of supporting well-intentioned dissent (which is what I’m assuming this is; let me know now if I’m wrong) I’m going to check on the claims on this page and explain what I find. If I conclude that any of these claims are valid, I will discuss and attempt to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles myself. I expect many of you will want to comment on this effort; please do so in the next section. I welcome your input. Signed [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:01, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current Issue 1: SDI'''

Wow, you guys are good at this. Slow down on the new claims a little so I can keep up. I'll study the SDI article later. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:16, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Current Issue 2: Controversy Sections'''

The articles provided as examples are definitely organized differently. If any Conservapedia editor is sufficiently knowledgeable about Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, or Jane Fonda and would like to take the time to reorganize the material in the Wikipedia articles, go for it. I'm afraid I don't know enough about any of them and don't have enough free time to reorganize the articles myself. I also don't think this is really a case of serious systematic bias; I'd need to see more examples before I'd be convinced. It may also be relevant to note that Wikipedia guidelines discourage use of "Controversy" sections, and that those sections in both the Limbaugh and Malkin articles had been flagged to be reorganized or otherwise improved. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 21:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You describe a futile exercise, as many of us here have tried to edit out some of the liberal bias in Wikipedia. The mob there simply reinstates the bias and even seems to enjoy doing so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure you've been studying this longer than I have, but I have not yet encountered this angry liberal mob you describe. I have, just like all of you, had some of my edits falsely described as vandalism or removed without reason, but I have always discussed any changes to my work that seemed inappropriate and have often gotten useful feedback. Most of the people that care about an article enough to quickly revert edits they find disagreeable seem, in my experience, willing to discuss those edits. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 3: GA status of Wikipedia's Conservapedia article

I would not have nominated this article to be listed as a good article. You were correct that the new cite on that statement did not ''explicitly'' state that Conservapedia contains factual errors. I have since revised the statement to more closely reflect what the article does say, which is still harshly critical of Conservapedia.

Update: I've been going back and forth on this with a few other editors. Most of the other editors agree that we need very explicit sources to claim that Conservapedia has factual errors. I am now convinced that we have three, and I have attached all of them to the 'factual errors' claim in the introduction. I still don't think the first cite on that claim supports it, but the editor that insists on including it hasn't responded to my discussion thread for a couple days. I do now believe that the claim is sufficiently verified. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

: "Oneforlogic", you lack logic here and show your own bias. The "factual errors" claim is an obvious smear and the citations both utterly fail to support the claim and are absurdly biased themselves. You seem to think it's OK to cite a heavily biased source to justify a smear. It isn't, obviously. Conservapedia has no more "factual errors" than any other wiki. If you persist in asserting this harmful smear, then I'm unlikely to bother reviewing any of your other arguments further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

"Both" citations? Which ones were you looking at? Both occurrences of the factual inacuracy claim now have 4 citations: one (#8, the Guardian article) that I believe does not directly address factual errors but is favored by another editor (and does mention that liberals engage in factual relativism as often as conservatives, which I consider generally true), and three that, while they address other issues and are obviously not supportive of Conservapedia, do directly discuss factual issues. I'm certainly not arguing in any way that Wikipedia is error-free, or even particularly more accurate than Conservapedia; I'm looking specifically at the claim made by previous editors to Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia that Conservapedia has factual errors. I currently consider this a sufficiently verified claim.

If there must be an agenda or conspiracy behind my actions here, it is this: I want to improve Wikipedia in whatever small ways I can as an individual editor, and I want to come to understand the conflict between conservatives and liberals better. I don't consider myself either, and you'd find that my political inclinations really don't line up consistently with either general ideology. If you're interested in any particular examples, let me know and I can post a few on my user page here. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 21:15, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: Sir, you call yourself "Oneforlogic", but you haven't even quoted my concise reply in a logical matter. Read it again, and then read your quote of "'both' citations." Hopefully you can see yourself the flaw in your analysis of my straightforward reply.

: The broader point is this: Wikipedia's biased smear of Conservapedia is unsupported by the citations and contrary to logic, yet you now defend it primarily because another editor at Wikipedia wants it to stay. Alas, that is the essence of liberal bias on Wikipedia. Wikipedia bias is not a conspiracy; it's bullying by liberals until others simply give in because they don't care to oppose it. Needless to say, Conservapedia editors are cut from a different cloth: we do care about the truth and we don't allow here the smears, half-truths, and gossip that plague Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:: If I may ask, the page on Barack Obama starts off with the claim that he wasn't born in Hawaii (http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert is a scan of his birth certificate), claims that he is islamic and makes use of a number of smears, half truths, and repeating of gossip. If it is as important as you say that these things are not allowed on Conservapedia, who should we see about getting the page unlocked and rewritten in an honest and truthful manner? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:33, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: "Rutm", your comment is off-topic because the issue here is Wikipedia bias and Conservapedia accuracy. Our entry about Obama is accurate and your comment is misleading in claiming that our Obama entry is otherwise. Proper questions have been raised by an objective Israeli news service about the authenticity and type of Obama's birth certificate (why is the certificate number blotted out, for example, which would reflect the time the certificate was issued?). Also, "Rutm", as I've indicated before, your insulting name is getting tiresome. Request a change to your real first name and last initial or your account will be blocked, and you can push your liberal POV on Wikipedia instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Excuse me for being unable to reply more quickly, Aschafly, as someone seems to have blocked my normal account. So you meant “both” as in “the citations fail to meet both objectives” instead of “both citations fail to meet the objectives”. You know as well as I do that these are equally valid interpretations. My apologies for being such a liberal idiot that I picked the wrong one.

::::So, to be clear, instead of having an honest and open discussion of the other editor’s views and thoughts on his work, you would have me arbitrarily remove it without discussing it? That is completely contrary to the purpose of a wiki-based project. The wiki format only really works if people collaborate and discuss their differences, openly and publicly. You’ve made it clear that you are not comfortable with any working conditions in which you exercise less than complete control. I even offered to defend ''your side'' in this issue and you still brand me as your enemy by locking out my account.

::::I really did hope to learn about conservatives and their conflicts with liberals here. And, in a way, I guess I still did. I already knew that radical liberals could be hostile and repressive toward people with views they disagree with, now I know that radical conservatives are just as bad. It’s kind of ironic that in that way, at least, the two extremes are exactly alike. Signed, [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]], aka [[User:OneAgainstRepression|OneAgainstRepression]] 13:42, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Ok, another idea, since you probably still need convincing on my good intentions, let's talk about an interesting caveat in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Contrary to popular opinion, WP:NPOV indicates that all majority or large minority views on an issue should be presented in the relevant article, preferably in proportion to their level of support. It does not state that only neutral views should be presented. I imagine you had already read such policies carefully, but it's good to remember for context. So, to prove my goodwill, do you know of a source that supports Conservapedia's factual accuracy? If you do, post a link on my talk page and I will add mention of it to the Wikipedia article and defend the source if/when it is removed. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 22:02, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 4: Liberal Criticism'''

I believe that any liberal bias present in Wikipedia is far less systematic than Conservapedia admins would have us believe, but I’m not going to go read every Wikipedia article to try to evaluate such a general claim. More specifically, the article on Debbie Riddle is fairly short, so the ‘free education comes from Russia’ quote will easily dominate the article until it is expanded. I highly doubt that any Wikipedia editor would object to more information on her accomplishments being added. Chuck Schumer’s article does indeed speak favorably of him at several points; there is a healthy discussion of the article’s neutrality in the discussion page. I’ll look for sources critical of the senator and add them to that discussion soon. Of course, any and all Conservapedia users are welcome to do the same.

'''Issue 5: Obama’s selection as an editor on the Harvard Law Review'''

Your own source makes this issue clear; in 1982, the Review adopted a policy that allowed editors to consider race while selecting new editors but did not provide for specific racial quotas. This source does discuss a short-lived quota-like policy, created in 1981, that was quickly replaced by the much less specific 1982 racial consideration policy. It cannot be clearly established how much this policy contributed to Obama’s selection as an editor, and as the Wikipedia article in question does not and should not focus on the specific policies of the Review, it seems acceptable to me that this article does not highlight this policy.

'''Issue 6: Censorship'''

The Wikipedia article on censorship does need to be expanded by an expert. I am not familiar with any specific cases of prayer, pro-life advertisements, or conservative newspapers being successfully censored, but I know that attempts to censor these things are made and they should be mentioned in the article. Let me know if any of you know of good sources of more detailed information on this kind of censorship. However, the article does discuss the issue of censoring discussion of creationism in public schools. The article indicates that many religious groups feel that not being allowed to teach creationism is censorship; it goes on to reference two court cases that established, first, that teaching creationism is equivalent to promoting the Christian faith and is illegal in public schools, and second, that intelligent design is a form of creationism. Regardless of your opinion on these issues, the Wikipedia article does cite and explain (in separate articles) the relevant court cases, which seems to me to be a completely legitimate way to discuss censorship of intelligent design.

'''Issue 7: Smearing Conservapedia'''

Wikipedia’s article on Conservapedia appears to have been discussed and improved a lot in recent months, and I would consider the current version ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=221432211 13:49, 24 June 2008]) to be at least decently written and sourced. Wikipedia’s article no longer cites that particular New York Times source. There are, indeed, a great many sources that criticize Conservapedia as biased or just plain humorous, and I have not yet found any sources of serious support for Conservapedia. If any of you know of such a source, it may be worth adding to Wikipedia’s article. You may be technically correct that criticisms of Conservapedia’s factual accuracy, specifically, are rare, but that would only be because so many of the critical articles out there just skip straight to denouncing Conservapedia as a joke and don’t really seriously analyze it. Whether this is fair and proper or not is a separate debate. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 10:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 8: Homosexual Agenda'''

The Wikipedia article on Robert Maplethorpe does mention criticism of his “sexually-charged photographs of black men” and the “racial undertones of [his] imagery”; this article could benefit from being expanded generally, and a reference to the biographer cited here could be a useful addition. The Wikipedia article on the American Family Association’s section on the group’s anti-Semitism now has many citations, most of which seem to legitimately support their claims. It is possible that some of these are recent additions.

Regarding the alleged “homosexual agenda” in general: I believe that both sides are handling this issue badly. The anger and indignation on both sides become harder and harder to calm as the conflict goes on. There are always moderate solutions to be found if both sides are willing to look for them and negotiate with each other. Being "anti-gay" and "anti-Christian" are both pointless positions; the average viewpoint of society will, inevitably, end up somewhere between the extremes.

I'll continue to add more as I have time to do so.

== Reactions ==

I look forward to your feedback. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== There were some notable incidents in the media ==

One was the SlimVirgin/Linda Mack stuff. A lot of press. Then there was the Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland socking that for years he got away with using lots of sock puppets to spin biases in favor of illegal activity and anyone who tried to stop him was banned. This was in the media a lot, but not as much as the Linda Mack spy stuff. Then there was the Harsbara Fellowships, a group that hired people to insert biases into the encyclopedia and was led by one of their top administrators, Jayjg, though this doesn't have as much news article as the other two. Anyone else familiar with these? They are well known. I don't have any news articles right offhand, but could dig some up. It would help if others were familiar with this, too. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I forgot, Rachel Marsden, there were some stuff about this in one online newspaper. She had an affair with Jimbo Wales and so he let her have her way in her biography. Then when news about this got out, Jimbo broke up with her on-wiki, instead of telling her in person and she found out indirectly. So she then sold Jimbo's clothes he left at her apartment on ebay. One shirt even had a peculiar white stain on it. I forgot if Jimbo Wales also is still married, but I think he is. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
: This article is ''examples of bias'' in Wikipedia. I think you want the [[Wikipedia]] article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Six times==
I'm sorry, but this is funny. One of the accusations of bias is that Wikipedia states "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." However further down the ''same page'' I find "twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative". That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.".

The latter calculation is of such astonishing naivity, and so laughable in it's lack of rigor, that it is totally unsurprising that Wikipedia ridicules it. If we allow statements like this we deserve to be the object of derision. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Aschlafly==
Hi Aschlafly. I notice you just undid some changes I made to this page to reflect a) a logical inconsistency and b) something that was no longer true of Wikipedia. Would you like to explain what the problem was with my edits? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Barak Obama==
I removed some stuff about Barak Obama being selected as Harvard Law Editor on racial grounds. There was no reference to back it up, so it is not verifiable according to the Conservapedia commandments. The only reference described the affirmative action system of selection, but did not say that Obama benefitted from it (the description makes it clear that only about 20% of people selected are on the basis of affirmative action). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 09:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Title of the article==
I was reading the manual of style, and it says "Titles should be in lowercase except for proper nouns". Shouldn't "bias" be lowercased? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Expelled" the only WP movie article which includes the phrase "nominal dollars" ==

Parenthetical statement in the second sentence of the second paragraph [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed here]. I Googled "nominal dollars" for WP articles [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=frT&q=%22nominal+dollars%22+site:wikipedia.org&start=0&sa=N&filter=0 here] and found that the only movie that shows up is ''Expelled''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#.22In_nominal_dollars.3F.22 My complaint] against the use of the phrase has been met with lackluster defenses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:So I went ahead and added the same phrase into the top 5 documentary films' articles on WP just to see what would happen. Two of the edits remain untouched. Two have been relegated to the status of being turned into bottom-of-the-page reference note. The last one resulted in a disagreement between other editors whether or not the phrase could be applied to such a new movie (''An Inconvenient Truth''), with the deletion of the phrase winning out so far. Let the record show that ''Expelled'' is newer than ''An Inconvenient Truth''. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Wikidrama due to anti-ID bias ==

A request for arbitration regarding the behavior of an anti-ID editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin here], which resulted in his threat to leave, his leaving and then his immediate return and the other anti-ID editor named leaving. In fact, lots of the anti-ID editors are involved. I believe it's all an extension of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design this]. As long as ID is treated as it is on Wikipedia, this will continue to be a perfect storm of contempt, bias and controversy. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 02:25, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Should out-n-out fraud be considered bias in Wikipedia?==

Or maybe just to common. That story of the fired WP editor, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html , Fox News, Wikipedia Editor Out After False Credentials Revealed, March 8, 2007</ref> --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:20, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:Kind of old. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== WP "Quote-mining" article nothing more than an anti-Creationism hit piece ==

Check it out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining here]. Also see the discussion page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quote_mining here]. Lots of claims of this supposedly being a "well-documented" practice among Creationists, but little if any evidence of that is provided. Try to edit the article to reflect this fact and the evolutionist cabal is quick to revert it under false pretenses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:54, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Username "ChristianityMeansFreedom" judged to be "profane, disruptive, or otherwise inappropriate" ==

Holy cow! I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it for my own eyes.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianityMeansFreedom Block message on user page]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=223450235#Disruptive_editor_User:ChristianityMeansFreedom Admin noticeboard history]

The guy's edits weren't even that horrible. Certainly not vandalism. They might have taken some time to discuss the edits with the user, but they judged the user name to be offensive. Right. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:10, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:That user was blocked for his provocatively anti-semitic edits, not his name. Perhaps he should have stuck to posting his right wing garbage over on the [[Stormfront]] forums. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:19, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::But that's not the reason given for blocking him. And I looked at his edits. I saw nothing that was obviously anti-Semitic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:30, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::It says in very clear letters: '''"This account has been blocked indefinitely because it has become apparent that the account is only being used for vandalism."''' The fact that the name could be further construed as an anti-semitic sentiment, given the edit history of the vandal, was mentioned as an additional support for the user account being blocked. The discussion on the admin board is about his propensity for altering articles dealing with Christianity and Judaism to make digs at Jews and Judaism. And they're blatantly obvious. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:49, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Jinxmchue you said "I saw nothing that was obviously anti-Semitic". Did you not see this one here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=211498797]
or do you not think it is anti-semitic? A quick glance through his contributions show them almost all to be anti-semitic [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=ChristianityMeansFreedom&namespace=&year=&month=-1]--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 11:03, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

== Antisemitism in the New Testament? ==

This is cleanly mislead, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_New_Testament]. All I found is people got wrong ideas. I was thinking about adding to the list, but I'm not sure, yet. --[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 21:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia acknowledges all subjects and opinions. Conservapedia does not. Hmmm, which one is biased? ==

TSIB. Step back a minute & think about what you are really objecting to in Wikipedia. What you perceive as bias is the exact opposite. Wikipedia explores all subjects and acknowledges diverse attitudes to them, without jumping to conclusions. It maintains a neutral point of view, since any additions have to be backed up with reliable evidence. You may choose to regard this as "liberal bias", but that is only because Wikipedia does not censor and interpret its subjects as Conservapedia does. Conservapedia does not even pretend to have a neutral point of view. It wears its bias on its sleeve and openly propogates intolerant viewpoints. And it's for this exact reason that Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, will never be regarded as a factual or "trustworthy" reference source by the wider community. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 20:43, 27 July 2008 (EDT)