Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate: Who will win the 2008 presidential election?

2008-11-04T18:35:48Z

Boomcoach:

'''The big day is upon us!''' We all have opinions, but who's a savvy statistician and who's just a pompous pollster? Let's see who can predict the presidential election outcome the best! Add your name and predictions below. Whomever get the closest wins. Ties will be decided by the U.S. House of Representatives. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

{| class="wikitable"
|+
|- bgcolor=#dedede
|-
! User
! Electoral Winner
! Votes
! Popular Winner
! Percent Margin
! Comments
|-
| [[User:Corry|Corry]]
| Obama
| 326
| Obama
| 6%
| Obama carries PA, VA, OH, and loses FL and NC.
|-
| [[User:Jpatt|Jp]]
| McCain
| 285
| Obama
| 2%
| Hillary supporters are the difference, OH, FL, [[Bradley effect]].
|-
| [[User:TGeary|Tgeary]]
| McCain
| 271
| McCain
| 0.5%
| Looking increasingly unlikely, but I cannot give up my confidence in my country yet.
|-
| [[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]]
| Obama
| 338
| Obama
| 4%
| Obama carries PA, VA, OH, and NC. Loses FL and MO., Sen. 60-seat margin, Ca. no on 8, Co. no on 48.
|-
| [[User:DRamon|DRamon]]
| McCain
| 271
| McCain
| 0.5%
| You gotta have hope!
|-
| [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
| ?
| ?
| Obama
| 4%
| Polls show Obama is going to get the popular easily - but as this seems to be from making the blue states even bluer, it might not translate to electoral collage votes. I don't know enough to call that one, sorry.
|-
| [[User:DRamon|DRamon]]
| McCain
| 271
| McCain
| 0.5%
| You gotta have hope!
|-
| [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]]
| Obama
| 400
| Obama
| 10%
| Tsunami today. Obama outspent McCain by 3-1 and has 3x or 4x as many volunteers phoning to get out the vote. GOP folks are depressed and big losses in Senate and House races--will drag McCain down.
|-
| [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]]
| Obama
| 338
| Obama
| 5%
| Obama carries FL, OH and VA, plus all Kerry states. Senate 59-41. Dems pick up 25 House seats. CA Prop 8 fails.
|-

Add your prediction to the table.

[[Category:Debate]]

Cricket (game)

2008-10-28T17:13:59Z

Boomcoach: /* Equipment */ spelling

[[Image:Cricket_match.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Australia vs India, Sydney Cricket Ground, January 2004. Note how the pitch being used is merely one of many that can be in various stages of preparation.]]
'''Cricket''' is a bat and ball game played between two teams of eleven, normally in the local summer season. At international level, it exists primarily in two forms: Test cricket (played over five days) and one-day cricket (a shortened form of the game, with each team batting one innings of up to 50 overs). A recent innovation has been the "Twenty20" match (20 overs per side).

Cricket is also played at provincial and county levels, and traditional matches between village and [[public house]] teams are still played in summer on the [[village green]]s of [[England]].

==International Game==
The International Cricket Council (ICC) governs the game internationally, and recognizes the national cricket administrations of each country.

On a global scale cricket is only surpassed by [[soccer]] in terms of popularity; it is the primary spectator sport in [[India]], [[Pakistan]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Sri Lanka]], and the [[West Indies]], and of major importance in England, [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], and [[South Africa]], and in many other places that were historically affected by British colonial influence. Cricket has a low profile in the United States, where baseball is the dominant bat and ball sport, but it is played in various regions. (As of March 2007, the ICC rejected the recognition of the [[USA Cricket Association]] until it adopted a viable constitution and rules, and created a workable administration.)

===Code of Laws===
Marylebone Cricket Club in [[London]], which operates The Lord's ground, was formed in 1787. A year later, it composed a Code of Laws that were adopted throughout the game. The MCC remains the custodian and arbiter of Laws relating to cricket around the world.

==The Pitch==
Cricket is played on a [[pitch]] or green, essentially a flat [[grass]] playing field, that is 22 yards (66 feet or 1 chain or 20.12 m) long and 10 feet wide.

The pitch is marked with various lines or 'creases', and is double-ended so that alternate 'overs' are played from both ends:
*One 'bowling crease' is drawn at each end of the pitch to mark the ends of the pitch. The three stumps in the set of stumps at that end of the pitch are along this crease. The bowling creases may be used to determine whether there is a 'no ball' because a fielder has encroached on the pitch or the wicket keeper has moved in front of the wicket before he is permitted to do so.
*One 'popping crease' is drawn at each end of the pitch in front of each of the two sets of stumps, 4 feet (1.22 m) in front of and parallel to the bowling crease. The popping crease is used in one test of whether the bowler has bowled a 'no ball'. To avoid a no ball, some part of the bowler's front foot in the delivery stride (that is, the stride when he releases the ball) must be behind the popping crease (although the bowler's front foot does not have to be grounded).
*A return crease is drawn on each side of each set of the stumps, 4 feet 4 inches (1.32 m) either side of and parallel to the imaginary line joining the centres of the two middle stumps. The return creases are primarily used to determine whether the bowler has bowled a no ball. To avoid a no ball, some part of the bowler's back foot in the delivery stride must land within and not touching the return crease.

As imperfections in the playing surface may affect the behavior of the ball, the green is considered high-maintenance as it has to be regularly rolled, watered and cut to ensure suitability for play. A [[groundskeeper]] is usually employed for this purpose.

An ideal pitch has fine grass growing in the turf to retain the consistency of the pitch and to prevent cracking, yet its grass has been cut so that the underlying ground is fully exposed.

An innovation in recent years has been the 'drop-in pitch', which is prepared and tended away from the field of play and then dropped into a specially constructed slot in the ground in place of normal turf. Final preparation is done after the pitch is in place.

Alternatives to the grass pitch are:
*Concrete topped with plastic 'grass' carpet, matting, or rubber (crushed or granulated, or a section of rubber conveyor belt);
*Concrete pitch (often with green pigment, or painted green);
*Clay surface, watered and rolled;
*A vulcanized rubber surface (introduced to England's famous Gloucester Cricket Ground in response to the floods of summer 2007);

==Equipment==
Cricket balls are made from [[cork]] with a [[leather]] cover, and are traditionally red (but white balls are used in some matches these days). Bats are [[willow]] treated with linseed oil.

The normal clothing for cricketers is white, or it may coloured for limited over matches:
*long trousers;
*long sleeves shirt (may be short sleeved for night matches);
*stud soled shoes; and
*cap or hat.

A normal cricketer's cap has a small beak at the front. Members of national teams are 'capped' (given their own team cap) when they are picked for their team. In recent times, it is normal to have cricketers optionally wearing a soft, canvas, broad-brimmed hat.

In recent years, team member's shirts often bear a number [[enbroidery|embroidered]] below the national or team crest. This number is their 'cap' ranking, their number in the players who have been selected to play, since the national, state, or county first played (perhaps as early as the 1800s.) For example: the Australian team captain, [[Ricky Ponting]], wears number 366 in the national side and 123 for Australia's One Day International team<ref>[http://www.cricket.com.au/default.aspx?s=playersmendetails&profileid=30 Ponting], Cricket Australia, accessed 16 February 2008</ref>.

The batsman uses pads (shin, arm and body guards), padded gloves, a 'box' (a protection for the groin), and protective headgear in response to the hazards of modern fast-bowling techniques.

The wicketkeeper is the only fielder allowed to wear gloves, which are made of soft leather with rubber palms to help grip the ball.

==Officials==
Two umpires take to the field for major matches. The umpire at the bowler's end stands behind the stumps and watches the delivery stride of the bowler, the flight of the ball to adjudicate 'wide' or 'no ball' deliveries, and where it might strike the batsman or his bat.

The 'leg' umpire normally stands behind the batsman (on the 'leg' side of the field) and watches the flight of the ball and any deflection from the bat, in order to assist the other umpire in making a decision about a 'wide' or 'no ball' or a catch behind the stumps.

A 'third umpire' has been instituted for test and some state/county matches in recent years to decide close decisions for stumpings and run-outs, using video equipment and slow speed replays.

The captain of the fielding side is also considered an umpire for the specific circumstance where he believes a batsman has been unfairly been give 'out' by the other umpires. He may call the batsman back to continue his innings at bat. The captain is often fielding closer to the batsman than the umpires, and may have seen or heard the circumstances more clearly. This prerogative is rarely exercised, but shows high levels of sportsmanship as it effectively counters the wishes of other members of his team.

The scorers are considered to be officials. The field umpires use a system of hand and body gestures to indicate runs scored and other matters to the scorers, who are off the field.

In major games, such as international tests and national competitions, a referee is appointed by the convening body. This person does not go on the field of play, but watches from the stands. In hierarchy above the umpires, he can independently decide or be appealed to for decisions on matters of gamesmanship, etiquette, or cricket rules.

==Test (First Class) cricket - an overview==
Test cricket is played between the national teams of two countries. Most test series are 'best of' three or five matches. Typically, various limited over matches are also played as part of the 'season', including several 'warm-up' matches to assist the visiting team to become familiar with local conditions. As each major city in a country has a premier ground, a season normally involves matches in various cities.

A day's play consists of 90 overs of 6 balls (540 'legal' balls), usually divided into three 2 hour sessions with breaks for lunch and tea.

===The Ground===
The size of the field of play varies widely between cricket grounds, but the '''''pitch''''' in the centre is always 22 yards long and 10 feet wide. At either end of this pitch are two sets of '''''wickets''''', consisting of three wooden posts ('''''stumps''''') upon which rest two wooden '''''bails'''''. While most 'international' grounds are of generally similar size, most matches are now played with a '''''boundary rope''''' at a standard distance from the pitch around the edge of the field inside the white picket fence fence.

===Getting Out===
A batsman can be dismissed ('''''given out''''') in a number of different ways. These are:
* '''Bowled''' – the ball hits the stumps (wicket) and removes the bails direct from the bowler’s delivery, or after hitting only the bat or the batsman's hands (gloves) which are on the bat handle.
* '''Caught''' – the batsman hits the ball and it is caught by the fielding side before it touches the ground.
* '''LBW''' (leg before wicket) – the batsman fails to hit the ball and it strikes him in such a way that the umpire judges it would have gone on to hit the stumps. Note: This mode of dismissal depends on a number of other factors.
* '''Stumped''' – This is a particular case of 'run out' when the wicket keeper takes the ball immediately after delivery and breaks the stumps while the batsman has been attempting a shot while ahead of his crease.
* '''Run out''' – The fielding team get the ball to the wickets and 'breaks' the bails from the stumps while the batsman is outside the crease.
* '''Hit wicket''' - The batsman hits the stumps with his bat, or steps on the stumps while rearing back from a ball, breaking the bails.
* '''Handled the ball''' - The batsman touches the ball without the permission of the fielding side.
* '''Hit the ball twice''' - The batsman hits the ball twice without the intent of guarding his wicket. Tapping the ball from rolling onto your stumps is legal while hitting a throw away is an out.
* '''Obstructing the field''' - The batsman stops a fielder from fielding. This does not include unintentional bumping or running between the ball and a fielder.
* '''Timed out''' - If the batsman takes more than three minutes to get onto the pitch he is declared out. If the delay is even longer, the umpire may decide the batting team has forfeited.
* '''Retired out''' - The batsman loses the will to bat/keep batting or is too seriously injured (retiring when too injured is usually referred to as "retired hurt").

===Win, Draw, or Tie===
In order to win, a team must dismiss the opposition twice (that is, take 20 wickets) and have scored more runs, within the five days. A match is a 'draw' if either team fails to dismiss the other twice, irrespective of how many runs may have been scored. A 'tie' is when the scores are level at the end of all sessions of play; no extra play is normally used to break a tie in a test match, but extra overs are played in some limited over matches.

===Batting and fielding===
The batting side must always have two batsmen operating in partnership, and each member of the batting team is allowed to bat once and only once in an innings. Thus, although they have eleven players, once ten wickets have fallen they are '''''all out''''' and their '''''innings''''' is over. The batting and fielding sides then swap roles and this cycle is repeated so that both teams have two opportunities to bat.

The game begins with the toss of a coin between the two captains, supervised by the field umpires. The winning captain then elects to bat or field.

Two batsmen (the '''''openers''''') take to the field accompanied by the entire fielding side and two umpires. The batsman who is to receive the first ball is '''''on strike''''' and takes guard in front of his wicket. His '''''non-striking''''' partner waits at the other end of the pitch.

The fielding side nominates a bowler, who has six balls (six balls = one '''''over''''') with which to dismiss the batsman. Bowlers normally bowl overarm, and must not straighten the elbow during the delivery of the ball. (Underarm delivery, similar to that used in [[Softball]], was at one time the only form of delivery. It is now banned. A famous case of its use in an Australia-New Zealand test match resulted in derision for the Australian captain who asked a bowler to use this technique in order to stop the batting side from making a necessary run to win.)

Typically, bowlers take a run up before delivering a ball. A bowler may not bowl consecutive overs, so that typically two bowlers will bowl alternative overs until the captain decides to make a switch. In theory any player may bowl, but in practice no more than five or six of the eleven will usually participate. One other member of the fielding side acts as the wicket-keeper, standing directly behind the wicket to catch any missed balls, or any balls where the batsman managed only a faint touch. The remaining members of the fielding side (who are specialist batsmen) spend the entire innings fielding.

====Batting theory====
Batsmen may be either left or right handed: The bat is the same for each.

The batsmen can run any number of runs at any time, even if the ball has not been struck.

The batsman aims to hit the ball in such a way that he and his fellow batsman can run safely to the other end and ground his bat, or a piece of his body (foot, hand, etc), within the popping crease before the fielding side can effect a run out. Hitting the ball well into the outfield causes the fielding side to chase the ball and throw it back to the wicket keeper or another player who 'backs up' at the bowling end of the pitch.

Long hits to poorly defended parts of the ground may allow the batsmen to run four, or the ball may get to the fence for four.

At certain times the ball is deemed to be 'dead' and the batsmen can wander safely on the pitch between the creases, for example to converse on tactics.

A good batsman in the top order (batting at positions 1-6) is normally capable of getting 20-50 runs and possibly 100 or many more. The 'lower order' batsmen in a good team, normally the specialist bowlers, may be able to 'slash' 20 runs on a good day.

====Bowling theory====
The bowler has two goals, which are not mutually exclusive:
*get the batsmen out, as they can no longer score in that innings; and
*prevent the batsman from scoring.

It may seem that the bowler should always aim at the batsman's legs, which are in front of the stumps. This is normally easily defended. Hence, bowlers normally bowl a range of balls away from the stumps hoping to lure the batsman into playing a rash or mis-timed shot that goes to a catch or allows the fielders to create a run out.

Bowlers come in three types: Quick, Medium, and Slow (or 'spin'). A top-level team will normally have a bowling attack with two or three quick bowlers, one specialist slow (spin) bowler, and several general players capable of medium pace bowling.

'''Quick''' or fast bowlers may be delivering balls travelling at 136 to 150 kmh (85 to 95 mph). The ball is intended to either:
*hit the pitch on the seam (between the two halves of the leather) and thereby to bounce (un)predictably, or
*swing in the air towards or away from the bat.

'''Medium''' pace bowlers use similar tactics to fast bowlers but aim to create more diversity within the speed of their bowling so as to trick the batsman's timing of his swing at the ball.

'''Slow''' (or '''spin''') bowlers use either wrist or finger spinning techniques to get the ball to swing in the air, or bounce markedly off the pitch in either direction, and thereby snick the bat and be caught or bounce behind the batsman's guard into the stumps.

Normally, the quick bowlers will open the attack, and bowl for about two hours (or to the end of the first session.) The bowling will then be mixed up, with medium and slow, or quick-medium. At any time the captain may call for a change of bowling to 'mix up' the batsmen and seek to induce lax shots that can create an 'out'.

=====Over versus around=====
Whether the bowler is right or left handed, they have two options for approaching the pitch to bowl the ball.
*Over the wicket: The bowler's bowling arm is nearer the stumps. (A right handed bowler passes to the left of the stumps.)
*Around the wicket: The bowler typically crosses in front of the umpire who is standing back slightly, and the bowler's bowling arm is away from the stumps. (A right handed bowler crosses the mid-line of the wicket and passes the stumps to the left and behind him.)

Bowlers will often change delivery direction in order land the ball in a patch of rough or cracked turf. The irregular or uneven bounce that results is intended to reduce the scoring rate or induce desperate or intemperate shots by the batsman.

By changing his distance away from the stumps (while remaining within the delivery crease), the bowler can achieve a range of approach angles which, when combined with spin and delivery speed, offers the attacking side a broad range of options.

While it is possible for the bowler to change deliveries at each ball, typically a whole over will be bowled using one or the other of these possible delivery methods. In any case, before the delivery, the bowler must inform the umpire who will in turn inform the batsman.

=====Grip and concealment=====
The bowlers are under no obligation to inform the batsman about their particular technique for delivering the ball. Bowlers have certain grips on the ball that, if the batsman is able to pick up the shape of the fist or the splay of the fingers, will give a fraction of a second's advantage in determining what shot the batsman may use, or whether to take a step down or across the wicket.

Bowlers will often adopt strategies to prevent the batsman seeing the delivery hand, such as:
*holding their 'off' hand over the delivery hand during their strides to the crease;
*holding the ball in the 'off' hand until the last delivery stride;
*cocking the hand so that the bowler sees the back of the hand and not the fingers (and their particular grip on the ball);
*striding in with the delivery arm behind their body.

===Fielding positions===

The fielding team has eleven players on the field. One is the bowler, and one the wicket-keeper, leaving nine players to be distributed around the field in such a way as to maximise the fielding team's chances of preventing runs being scored and/or taking a wicket. Different situations call for different distributions, and part of the tactical and strategic skill of cricket (sometimes referred to as its chess-like nature) is to position the fielders to maximum advantage. Each position has a name, and some of the names (such as "silly mid off" and "short fine leg") can seem amusing to non-cricketers.<ref>[http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/fielding-positions.pdf Diagram of fielding positions from cricinfo.com]</ref>

===Scoring===

The batsman’s aim is to score '''''runs''''' whilst protecting his wicket. Generally speaking, in order to score a run, he must first hit the ball. He and his partner must then decide whether or not they can run to each other’s end of the pitch before the fielding side have time to break either wicket with the ball. They may run as many times as they are able per hit and the ''on strike'' batsman scores one run for his team each time they do so.

If the ball reaches the boundary rope, the batsman automatically scores four runs. If it clears the rope without first touching the ground, it scores six runs. (If a fielder is in contact with the ball when they touch the fence/rope then it is counted as a four or six depending on whether the ball has previously touched the ground or would have carried over the fence/rope.)

A 'no ball' may be called by an umpire according to various infractions by a bowler. The batting team gets one run counted to its score, and the ball is rebowled. A batsman can not be caught (out) on a no ball. Bowling infractions may include overstepping the popping crease, or delivering a ball that goes outside the return crease at the batsman's end or over the batsman's head (a wild delivery).

A 'bye' is a run scored when the ball is not hit. This may occur when the ball hits the batsman's apparel (clothes or protective equipment) and is deflected off into the field of play, or when a bowler delivers a ball that the wicket keeper fails to gather up. Batsmen may either 'run' or, if the ball goes to the boundary, a 'four' may be awarded even if the batsmen have run fewer.

The notation for scoring leads to a particular term, 'dot ball', as in the scoring sheet a ball that does not get a run is noted with a dot. Accordingly, an over with a single, dot, no ball, dot, three, dot, single, would be marked 1.nb.3.1 (six 'legal' deliveries) and the score has increased by 6 runs including one for the no ball.

====Example of Match Scoring====

The scoring of matches, and especially the way results are presented, can sometimes be confusing. As an example, let us imagine that, at the end of the first day’s play, Sri Lanka have scored 286 runs and have lost 5 wickets. This would be written as '''286-5'''.

Playing Australia, the match pans out as follows:

* Sri Lanka – 1st innings: 431
* Australia – 1st innings: 390

* Sri Lanka – 2nd innings: 360

Australia now need 402 runs to win. At the end of the 4th day, they find themselves 100-3 in their 2nd innings. Thus, they require 302 more runs to win on the final day with 7 wickets in hand.

If Australia are bowled out for a 2nd innings total of 300, then they would have fallen short by 102. Sri Lanka would be said to have '''won by 101 runs''' (if Australia had scored exactly 401, the game would have been a tie).

If, however, Australia reached their target only having lost another three wickets (402-6), they would be said to have '''won by 4 wickets'''.

If at the end of the fifth day's play Australia were 350-8, they would not yet have reached their target, and Sri Lanka would not yet have taken 10 wickets. In this instance both teams would have failed to win and the game would be declared a draw. This occurrence is not uncommon.

==Other aspects of the game==
===Grounds===
Grounds in different parts of one country, let along different parts of the world, play differently: Wickets in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, are renowned for being 'hard'; English wickets are 'green' (have grass obvious in the playing surface); the ground in [[Perth, Western Australia]] has a daily sea breeze in the afternoon.

Then, there are oddities:
*The "Lord's" ground, the home of the Marylebone Cricket Club (established 1787) in London, has a slant of about 2.5m (8 feet) from one side of the ground to the other, so a shot made 'down the hill' typically goes further into the field than a shot made 'up the hill'.
*Grounds in the West Indies and India often have hundreds of people sitting in or hanging from trees in order to get an unobstructed view.
*"The Gabba" ground (at Woolloongabba in [[Brisbane, Queensland]]) has cantilevered spectator stands that protrude over the surrounding streets<ref>[http://www.onesteel.com/images/db_images/casestudies/sports17cbp.pdf Structural Steel Casebook, Issue 17, October 2000, pp4/6/8, OneSteel, accessed 5 January 2008</ref>.
*The cricket ground at [[Scarborough]] in [[Yorkshire]] is inside the walls of the town's medieval castle, and this leads to a number of "local" rules; for example, if a ball is caught by a spectator the batsman is given out if he is batting at the "town" end of the ground, but is awarded six runs of he is at the "sea" end.

===Day and Night===
Play is normally during the day, but an innovation since the 1970s has been the introduction of light towers at cricket grounds that allow play to continue through dusk and into the night.

===Sight Screen===
At each end of a major cricket ground is a 'sight screen', which is of a contrasting colour to the ball; white screen for a red 'day' ball; black screen for a white 'night' ball. The screen is moved so as to be behind the bowler from the perspective of the batsman. The ball thus stands out from the background and assists the batsman in making decisions about his shot.

==='Walking'===
High sportsmanship is shown when a batsman 'walks' from the field, conceding his wicket, when he knows that he has been 'out' by the rules of the game, but was not given out by the umpires. The fielding side may not even have 'appealed' to the umpire. For instance, this may occur when he feels the ball 'nick' his gloves or the bat and the ball is then caught by the wicket keeper.

Conversely, a batsman does not have to walk unless the umpire gives him 'out'. He may know that he was out by the rules of the game (for example, he felt a nick) but, after the fielding side has 'appealed' for the wicket (out), the umpire decides that it was 'not out'; and, the batsman is within his rights to 'stand his ground' based on the umpires decision.

===Winter===
Cricket grounds are generally of a size that allows them to be marked out during winter for playing football: [[soccer]], [[Rugby]], [[Rugby Union]], or [[Australian Rules]].

Many cricketers play baseball in winter, to keep up their hand-eye coordination.

===Women's Cricket===
A strong international competition exists for women playing cricket. This is based on national competitions at various levels (state/county, regional and local).

===Blind Cricket===
People with vision impairment, along with fully sighted people, can play [[Blind]] Cricket. (Sighted people are fitted with special spectacles that distort their vision.)

The ball is normally a white plastic ball of similar size to a cricket ball or softball, and has inside it a bell or metal pieces that make a noise as the ball moves.

The bowler calls out to the batsman, "Are you ready?", which allows the batsman to line up for the delivery. Similarly, the batsman's reply, or a call from the wicket keeper, allows the bowler to line up.

The batsman can be got 'out' in the same ways as for sighted cricket, except that catching is not permitted.

===Duckworth-Lewis scoring===
In the event that a limited over match is affected by rain or other stops to play, a system of score amendment is used developed by statisticians Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis. This allows the umpires to calculate a new score target to win for the second side batting for any given amount of time remaining for normal play, less an allowance for the ratio of runs scored to wickets remaining, corrected for the number of minutes remaining until sunset. If a game may be rain affected, it is in the interests of the first side batting to score at a rapid and even rate, so that a revised target is difficult for the following side to achieve.

==Famous Cricketers==
===Batsmen===
*Dr [[W.G. Grace]] (1848-1915), English - "the best-known Englishman of his time"
*Sir [[Donald Bradman]] (1908-2001), Australian, "The Don" - "the greatest batsman of all time" (test match average of 99.94 runs; top score 334; 29 100s & 13 50s; 6,996 runs in 52 matches; first class average 95.14)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/4188.html</ref>
*[[Sachin Tendulkar]] (1973-), Indian - "the greatest One-Day International cricketer of all time" (Tests: ~12,000 @ 55 av; ODI: ~16,000 @ 44 av; First Class: ~20,000 @ 59 av; List A: ~19,000 @ 45 av; still playing)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/india/content/player/35320.html</ref> Tendulkar now holds the records for the most runs scored in Tests and One Day Internationals, as well as the records for the most individual centuries scored by batsman in both Tests and One Day Internationals.
*Sir [[Gary Sobers|Garry Sobers]] (1936-), Barbadian - "the greatest all-rounder of all time". The first player to hit six sixes in one over of first-class cricket.<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52946.html</ref>
*Sir [[Vivian Richards|Viv Richards]] (1952-), Antigua, West Indies - "the greatest ODI batsman of all time" until Tendulkar (Tests: 8,540 runs @ 50.23 av; ODI: 6721 @ 47.00 av; First Class: 36,212 @ 49.40 av; List A: 16,995 @ 41.96 av)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52812.html</ref>
*Sanath Jayasuriya (1969-), Sri Lankan- "The Matara Mauler" (Batting - Tests: 6,973 runs @ 40.07 av; ODI: 12,785 runs @32.69. Bowling - Tests: 98 wickets @ 34.34; ODIs: 310 wickets @ 36.55)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/49209.html</ref>
*Jacques Kallis (1975-), South Africa. (Batting - Tests: ~9,700 runs @ 55.46; ODI: ~9,600 runs @ 44.69. Bowling - Tests: 240 wickets @ 31.22, ODI: 243 wickets @ 31.38). Still playing <ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/southafrica/content/player/45789.html</ref>

===Bowlers===
*[[Shane Warne]] (1969-), Australian - spin bowler, one of the five Wisden "cricketers of the century" (Tests: 17,995 runs for 708 wickets @ 25.41 runs/wicket; ODI: 7,541 for 293 @ 25.73 ave; First Class: 34,449 for 1,319 @ 26.11 av; List A: 11,642 for 473 @ 24.61 ave; retired in 2007)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/8166.html</ref>
*[[Muttiah Muralitharan]] (1972-), Sri Lankan - spin bowler, "the greatest Test match bowler ever" (still playing; as at September 2008 - Tests: 16,604 runs for 756 wickets @ 21.96 runs/wicket; ODI: 11,030 for 479 @ 23.02 av; First Class: 25,421 for 1,330 @ 19.11 ave; List A: 13,471 for 602 @ 22.37 av)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/49636.html</ref>
*[[Glenn McGrath]] (1970-), Australian - quick bowler, "holds the world record for the highest number of Test wickets by a fast bowler" (Retired from test cricket in 2007; and all cricket in 2008) Tests: 12,186 runs for 563 wickets @ 21.64 runs/wicket; ODI: 8,391 for 381 @ 22.02 ave; First Class: 17,414 for 835 @ 20.85 ave; List A: 9,943 for 458 @ 21.70 ave)<ref>http://content-rsa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6565.html</ref>

===Dream Team===
According to [[Richie Benaud]], former Captain of the Australian Cricket Team and since then known internationally as "The Voice of Cricket" (commentator, both ball-by-ball and expert opinion):

''The Opening Batsmen:''

1. Sir John Berry 'Jack' Hobbs (1882-1963) (England) - The Greatest Opener, and the first English cricket player to be [[knight|knighted]] (1953)

2. [[Sunil Gavaskar]] (India) - The Most Difficult Batsman to Dismiss, and a Fine Opener

''Middle Order Batsmen:''

3. Sir Don Bradman (Australia) - The Best Batsman to Walk the Earth, and the first cricket player to be knighted (1949)

4. Sir Viv Richards (West Indies) - The Master Blaster

5. Sachin Tendulkar (India) - The Greatest ODI Batsman

''All-rounders:''

6. Sir Gary Sobers (West Indies) - The Greatest Allrounder Ever

7. [[Imran Khan]] Naizi (Pakistan) - the finest Cricketer/Captain to emerge from Pakistan; picked ahead of [[Kapil Dev]], [[Ian Botham]] & [[Richard Hadlee]]

''Wicket Keeper:''

8. [[Adam Gilchrist]] (Australia) - The Finest Wicketkeeper-batsman the world has seen

''Spinner:''

9. Shane Warne (Australia) - The Finest Leg spin Bowler of All time

''Fast Bowlers:''

10. [[Dennis Lillee]] (Australia) - A Great Australian Fast Bowler

11. [[Sydney Barnes]] (England) - A Fast-bowling Legend

==External links==
* [http://www.icc-cricket.com International Cricket Council]
* [http://www.lords.org The Lord's ground and the Marylebone Cricket Club]
* [http://www.cricket.com.au 'Cricket Australia']
* [http://stats.rleague.com/tc/players/player_index.html Player statistics (index)] - by country
* [http://www.championships.vbca.org.au/ Vision Australia 29th National 'Blind Cricket' Championships, 29 December 2007 - 11 January 2008]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Cricket]][[category:sports]]

Cricket (game)

2008-10-28T17:12:15Z

Boomcoach:

[[Image:Cricket_match.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Australia vs India, Sydney Cricket Ground, January 2004. Note how the pitch being used is merely one of many that can be in various stages of preparation.]]
'''Cricket''' is a bat and ball game played between two teams of eleven, normally in the local summer season. At international level, it exists primarily in two forms: Test cricket (played over five days) and one-day cricket (a shortened form of the game, with each team batting one innings of up to 50 overs). A recent innovation has been the "Twenty20" match (20 overs per side).

Cricket is also played at provincial and county levels, and traditional matches between village and [[public house]] teams are still played in summer on the [[village green]]s of [[England]].

==International Game==
The International Cricket Council (ICC) governs the game internationally, and recognizes the national cricket administrations of each country.

On a global scale cricket is only surpassed by [[soccer]] in terms of popularity; it is the primary spectator sport in [[India]], [[Pakistan]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Sri Lanka]], and the [[West Indies]], and of major importance in England, [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], and [[South Africa]], and in many other places that were historically affected by British colonial influence. Cricket has a low profile in the United States, where baseball is the dominant bat and ball sport, but it is played in various regions. (As of March 2007, the ICC rejected the recognition of the [[USA Cricket Association]] until it adopted a viable constitution and rules, and created a workable administration.)

===Code of Laws===
Marylebone Cricket Club in [[London]], which operates The Lord's ground, was formed in 1787. A year later, it composed a Code of Laws that were adopted throughout the game. The MCC remains the custodian and arbiter of Laws relating to cricket around the world.

==The Pitch==
Cricket is played on a [[pitch]] or green, essentially a flat [[grass]] playing field, that is 22 yards (66 feet or 1 chain or 20.12 m) long and 10 feet wide.

The pitch is marked with various lines or 'creases', and is double-ended so that alternate 'overs' are played from both ends:
*One 'bowling crease' is drawn at each end of the pitch to mark the ends of the pitch. The three stumps in the set of stumps at that end of the pitch are along this crease. The bowling creases may be used to determine whether there is a 'no ball' because a fielder has encroached on the pitch or the wicket keeper has moved in front of the wicket before he is permitted to do so.
*One 'popping crease' is drawn at each end of the pitch in front of each of the two sets of stumps, 4 feet (1.22 m) in front of and parallel to the bowling crease. The popping crease is used in one test of whether the bowler has bowled a 'no ball'. To avoid a no ball, some part of the bowler's front foot in the delivery stride (that is, the stride when he releases the ball) must be behind the popping crease (although the bowler's front foot does not have to be grounded).
*A return crease is drawn on each side of each set of the stumps, 4 feet 4 inches (1.32 m) either side of and parallel to the imaginary line joining the centres of the two middle stumps. The return creases are primarily used to determine whether the bowler has bowled a no ball. To avoid a no ball, some part of the bowler's back foot in the delivery stride must land within and not touching the return crease.

As imperfections in the playing surface may affect the behavior of the ball, the green is considered high-maintenance as it has to be regularly rolled, watered and cut to ensure suitability for play. A [[groundskeeper]] is usually employed for this purpose.

An ideal pitch has fine grass growing in the turf to retain the consistency of the pitch and to prevent cracking, yet its grass has been cut so that the underlying ground is fully exposed.

An innovation in recent years has been the 'drop-in pitch', which is prepared and tended away from the field of play and then dropped into a specially constructed slot in the ground in place of normal turf. Final preparation is done after the pitch is in place.

Alternatives to the grass pitch are:
*Concrete topped with plastic 'grass' carpet, matting, or rubber (crushed or granulated, or a section of rubber conveyor belt);
*Concrete pitch (often with green pigment, or painted green);
*Clay surface, watered and rolled;
*A vulcanized rubber surface (introduced to England's famous Gloucester Cricket Ground in response to the floods of summer 2007);

==Equipment==
Cricket balls are made from [[cork]] with a [[leather]] cover, and are traditionally red (but white balls are used in some matches these days). Bats are [[willow]] treated with linseed oil.

The normal clothing for cricketers is white, or it may coloured for limited over matches:
*long trousers;
*long sleeves shirt (may be short sleeved for night matches);
*stud soled shoes; and
*cap or hat.

A normal cricketer's cap has a small beak at the front. Members of national teams are 'capped' (given their own team cap) when they are picked for their team. In recent times, it is normal to have cricketers optionally wearing a soft, canvas, broad-brimmed hat.

In recent years, team member's shirts often bear a number [[enbridery|embroidered]] below the national or team crest. This number is their 'cap' ranking, their number in the players who have been selected to play, since the national, state, or county first played (perhaps as early as the 1800s.) For example: the Australian team captain, [[Ricky Ponting]], wears number 366 in the national side and 123 for Australia's One Day International team<ref>[http://www.cricket.com.au/default.aspx?s=playersmendetails&profileid=30 Ponting], Cricket Australia, accessed 16 February 2008</ref>.

The batsman uses pads (shin, arm and body guards), padded gloves, a 'box' (a protection for the groin), and protective headgear in response to the hazards of modern fast-bowling techniques.

The wicketkeeper is the only fielder allowed to wear gloves, which are made of soft leather with rubber palms to help grip the ball.

==Officials==
Two umpires take to the field for major matches. The umpire at the bowler's end stands behind the stumps and watches the delivery stride of the bowler, the flight of the ball to adjudicate 'wide' or 'no ball' deliveries, and where it might strike the batsman or his bat.

The 'leg' umpire normally stands behind the batsman (on the 'leg' side of the field) and watches the flight of the ball and any deflection from the bat, in order to assist the other umpire in making a decision about a 'wide' or 'no ball' or a catch behind the stumps.

A 'third umpire' has been instituted for test and some state/county matches in recent years to decide close decisions for stumpings and run-outs, using video equipment and slow speed replays.

The captain of the fielding side is also considered an umpire for the specific circumstance where he believes a batsman has been unfairly been give 'out' by the other umpires. He may call the batsman back to continue his innings at bat. The captain is often fielding closer to the batsman than the umpires, and may have seen or heard the circumstances more clearly. This prerogative is rarely exercised, but shows high levels of sportsmanship as it effectively counters the wishes of other members of his team.

The scorers are considered to be officials. The field umpires use a system of hand and body gestures to indicate runs scored and other matters to the scorers, who are off the field.

In major games, such as international tests and national competitions, a referee is appointed by the convening body. This person does not go on the field of play, but watches from the stands. In hierarchy above the umpires, he can independently decide or be appealed to for decisions on matters of gamesmanship, etiquette, or cricket rules.

==Test (First Class) cricket - an overview==
Test cricket is played between the national teams of two countries. Most test series are 'best of' three or five matches. Typically, various limited over matches are also played as part of the 'season', including several 'warm-up' matches to assist the visiting team to become familiar with local conditions. As each major city in a country has a premier ground, a season normally involves matches in various cities.

A day's play consists of 90 overs of 6 balls (540 'legal' balls), usually divided into three 2 hour sessions with breaks for lunch and tea.

===The Ground===
The size of the field of play varies widely between cricket grounds, but the '''''pitch''''' in the centre is always 22 yards long and 10 feet wide. At either end of this pitch are two sets of '''''wickets''''', consisting of three wooden posts ('''''stumps''''') upon which rest two wooden '''''bails'''''. While most 'international' grounds are of generally similar size, most matches are now played with a '''''boundary rope''''' at a standard distance from the pitch around the edge of the field inside the white picket fence fence.

===Getting Out===
A batsman can be dismissed ('''''given out''''') in a number of different ways. These are:
* '''Bowled''' – the ball hits the stumps (wicket) and removes the bails direct from the bowler’s delivery, or after hitting only the bat or the batsman's hands (gloves) which are on the bat handle.
* '''Caught''' – the batsman hits the ball and it is caught by the fielding side before it touches the ground.
* '''LBW''' (leg before wicket) – the batsman fails to hit the ball and it strikes him in such a way that the umpire judges it would have gone on to hit the stumps. Note: This mode of dismissal depends on a number of other factors.
* '''Stumped''' – This is a particular case of 'run out' when the wicket keeper takes the ball immediately after delivery and breaks the stumps while the batsman has been attempting a shot while ahead of his crease.
* '''Run out''' – The fielding team get the ball to the wickets and 'breaks' the bails from the stumps while the batsman is outside the crease.
* '''Hit wicket''' - The batsman hits the stumps with his bat, or steps on the stumps while rearing back from a ball, breaking the bails.
* '''Handled the ball''' - The batsman touches the ball without the permission of the fielding side.
* '''Hit the ball twice''' - The batsman hits the ball twice without the intent of guarding his wicket. Tapping the ball from rolling onto your stumps is legal while hitting a throw away is an out.
* '''Obstructing the field''' - The batsman stops a fielder from fielding. This does not include unintentional bumping or running between the ball and a fielder.
* '''Timed out''' - If the batsman takes more than three minutes to get onto the pitch he is declared out. If the delay is even longer, the umpire may decide the batting team has forfeited.
* '''Retired out''' - The batsman loses the will to bat/keep batting or is too seriously injured (retiring when too injured is usually referred to as "retired hurt").

===Win, Draw, or Tie===
In order to win, a team must dismiss the opposition twice (that is, take 20 wickets) and have scored more runs, within the five days. A match is a 'draw' if either team fails to dismiss the other twice, irrespective of how many runs may have been scored. A 'tie' is when the scores are level at the end of all sessions of play; no extra play is normally used to break a tie in a test match, but extra overs are played in some limited over matches.

===Batting and fielding===
The batting side must always have two batsmen operating in partnership, and each member of the batting team is allowed to bat once and only once in an innings. Thus, although they have eleven players, once ten wickets have fallen they are '''''all out''''' and their '''''innings''''' is over. The batting and fielding sides then swap roles and this cycle is repeated so that both teams have two opportunities to bat.

The game begins with the toss of a coin between the two captains, supervised by the field umpires. The winning captain then elects to bat or field.

Two batsmen (the '''''openers''''') take to the field accompanied by the entire fielding side and two umpires. The batsman who is to receive the first ball is '''''on strike''''' and takes guard in front of his wicket. His '''''non-striking''''' partner waits at the other end of the pitch.

The fielding side nominates a bowler, who has six balls (six balls = one '''''over''''') with which to dismiss the batsman. Bowlers normally bowl overarm, and must not straighten the elbow during the delivery of the ball. (Underarm delivery, similar to that used in [[Softball]], was at one time the only form of delivery. It is now banned. A famous case of its use in an Australia-New Zealand test match resulted in derision for the Australian captain who asked a bowler to use this technique in order to stop the batting side from making a necessary run to win.)

Typically, bowlers take a run up before delivering a ball. A bowler may not bowl consecutive overs, so that typically two bowlers will bowl alternative overs until the captain decides to make a switch. In theory any player may bowl, but in practice no more than five or six of the eleven will usually participate. One other member of the fielding side acts as the wicket-keeper, standing directly behind the wicket to catch any missed balls, or any balls where the batsman managed only a faint touch. The remaining members of the fielding side (who are specialist batsmen) spend the entire innings fielding.

====Batting theory====
Batsmen may be either left or right handed: The bat is the same for each.

The batsmen can run any number of runs at any time, even if the ball has not been struck.

The batsman aims to hit the ball in such a way that he and his fellow batsman can run safely to the other end and ground his bat, or a piece of his body (foot, hand, etc), within the popping crease before the fielding side can effect a run out. Hitting the ball well into the outfield causes the fielding side to chase the ball and throw it back to the wicket keeper or another player who 'backs up' at the bowling end of the pitch.

Long hits to poorly defended parts of the ground may allow the batsmen to run four, or the ball may get to the fence for four.

At certain times the ball is deemed to be 'dead' and the batsmen can wander safely on the pitch between the creases, for example to converse on tactics.

A good batsman in the top order (batting at positions 1-6) is normally capable of getting 20-50 runs and possibly 100 or many more. The 'lower order' batsmen in a good team, normally the specialist bowlers, may be able to 'slash' 20 runs on a good day.

====Bowling theory====
The bowler has two goals, which are not mutually exclusive:
*get the batsmen out, as they can no longer score in that innings; and
*prevent the batsman from scoring.

It may seem that the bowler should always aim at the batsman's legs, which are in front of the stumps. This is normally easily defended. Hence, bowlers normally bowl a range of balls away from the stumps hoping to lure the batsman into playing a rash or mis-timed shot that goes to a catch or allows the fielders to create a run out.

Bowlers come in three types: Quick, Medium, and Slow (or 'spin'). A top-level team will normally have a bowling attack with two or three quick bowlers, one specialist slow (spin) bowler, and several general players capable of medium pace bowling.

'''Quick''' or fast bowlers may be delivering balls travelling at 136 to 150 kmh (85 to 95 mph). The ball is intended to either:
*hit the pitch on the seam (between the two halves of the leather) and thereby to bounce (un)predictably, or
*swing in the air towards or away from the bat.

'''Medium''' pace bowlers use similar tactics to fast bowlers but aim to create more diversity within the speed of their bowling so as to trick the batsman's timing of his swing at the ball.

'''Slow''' (or '''spin''') bowlers use either wrist or finger spinning techniques to get the ball to swing in the air, or bounce markedly off the pitch in either direction, and thereby snick the bat and be caught or bounce behind the batsman's guard into the stumps.

Normally, the quick bowlers will open the attack, and bowl for about two hours (or to the end of the first session.) The bowling will then be mixed up, with medium and slow, or quick-medium. At any time the captain may call for a change of bowling to 'mix up' the batsmen and seek to induce lax shots that can create an 'out'.

=====Over versus around=====
Whether the bowler is right or left handed, they have two options for approaching the pitch to bowl the ball.
*Over the wicket: The bowler's bowling arm is nearer the stumps. (A right handed bowler passes to the left of the stumps.)
*Around the wicket: The bowler typically crosses in front of the umpire who is standing back slightly, and the bowler's bowling arm is away from the stumps. (A right handed bowler crosses the mid-line of the wicket and passes the stumps to the left and behind him.)

Bowlers will often change delivery direction in order land the ball in a patch of rough or cracked turf. The irregular or uneven bounce that results is intended to reduce the scoring rate or induce desperate or intemperate shots by the batsman.

By changing his distance away from the stumps (while remaining within the delivery crease), the bowler can achieve a range of approach angles which, when combined with spin and delivery speed, offers the attacking side a broad range of options.

While it is possible for the bowler to change deliveries at each ball, typically a whole over will be bowled using one or the other of these possible delivery methods. In any case, before the delivery, the bowler must inform the umpire who will in turn inform the batsman.

=====Grip and concealment=====
The bowlers are under no obligation to inform the batsman about their particular technique for delivering the ball. Bowlers have certain grips on the ball that, if the batsman is able to pick up the shape of the fist or the splay of the fingers, will give a fraction of a second's advantage in determining what shot the batsman may use, or whether to take a step down or across the wicket.

Bowlers will often adopt strategies to prevent the batsman seeing the delivery hand, such as:
*holding their 'off' hand over the delivery hand during their strides to the crease;
*holding the ball in the 'off' hand until the last delivery stride;
*cocking the hand so that the bowler sees the back of the hand and not the fingers (and their particular grip on the ball);
*striding in with the delivery arm behind their body.

===Fielding positions===

The fielding team has eleven players on the field. One is the bowler, and one the wicket-keeper, leaving nine players to be distributed around the field in such a way as to maximise the fielding team's chances of preventing runs being scored and/or taking a wicket. Different situations call for different distributions, and part of the tactical and strategic skill of cricket (sometimes referred to as its chess-like nature) is to position the fielders to maximum advantage. Each position has a name, and some of the names (such as "silly mid off" and "short fine leg") can seem amusing to non-cricketers.<ref>[http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/fielding-positions.pdf Diagram of fielding positions from cricinfo.com]</ref>

===Scoring===

The batsman’s aim is to score '''''runs''''' whilst protecting his wicket. Generally speaking, in order to score a run, he must first hit the ball. He and his partner must then decide whether or not they can run to each other’s end of the pitch before the fielding side have time to break either wicket with the ball. They may run as many times as they are able per hit and the ''on strike'' batsman scores one run for his team each time they do so.

If the ball reaches the boundary rope, the batsman automatically scores four runs. If it clears the rope without first touching the ground, it scores six runs. (If a fielder is in contact with the ball when they touch the fence/rope then it is counted as a four or six depending on whether the ball has previously touched the ground or would have carried over the fence/rope.)

A 'no ball' may be called by an umpire according to various infractions by a bowler. The batting team gets one run counted to its score, and the ball is rebowled. A batsman can not be caught (out) on a no ball. Bowling infractions may include overstepping the popping crease, or delivering a ball that goes outside the return crease at the batsman's end or over the batsman's head (a wild delivery).

A 'bye' is a run scored when the ball is not hit. This may occur when the ball hits the batsman's apparel (clothes or protective equipment) and is deflected off into the field of play, or when a bowler delivers a ball that the wicket keeper fails to gather up. Batsmen may either 'run' or, if the ball goes to the boundary, a 'four' may be awarded even if the batsmen have run fewer.

The notation for scoring leads to a particular term, 'dot ball', as in the scoring sheet a ball that does not get a run is noted with a dot. Accordingly, an over with a single, dot, no ball, dot, three, dot, single, would be marked 1.nb.3.1 (six 'legal' deliveries) and the score has increased by 6 runs including one for the no ball.

====Example of Match Scoring====

The scoring of matches, and especially the way results are presented, can sometimes be confusing. As an example, let us imagine that, at the end of the first day’s play, Sri Lanka have scored 286 runs and have lost 5 wickets. This would be written as '''286-5'''.

Playing Australia, the match pans out as follows:

* Sri Lanka – 1st innings: 431
* Australia – 1st innings: 390

* Sri Lanka – 2nd innings: 360

Australia now need 402 runs to win. At the end of the 4th day, they find themselves 100-3 in their 2nd innings. Thus, they require 302 more runs to win on the final day with 7 wickets in hand.

If Australia are bowled out for a 2nd innings total of 300, then they would have fallen short by 102. Sri Lanka would be said to have '''won by 101 runs''' (if Australia had scored exactly 401, the game would have been a tie).

If, however, Australia reached their target only having lost another three wickets (402-6), they would be said to have '''won by 4 wickets'''.

If at the end of the fifth day's play Australia were 350-8, they would not yet have reached their target, and Sri Lanka would not yet have taken 10 wickets. In this instance both teams would have failed to win and the game would be declared a draw. This occurrence is not uncommon.

==Other aspects of the game==
===Grounds===
Grounds in different parts of one country, let along different parts of the world, play differently: Wickets in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, are renowned for being 'hard'; English wickets are 'green' (have grass obvious in the playing surface); the ground in [[Perth, Western Australia]] has a daily sea breeze in the afternoon.

Then, there are oddities:
*The "Lord's" ground, the home of the Marylebone Cricket Club (established 1787) in London, has a slant of about 2.5m (8 feet) from one side of the ground to the other, so a shot made 'down the hill' typically goes further into the field than a shot made 'up the hill'.
*Grounds in the West Indies and India often have hundreds of people sitting in or hanging from trees in order to get an unobstructed view.
*"The Gabba" ground (at Woolloongabba in [[Brisbane, Queensland]]) has cantilevered spectator stands that protrude over the surrounding streets<ref>[http://www.onesteel.com/images/db_images/casestudies/sports17cbp.pdf Structural Steel Casebook, Issue 17, October 2000, pp4/6/8, OneSteel, accessed 5 January 2008</ref>.
*The cricket ground at [[Scarborough]] in [[Yorkshire]] is inside the walls of the town's medieval castle, and this leads to a number of "local" rules; for example, if a ball is caught by a spectator the batsman is given out if he is batting at the "town" end of the ground, but is awarded six runs of he is at the "sea" end.

===Day and Night===
Play is normally during the day, but an innovation since the 1970s has been the introduction of light towers at cricket grounds that allow play to continue through dusk and into the night.

===Sight Screen===
At each end of a major cricket ground is a 'sight screen', which is of a contrasting colour to the ball; white screen for a red 'day' ball; black screen for a white 'night' ball. The screen is moved so as to be behind the bowler from the perspective of the batsman. The ball thus stands out from the background and assists the batsman in making decisions about his shot.

==='Walking'===
High sportsmanship is shown when a batsman 'walks' from the field, conceding his wicket, when he knows that he has been 'out' by the rules of the game, but was not given out by the umpires. The fielding side may not even have 'appealed' to the umpire. For instance, this may occur when he feels the ball 'nick' his gloves or the bat and the ball is then caught by the wicket keeper.

Conversely, a batsman does not have to walk unless the umpire gives him 'out'. He may know that he was out by the rules of the game (for example, he felt a nick) but, after the fielding side has 'appealed' for the wicket (out), the umpire decides that it was 'not out'; and, the batsman is within his rights to 'stand his ground' based on the umpires decision.

===Winter===
Cricket grounds are generally of a size that allows them to be marked out during winter for playing football: [[soccer]], [[Rugby]], [[Rugby Union]], or [[Australian Rules]].

Many cricketers play baseball in winter, to keep up their hand-eye coordination.

===Women's Cricket===
A strong international competition exists for women playing cricket. This is based on national competitions at various levels (state/county, regional and local).

===Blind Cricket===
People with vision impairment, along with fully sighted people, can play [[Blind]] Cricket. (Sighted people are fitted with special spectacles that distort their vision.)

The ball is normally a white plastic ball of similar size to a cricket ball or softball, and has inside it a bell or metal pieces that make a noise as the ball moves.

The bowler calls out to the batsman, "Are you ready?", which allows the batsman to line up for the delivery. Similarly, the batsman's reply, or a call from the wicket keeper, allows the bowler to line up.

The batsman can be got 'out' in the same ways as for sighted cricket, except that catching is not permitted.

===Duckworth-Lewis scoring===
In the event that a limited over match is affected by rain or other stops to play, a system of score amendment is used developed by statisticians Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis. This allows the umpires to calculate a new score target to win for the second side batting for any given amount of time remaining for normal play, less an allowance for the ratio of runs scored to wickets remaining, corrected for the number of minutes remaining until sunset. If a game may be rain affected, it is in the interests of the first side batting to score at a rapid and even rate, so that a revised target is difficult for the following side to achieve.

==Famous Cricketers==
===Batsmen===
*Dr [[W.G. Grace]] (1848-1915), English - "the best-known Englishman of his time"
*Sir [[Donald Bradman]] (1908-2001), Australian, "The Don" - "the greatest batsman of all time" (test match average of 99.94 runs; top score 334; 29 100s & 13 50s; 6,996 runs in 52 matches; first class average 95.14)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/4188.html</ref>
*[[Sachin Tendulkar]] (1973-), Indian - "the greatest One-Day International cricketer of all time" (Tests: ~12,000 @ 55 av; ODI: ~16,000 @ 44 av; First Class: ~20,000 @ 59 av; List A: ~19,000 @ 45 av; still playing)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/india/content/player/35320.html</ref> Tendulkar now holds the records for the most runs scored in Tests and One Day Internationals, as well as the records for the most individual centuries scored by batsman in both Tests and One Day Internationals.
*Sir [[Gary Sobers|Garry Sobers]] (1936-), Barbadian - "the greatest all-rounder of all time". The first player to hit six sixes in one over of first-class cricket.<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52946.html</ref>
*Sir [[Vivian Richards|Viv Richards]] (1952-), Antigua, West Indies - "the greatest ODI batsman of all time" until Tendulkar (Tests: 8,540 runs @ 50.23 av; ODI: 6721 @ 47.00 av; First Class: 36,212 @ 49.40 av; List A: 16,995 @ 41.96 av)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52812.html</ref>
*Sanath Jayasuriya (1969-), Sri Lankan- "The Matara Mauler" (Batting - Tests: 6,973 runs @ 40.07 av; ODI: 12,785 runs @32.69. Bowling - Tests: 98 wickets @ 34.34; ODIs: 310 wickets @ 36.55)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/49209.html</ref>
*Jacques Kallis (1975-), South Africa. (Batting - Tests: ~9,700 runs @ 55.46; ODI: ~9,600 runs @ 44.69. Bowling - Tests: 240 wickets @ 31.22, ODI: 243 wickets @ 31.38). Still playing <ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/southafrica/content/player/45789.html</ref>

===Bowlers===
*[[Shane Warne]] (1969-), Australian - spin bowler, one of the five Wisden "cricketers of the century" (Tests: 17,995 runs for 708 wickets @ 25.41 runs/wicket; ODI: 7,541 for 293 @ 25.73 ave; First Class: 34,449 for 1,319 @ 26.11 av; List A: 11,642 for 473 @ 24.61 ave; retired in 2007)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/8166.html</ref>
*[[Muttiah Muralitharan]] (1972-), Sri Lankan - spin bowler, "the greatest Test match bowler ever" (still playing; as at September 2008 - Tests: 16,604 runs for 756 wickets @ 21.96 runs/wicket; ODI: 11,030 for 479 @ 23.02 av; First Class: 25,421 for 1,330 @ 19.11 ave; List A: 13,471 for 602 @ 22.37 av)<ref>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/49636.html</ref>
*[[Glenn McGrath]] (1970-), Australian - quick bowler, "holds the world record for the highest number of Test wickets by a fast bowler" (Retired from test cricket in 2007; and all cricket in 2008) Tests: 12,186 runs for 563 wickets @ 21.64 runs/wicket; ODI: 8,391 for 381 @ 22.02 ave; First Class: 17,414 for 835 @ 20.85 ave; List A: 9,943 for 458 @ 21.70 ave)<ref>http://content-rsa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6565.html</ref>

===Dream Team===
According to [[Richie Benaud]], former Captain of the Australian Cricket Team and since then known internationally as "The Voice of Cricket" (commentator, both ball-by-ball and expert opinion):

''The Opening Batsmen:''

1. Sir John Berry 'Jack' Hobbs (1882-1963) (England) - The Greatest Opener, and the first English cricket player to be [[knight|knighted]] (1953)

2. [[Sunil Gavaskar]] (India) - The Most Difficult Batsman to Dismiss, and a Fine Opener

''Middle Order Batsmen:''

3. Sir Don Bradman (Australia) - The Best Batsman to Walk the Earth, and the first cricket player to be knighted (1949)

4. Sir Viv Richards (West Indies) - The Master Blaster

5. Sachin Tendulkar (India) - The Greatest ODI Batsman

''All-rounders:''

6. Sir Gary Sobers (West Indies) - The Greatest Allrounder Ever

7. [[Imran Khan]] Naizi (Pakistan) - the finest Cricketer/Captain to emerge from Pakistan; picked ahead of [[Kapil Dev]], [[Ian Botham]] & [[Richard Hadlee]]

''Wicket Keeper:''

8. [[Adam Gilchrist]] (Australia) - The Finest Wicketkeeper-batsman the world has seen

''Spinner:''

9. Shane Warne (Australia) - The Finest Leg spin Bowler of All time

''Fast Bowlers:''

10. [[Dennis Lillee]] (Australia) - A Great Australian Fast Bowler

11. [[Sydney Barnes]] (England) - A Fast-bowling Legend

==External links==
* [http://www.icc-cricket.com International Cricket Council]
* [http://www.lords.org The Lord's ground and the Marylebone Cricket Club]
* [http://www.cricket.com.au 'Cricket Australia']
* [http://stats.rleague.com/tc/players/player_index.html Player statistics (index)] - by country
* [http://www.championships.vbca.org.au/ Vision Australia 29th National 'Blind Cricket' Championships, 29 December 2007 - 11 January 2008]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Cricket]][[category:sports]]

Talk:Family values

2008-10-23T20:22:29Z

Boomcoach: New page: It would me more accurate to say that "Family Values" is a catch phrase created by conservatives. There are many, myself included, who consider the family to be the cornerstone of society...

It would me more accurate to say that "Family Values" is a catch phrase created by conservatives. There are many, myself included, who consider the family to be the cornerstone of society, who do not agree with many, if any, of the beliefs of those who use the phrase.[[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 16:22, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Richard M. Johnson

2008-10-23T15:48:39Z

Boomcoach: Spelling correction

{{President
|image=Richard johnson.jpg
|office=vice
|seq=9
|term_start=March 4, 1837
|term_end=March 4, 1841
|party=Democratic
|pres=Martin Van Buren
|pres_dates=
|previous=Martin Van Buren
|next=John Tyler
|birth_date=October 17, 1780
|birth_place=Beargrass, Kentucky
|death_date=November 19, 1850 (aged 70)
|death_place=Frankfort, Kentucky
|spouse=
|spouse2=
|religion=Baptist
}}

'''Richard M. Johnson''' (1780- 1850) was [[Vice President]] of the United States from 1837 to 1841 under [[Martin Van Buren]]. In 1806, he represented [[Kentucky]] in the House, but left to fight in the [[War of 1812]]. He claimed to have killed the Indian chief [[Tecumseh]] at the [[Battle of Thames]] in 1813, engendering the slogan "Rumpsey Dumpsey, Colonel Johnson killed Tecumseh." He returned to the [[House of Representatives]] and in 1819 was appointed to his seat in the [[Senate]]. He enjoyed a largely unremarkable term in as the Vice President.

He was the first of the three Vice Presidents named Johnson (the other two are [[Andrew Johnson]], and [[Lyndon B. Johnson]].) <ref> [[Fandex]], Workman Publishing, 2002. </ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{USVicePresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT: Johnson, Richard M.}}

[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History

2008-08-14T12:09:24Z

Boomcoach: Fixing tense to match other questions.

Here is a growing list of unsolved mysteries in [[American History Lectures|American History]]:
#Where did the [[American Indians]] come from?
#Did the [[Vikings]] ever settle in [[North America]] and, if so, where and what happened to it?
#How was [[Christopher Columbus]] able to navigate himself across the [[Atlantic Ocean]] on his second voyage to find the precise same location that he colonized on his first voyage?
#What happened to the [[Lost Colony]]?
#Was [[Meriwether Lewis]] murdered?
#Was the so-called [[corrupt bargain]] real and, if so, was there anything wrong with it?
#Why did the [[Tariff of Abominations]] pass?
#Did President [[James Buchanan]] arrange the [[Dred Scott]] decision?
#Could the [[Civil War]] have been avoided with a peaceful solution?
#Could the [[South]] have possibly won the [[Civil War]]?
#What caused the [[USS Maine]] to explode?
#What caused the [[Great Depression]]?
#What really caused the repeal of [[Prohibition]]?
#Who was the lone dissent on the [[jury]] in the [[court martial]] of [[Billy Mitchell]]?
#Did [[FDR]] have advance knowledge of the attack on [[Pearl Harbor]]?
#Why did [[FDR]], who knew he was dying, replace his [[Vice President]] [[Henry Wallace]] with [[Harry S Truman]] to make Truman the next president?
#Why did the [[U-2]] spy plane crash-land in the [[Soviet Union]]?
#Did a [[communist]] sympathizer in the [[U.S.]] government leak plans of the [[Bay of Pigs]] invasion to [[Castro]]?
#What happened to Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Crater and D. B. Cooper, who disappeared without a trace?
#What role did Justice [[William Brennan]] have in writing ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''?
#Where did President [[Ronald Reagan]] get the idea and impetus for proposing the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]?

(add to list)
[[Category:Essay]]
[[Category:Mystery]]

Edgar Allan Poe

2008-03-18T13:45:54Z

Boomcoach: Tweak reference

'''Edgar Allan Poe''' is a famous American [[author]], [[poet]] and editor known for his dark and morbid themes. Among his most famous works are "The Raven" and "The Tell-Tale Heart".

His short story "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" is considered the first detective story.<ref>[http://www.classiccrimefiction.com/historydf.htm Origins of Detective Fiction]</ref>

"The Gold-Bug" is an imaginative tale that gives an example of elementary [[cryptanalysis]] (code-breaking).

== Life ==

Poe was born in Boston in 1809, and was raised in Richmond, Virginia, after his mother's death in 1811. He was educated in England and in Virginia.

In 1836, he married his first cousin Virginia Clemm, three months before her 14th birthday. Poe was an alcoholic, and drank increasingly after his wife's death in 1847. In 1849, he was found on the streets in Baltimore and died soon after. The cause of Poe's death remains unknown.<ref>The Poe Museum, [http://www.poemuseum.org/poes_life/index.html "Poe's Life"], by James Southall Wilson</ref>

== Literary Impact ==

Poe's works had a mixed, but largely negative, reception among literary circles during his life, but they were to have great influence on writers, particuarly European writers, after his death.

<blockquote>
But because of his use of imagination and his diving into the grotesque, the absurd, and darkness of dreams, he is linked with the creation of the surrealism movement and, from his staunch ideas on writing, inspired whole new genres to acquire the fame and fortune that eluded him. The famous pseudo-science fiction writer Jules Verne lists Poe as his main inspiration, as have other foreign writers, including Jorge Luis Borges, Franz Kafka, and the contemporary author Carlos Fuentes. As American author Joyce Carol Oates put it, "Who has not been influenced by Poe?"<ref> [http://news.research.ohiou.edu/perspectives/archives/9902/poe_main.htm A Writer of Influence]</ref>
</blockquote>

==Works==

===Poetry===

* O, Tempora! O, Mores! (1825)
* Song (1827)
* Imitation (1827)
* Spirits of the Dead (1827)
* A Dream (1827)
* Stanzas (1827)
* Tamerlane (1827)
* The Lake (1827)
* Evening Star (1827)
* A Dream (1827)
* To Margaret (1827)
* The Happiest Day (1827)
* To The River (1828)
* Romance (1829)
* Fairy-Land (1829)
* To Science (1829)
* To Isaac Lea (1829)
* Al Aaraaf (1829)
* An Acrostic (1829)
* Elizabeth (1829)
* To Helen (1831)
* A Paean (1831)
* The Sleeper (1831)
* The City in the Sea (1831)
* The Valley of Unrest (1831)
* Israfel (1831)
* The Coliseum (1833)
* Enigma (1833)
* Fanny (1833)
* Serenade (1833)
* Song of Triumph from Epimanes (1833)
* Latin Hymn (1833)
* To One in Paradise (1833)
* Hymn (1835)
* Politician (1835)
* May Queen Ode (1836)
* Spiritual Song (1836)
* Bridal Ballad (1837)
* To Zante (1837)
* The Haunted Palace (1839)
* Silence, a Sonnet (1839)
* Lines on Joe Locke (1843)
* The Conqueror Worm (1843)
* Lenore (1843)
* Eulalie (1843)
* A Campaign Song (1844)
* Dream-Land (1844)
* Impromptu. To Kate Carol (1845)
* To Frances (1845)
* The Divine Right of Kings (1845)
* Epigram for Wall Street (1845)
* The Raven (1845)
* A Valentine (1846)
* Beloved Physician (1847)
* An Enigma (1847)
* Deep in Earth (1847)
* Ulalume (1847)
* Lines on Ale (1848)
* To Marie Louise (1848)
* Evangeline (1848)
* A Dream Within A Dream (1849)
* Eldorado (1849)
* For Annie (1849)
* The Bells (1849)
* Annabel Lee (1849)
* Alone (1875)

===Tales===

* Metzengerstein (1832)
* The Duc De L'Omelette (1832)
* A Tale of Jerusalem (1832)
* Loss of Breath (1832)
* Bon-Bon (1832)
* MS. Found in a Bottle (1833)
* The Assignation (1834)
* Berenice (1835)
* Morella (1835)
* Lionizing (1835)
* The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall (1835)
* King Pest (1835)
* Shadow - A Parable (1835)
* Four Beasts in One - The Homo-Cameleopard (1836)
* Mystification (1837)
* Silence - A Fable (1837)
* Ligeia (1838)
* How to Write a Blackwood Article (1838)
* A Predicament (1838)
* The Devil in the Belfry (1839)
* The Man That Was Used Up (1839)
* The Fall of the House of Usher (1839)
* William Wilson (1839)
* The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion (1839)
* Why the Little Frenchman Wears His Hand in a Sling (1840)
* The Business Man (1840)
* The Man of the Crowd (1840)
* The Murders in the Rue Morgue (1841)
* A Descent into the Maelstrom (1841)
* The Island of the Fay (1841)
* The Colloquy of Monos and Una (1841)
* Never Bet the Devil Your Head (1841)
* Eleonora (1841)
* Three Sundays in a Week (1841)
* The Oval Portrait (1842)
* The Masque of the Red Death (1842)
* The Landscape Garden (1842)
* The Mystery of Marie Roget (1842)
* The Pit and the Pendulum (1842)
* The Tell-Tale Heart (1843)
* The Gold-Bug (1843)
* The Black Cat (1843)
* Diddling (1843)
* The Spectacles (1844)
* A Tale of the Ragged Mountains (1844)
* The Premature Burial (1844)
* Mesmeric Revelation (1844)
* The Oblong Box (1844)
* The Angel of the Odd (1844)
* Thou Art the Man (1844)
* The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq. (1844)
* The Purloined Letter (1844)
* The Thousand-and-Second Tale of Scheherazade (1845)
* Some Words with a Mummy (1845)
* The Power of Words (1845)
* The Imp of the Perverse (1845)
* The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether (1845)
* The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar (1845)
* The Sphinx (1846)
* The Cask of Amontillado (1846)
* The Domain of Arnheim (1847)
* Mellonta Tauta (1849)
* Hop-Frog (1849)
* Von Kempelen and His Discovery (1849)
* X-ing a Paragrab (1849)
* Landor's Cottage (1849)

===Essays===

* Maelzel's Chess Player (1836)
* The Daguerreotype (1840)
* The Philosophy of Furniture (1840)
* A Few Words on Secret Writing (1841)
* The Rationale of Verse (1843)
* Morning on the Wissahiccon (1844)
* Old English Poetry (1845)
* The Philosophy of Composition (1846)
* The Poetic Principle (1846)
* Eureka (1848)

===Hoaxes===
* The Balloon-Hoax (1844)

===Novels===
* The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket (1837)
* The Journal of Julius Rodman (1840)

===Plays===

* Scenes From 'Politian' (1835)

===Others===

* The Conchologist's First Book (1839)
* The Light-House (1849)

==References==

<References/>

==External Links==
[http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/p#a481 Poe's Works at Project Gutenberg]

== See also ==

*[[D. H. Lawrence]]
*[[Washington Irving]]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Poe, Edgar Allan}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Hall of Fame honorees]]
[[Category:Poets]]

Edgar Allan Poe

2008-03-18T13:44:23Z

Boomcoach: /* Literary Impact */ Add citation

'''Edgar Allan Poe''' is a famous American [[author]], [[poet]] and editor known for his dark and morbid themes. Among his most famous works are "The Raven" and "The Tell-Tale Heart".

His short story "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" is considered the first detective story.<ref>[http://www.classiccrimefiction.com/historydf.htm Origins of Detective Fiction]</ref>

"The Gold-Bug" is an imaginative tale that gives an example of elementary [[cryptanalysis]] (code-breaking).

== Life ==

Poe was born in Boston in 1809, and was raised in Richmond, Virginia, after his mother's death in 1811. He was educated in England and in Virginia.

In 1836, he married his first cousin Virginia Clemm, three months before her 14th birthday. Poe was an alcoholic, and drank increasingly after his wife's death in 1847. In 1849, he was found on the streets in Baltimore and died soon after. The cause of Poe's death remains unknown.<ref>The Poe Museum, [http://www.poemuseum.org/poes_life/index.html "Poe's Life"], by James Southall Wilson</ref>

== Literary Impact ==

Poe's works had a mixed, but largely negative, reception among literary circles during his life, but they were to have great influence on writers, particuarly European writers, after his death.

<blockquote>
But because of his use of imagination and his diving into the grotesque, the absurd, and darkness of dreams, he is linked with the creation of the surrealism movement and, from his staunch ideas on writing, inspired whole new genres to acquire the fame and fortune that eluded him. The famous pseudo-science fiction writer Jules Verne lists Poe as his main inspiration, as have other foreign writers, including Jorge Luis Borges, Franz Kafka, and the contemporary author Carlos Fuentes. As American author Joyce Carol Oates put it, "Who has not been influenced by Poe?"<ref> A Writer of Influence http://news.research.ohiou.edu/perspectives/archives/9902/poe_main.htm</ref>
</blockquote>

==Works==

===Poetry===

* O, Tempora! O, Mores! (1825)
* Song (1827)
* Imitation (1827)
* Spirits of the Dead (1827)
* A Dream (1827)
* Stanzas (1827)
* Tamerlane (1827)
* The Lake (1827)
* Evening Star (1827)
* A Dream (1827)
* To Margaret (1827)
* The Happiest Day (1827)
* To The River (1828)
* Romance (1829)
* Fairy-Land (1829)
* To Science (1829)
* To Isaac Lea (1829)
* Al Aaraaf (1829)
* An Acrostic (1829)
* Elizabeth (1829)
* To Helen (1831)
* A Paean (1831)
* The Sleeper (1831)
* The City in the Sea (1831)
* The Valley of Unrest (1831)
* Israfel (1831)
* The Coliseum (1833)
* Enigma (1833)
* Fanny (1833)
* Serenade (1833)
* Song of Triumph from Epimanes (1833)
* Latin Hymn (1833)
* To One in Paradise (1833)
* Hymn (1835)
* Politician (1835)
* May Queen Ode (1836)
* Spiritual Song (1836)
* Bridal Ballad (1837)
* To Zante (1837)
* The Haunted Palace (1839)
* Silence, a Sonnet (1839)
* Lines on Joe Locke (1843)
* The Conqueror Worm (1843)
* Lenore (1843)
* Eulalie (1843)
* A Campaign Song (1844)
* Dream-Land (1844)
* Impromptu. To Kate Carol (1845)
* To Frances (1845)
* The Divine Right of Kings (1845)
* Epigram for Wall Street (1845)
* The Raven (1845)
* A Valentine (1846)
* Beloved Physician (1847)
* An Enigma (1847)
* Deep in Earth (1847)
* Ulalume (1847)
* Lines on Ale (1848)
* To Marie Louise (1848)
* Evangeline (1848)
* A Dream Within A Dream (1849)
* Eldorado (1849)
* For Annie (1849)
* The Bells (1849)
* Annabel Lee (1849)
* Alone (1875)

===Tales===

* Metzengerstein (1832)
* The Duc De L'Omelette (1832)
* A Tale of Jerusalem (1832)
* Loss of Breath (1832)
* Bon-Bon (1832)
* MS. Found in a Bottle (1833)
* The Assignation (1834)
* Berenice (1835)
* Morella (1835)
* Lionizing (1835)
* The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall (1835)
* King Pest (1835)
* Shadow - A Parable (1835)
* Four Beasts in One - The Homo-Cameleopard (1836)
* Mystification (1837)
* Silence - A Fable (1837)
* Ligeia (1838)
* How to Write a Blackwood Article (1838)
* A Predicament (1838)
* The Devil in the Belfry (1839)
* The Man That Was Used Up (1839)
* The Fall of the House of Usher (1839)
* William Wilson (1839)
* The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion (1839)
* Why the Little Frenchman Wears His Hand in a Sling (1840)
* The Business Man (1840)
* The Man of the Crowd (1840)
* The Murders in the Rue Morgue (1841)
* A Descent into the Maelstrom (1841)
* The Island of the Fay (1841)
* The Colloquy of Monos and Una (1841)
* Never Bet the Devil Your Head (1841)
* Eleonora (1841)
* Three Sundays in a Week (1841)
* The Oval Portrait (1842)
* The Masque of the Red Death (1842)
* The Landscape Garden (1842)
* The Mystery of Marie Roget (1842)
* The Pit and the Pendulum (1842)
* The Tell-Tale Heart (1843)
* The Gold-Bug (1843)
* The Black Cat (1843)
* Diddling (1843)
* The Spectacles (1844)
* A Tale of the Ragged Mountains (1844)
* The Premature Burial (1844)
* Mesmeric Revelation (1844)
* The Oblong Box (1844)
* The Angel of the Odd (1844)
* Thou Art the Man (1844)
* The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq. (1844)
* The Purloined Letter (1844)
* The Thousand-and-Second Tale of Scheherazade (1845)
* Some Words with a Mummy (1845)
* The Power of Words (1845)
* The Imp of the Perverse (1845)
* The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether (1845)
* The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar (1845)
* The Sphinx (1846)
* The Cask of Amontillado (1846)
* The Domain of Arnheim (1847)
* Mellonta Tauta (1849)
* Hop-Frog (1849)
* Von Kempelen and His Discovery (1849)
* X-ing a Paragrab (1849)
* Landor's Cottage (1849)

===Essays===

* Maelzel's Chess Player (1836)
* The Daguerreotype (1840)
* The Philosophy of Furniture (1840)
* A Few Words on Secret Writing (1841)
* The Rationale of Verse (1843)
* Morning on the Wissahiccon (1844)
* Old English Poetry (1845)
* The Philosophy of Composition (1846)
* The Poetic Principle (1846)
* Eureka (1848)

===Hoaxes===
* The Balloon-Hoax (1844)

===Novels===
* The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket (1837)
* The Journal of Julius Rodman (1840)

===Plays===

* Scenes From 'Politian' (1835)

===Others===

* The Conchologist's First Book (1839)
* The Light-House (1849)

==References==

<References/>

==External Links==
[http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/p#a481 Poe's Works at Project Gutenberg]

== See also ==

*[[D. H. Lawrence]]
*[[Washington Irving]]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Poe, Edgar Allan}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Hall of Fame honorees]]
[[Category:Poets]]

Edgar Allan Poe

2008-03-18T13:42:33Z

Boomcoach: /* Life */ Add section on literary impact

'''Edgar Allan Poe''' is a famous American [[author]], [[poet]] and editor known for his dark and morbid themes. Among his most famous works are "The Raven" and "The Tell-Tale Heart".

His short story "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" is considered the first detective story.<ref>[http://www.classiccrimefiction.com/historydf.htm Origins of Detective Fiction]</ref>

"The Gold-Bug" is an imaginative tale that gives an example of elementary [[cryptanalysis]] (code-breaking).

== Life ==

Poe was born in Boston in 1809, and was raised in Richmond, Virginia, after his mother's death in 1811. He was educated in England and in Virginia.

In 1836, he married his first cousin Virginia Clemm, three months before her 14th birthday. Poe was an alcoholic, and drank increasingly after his wife's death in 1847. In 1849, he was found on the streets in Baltimore and died soon after. The cause of Poe's death remains unknown.<ref>The Poe Museum, [http://www.poemuseum.org/poes_life/index.html "Poe's Life"], by James Southall Wilson</ref>

== Literary Impact ==

Poe's works had a mixed, but largely negative, reception among literary circles during his life, but they were to have great influence on writers, particuarly European writers, after his death.

<blockquote>
But because of his use of imagination and his diving into the grotesque, the absurd, and darkness of dreams, he is linked with the creation of the surrealism movement and, from his staunch ideas on writing, inspired whole new genres to acquire the fame and fortune that eluded him. The famous pseudo-science fiction writer Jules Verne lists Poe as his main inspiration, as have other foreign writers, including Jorge Luis Borges, Franz Kafka, and the contemporary author Carlos Fuentes. As American author Joyce Carol Oates put it, "Who has not been influenced by Poe?"
</blockquote>

==Works==

===Poetry===

* O, Tempora! O, Mores! (1825)
* Song (1827)
* Imitation (1827)
* Spirits of the Dead (1827)
* A Dream (1827)
* Stanzas (1827)
* Tamerlane (1827)
* The Lake (1827)
* Evening Star (1827)
* A Dream (1827)
* To Margaret (1827)
* The Happiest Day (1827)
* To The River (1828)
* Romance (1829)
* Fairy-Land (1829)
* To Science (1829)
* To Isaac Lea (1829)
* Al Aaraaf (1829)
* An Acrostic (1829)
* Elizabeth (1829)
* To Helen (1831)
* A Paean (1831)
* The Sleeper (1831)
* The City in the Sea (1831)
* The Valley of Unrest (1831)
* Israfel (1831)
* The Coliseum (1833)
* Enigma (1833)
* Fanny (1833)
* Serenade (1833)
* Song of Triumph from Epimanes (1833)
* Latin Hymn (1833)
* To One in Paradise (1833)
* Hymn (1835)
* Politician (1835)
* May Queen Ode (1836)
* Spiritual Song (1836)
* Bridal Ballad (1837)
* To Zante (1837)
* The Haunted Palace (1839)
* Silence, a Sonnet (1839)
* Lines on Joe Locke (1843)
* The Conqueror Worm (1843)
* Lenore (1843)
* Eulalie (1843)
* A Campaign Song (1844)
* Dream-Land (1844)
* Impromptu. To Kate Carol (1845)
* To Frances (1845)
* The Divine Right of Kings (1845)
* Epigram for Wall Street (1845)
* The Raven (1845)
* A Valentine (1846)
* Beloved Physician (1847)
* An Enigma (1847)
* Deep in Earth (1847)
* Ulalume (1847)
* Lines on Ale (1848)
* To Marie Louise (1848)
* Evangeline (1848)
* A Dream Within A Dream (1849)
* Eldorado (1849)
* For Annie (1849)
* The Bells (1849)
* Annabel Lee (1849)
* Alone (1875)

===Tales===

* Metzengerstein (1832)
* The Duc De L'Omelette (1832)
* A Tale of Jerusalem (1832)
* Loss of Breath (1832)
* Bon-Bon (1832)
* MS. Found in a Bottle (1833)
* The Assignation (1834)
* Berenice (1835)
* Morella (1835)
* Lionizing (1835)
* The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall (1835)
* King Pest (1835)
* Shadow - A Parable (1835)
* Four Beasts in One - The Homo-Cameleopard (1836)
* Mystification (1837)
* Silence - A Fable (1837)
* Ligeia (1838)
* How to Write a Blackwood Article (1838)
* A Predicament (1838)
* The Devil in the Belfry (1839)
* The Man That Was Used Up (1839)
* The Fall of the House of Usher (1839)
* William Wilson (1839)
* The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion (1839)
* Why the Little Frenchman Wears His Hand in a Sling (1840)
* The Business Man (1840)
* The Man of the Crowd (1840)
* The Murders in the Rue Morgue (1841)
* A Descent into the Maelstrom (1841)
* The Island of the Fay (1841)
* The Colloquy of Monos and Una (1841)
* Never Bet the Devil Your Head (1841)
* Eleonora (1841)
* Three Sundays in a Week (1841)
* The Oval Portrait (1842)
* The Masque of the Red Death (1842)
* The Landscape Garden (1842)
* The Mystery of Marie Roget (1842)
* The Pit and the Pendulum (1842)
* The Tell-Tale Heart (1843)
* The Gold-Bug (1843)
* The Black Cat (1843)
* Diddling (1843)
* The Spectacles (1844)
* A Tale of the Ragged Mountains (1844)
* The Premature Burial (1844)
* Mesmeric Revelation (1844)
* The Oblong Box (1844)
* The Angel of the Odd (1844)
* Thou Art the Man (1844)
* The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq. (1844)
* The Purloined Letter (1844)
* The Thousand-and-Second Tale of Scheherazade (1845)
* Some Words with a Mummy (1845)
* The Power of Words (1845)
* The Imp of the Perverse (1845)
* The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether (1845)
* The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar (1845)
* The Sphinx (1846)
* The Cask of Amontillado (1846)
* The Domain of Arnheim (1847)
* Mellonta Tauta (1849)
* Hop-Frog (1849)
* Von Kempelen and His Discovery (1849)
* X-ing a Paragrab (1849)
* Landor's Cottage (1849)

===Essays===

* Maelzel's Chess Player (1836)
* The Daguerreotype (1840)
* The Philosophy of Furniture (1840)
* A Few Words on Secret Writing (1841)
* The Rationale of Verse (1843)
* Morning on the Wissahiccon (1844)
* Old English Poetry (1845)
* The Philosophy of Composition (1846)
* The Poetic Principle (1846)
* Eureka (1848)

===Hoaxes===
* The Balloon-Hoax (1844)

===Novels===
* The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket (1837)
* The Journal of Julius Rodman (1840)

===Plays===

* Scenes From 'Politian' (1835)

===Others===

* The Conchologist's First Book (1839)
* The Light-House (1849)

==References==

<References/>

==External Links==
[http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/p#a481 Poe's Works at Project Gutenberg]

== See also ==

*[[D. H. Lawrence]]
*[[Washington Irving]]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Poe, Edgar Allan}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Hall of Fame honorees]]
[[Category:Poets]]

Edgar Allan Poe

2008-03-18T13:34:06Z

Boomcoach: Rearrange additional information

'''Edgar Allan Poe''' is a famous American [[author]], [[poet]] and editor known for his dark and morbid themes. Among his most famous works are "The Raven" and "The Tell-Tale Heart".

His short story "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" is considered the first detective story.<ref>[http://www.classiccrimefiction.com/historydf.htm Origins of Detective Fiction]</ref>

"The Gold-Bug" is an imaginative tale that gives an example of elementary [[cryptanalysis]] (code-breaking).

== Life ==

Poe was born in Boston in 1809, and was raised in Richmond, Virginia, after his mother's death in 1811. He was educated in England and in Virginia.

In 1836, he married his first cousin Virginia Clemm, three months before her 14th birthday. Poe was an alcoholic, and drank increasingly after his wife's death in 1847. In 1849, he was found on the streets in Baltimore and died soon after. The cause of Poe's death remains unknown.<ref>The Poe Museum, [http://www.poemuseum.org/poes_life/index.html "Poe's Life"], by James Southall Wilson</ref>

==Works==

===Poetry===

* O, Tempora! O, Mores! (1825)
* Song (1827)
* Imitation (1827)
* Spirits of the Dead (1827)
* A Dream (1827)
* Stanzas (1827)
* Tamerlane (1827)
* The Lake (1827)
* Evening Star (1827)
* A Dream (1827)
* To Margaret (1827)
* The Happiest Day (1827)
* To The River (1828)
* Romance (1829)
* Fairy-Land (1829)
* To Science (1829)
* To Isaac Lea (1829)
* Al Aaraaf (1829)
* An Acrostic (1829)
* Elizabeth (1829)
* To Helen (1831)
* A Paean (1831)
* The Sleeper (1831)
* The City in the Sea (1831)
* The Valley of Unrest (1831)
* Israfel (1831)
* The Coliseum (1833)
* Enigma (1833)
* Fanny (1833)
* Serenade (1833)
* Song of Triumph from Epimanes (1833)
* Latin Hymn (1833)
* To One in Paradise (1833)
* Hymn (1835)
* Politician (1835)
* May Queen Ode (1836)
* Spiritual Song (1836)
* Bridal Ballad (1837)
* To Zante (1837)
* The Haunted Palace (1839)
* Silence, a Sonnet (1839)
* Lines on Joe Locke (1843)
* The Conqueror Worm (1843)
* Lenore (1843)
* Eulalie (1843)
* A Campaign Song (1844)
* Dream-Land (1844)
* Impromptu. To Kate Carol (1845)
* To Frances (1845)
* The Divine Right of Kings (1845)
* Epigram for Wall Street (1845)
* The Raven (1845)
* A Valentine (1846)
* Beloved Physician (1847)
* An Enigma (1847)
* Deep in Earth (1847)
* Ulalume (1847)
* Lines on Ale (1848)
* To Marie Louise (1848)
* Evangeline (1848)
* A Dream Within A Dream (1849)
* Eldorado (1849)
* For Annie (1849)
* The Bells (1849)
* Annabel Lee (1849)
* Alone (1875)

===Tales===

* Metzengerstein (1832)
* The Duc De L'Omelette (1832)
* A Tale of Jerusalem (1832)
* Loss of Breath (1832)
* Bon-Bon (1832)
* MS. Found in a Bottle (1833)
* The Assignation (1834)
* Berenice (1835)
* Morella (1835)
* Lionizing (1835)
* The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall (1835)
* King Pest (1835)
* Shadow - A Parable (1835)
* Four Beasts in One - The Homo-Cameleopard (1836)
* Mystification (1837)
* Silence - A Fable (1837)
* Ligeia (1838)
* How to Write a Blackwood Article (1838)
* A Predicament (1838)
* The Devil in the Belfry (1839)
* The Man That Was Used Up (1839)
* The Fall of the House of Usher (1839)
* William Wilson (1839)
* The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion (1839)
* Why the Little Frenchman Wears His Hand in a Sling (1840)
* The Business Man (1840)
* The Man of the Crowd (1840)
* The Murders in the Rue Morgue (1841)
* A Descent into the Maelstrom (1841)
* The Island of the Fay (1841)
* The Colloquy of Monos and Una (1841)
* Never Bet the Devil Your Head (1841)
* Eleonora (1841)
* Three Sundays in a Week (1841)
* The Oval Portrait (1842)
* The Masque of the Red Death (1842)
* The Landscape Garden (1842)
* The Mystery of Marie Roget (1842)
* The Pit and the Pendulum (1842)
* The Tell-Tale Heart (1843)
* The Gold-Bug (1843)
* The Black Cat (1843)
* Diddling (1843)
* The Spectacles (1844)
* A Tale of the Ragged Mountains (1844)
* The Premature Burial (1844)
* Mesmeric Revelation (1844)
* The Oblong Box (1844)
* The Angel of the Odd (1844)
* Thou Art the Man (1844)
* The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq. (1844)
* The Purloined Letter (1844)
* The Thousand-and-Second Tale of Scheherazade (1845)
* Some Words with a Mummy (1845)
* The Power of Words (1845)
* The Imp of the Perverse (1845)
* The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether (1845)
* The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar (1845)
* The Sphinx (1846)
* The Cask of Amontillado (1846)
* The Domain of Arnheim (1847)
* Mellonta Tauta (1849)
* Hop-Frog (1849)
* Von Kempelen and His Discovery (1849)
* X-ing a Paragrab (1849)
* Landor's Cottage (1849)

===Essays===

* Maelzel's Chess Player (1836)
* The Daguerreotype (1840)
* The Philosophy of Furniture (1840)
* A Few Words on Secret Writing (1841)
* The Rationale of Verse (1843)
* Morning on the Wissahiccon (1844)
* Old English Poetry (1845)
* The Philosophy of Composition (1846)
* The Poetic Principle (1846)
* Eureka (1848)

===Hoaxes===
* The Balloon-Hoax (1844)

===Novels===
* The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket (1837)
* The Journal of Julius Rodman (1840)

===Plays===

* Scenes From 'Politian' (1835)

===Others===

* The Conchologist's First Book (1839)
* The Light-House (1849)

==References==

<References/>

==External Links==
[http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/p#a481 Poe's Works at Project Gutenberg]

== See also ==

*[[D. H. Lawrence]]
*[[Washington Irving]]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Poe, Edgar Allan}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Hall of Fame honorees]]
[[Category:Poets]]

Talk:Go

2008-03-06T19:26:44Z

Boomcoach: Discussing change I made

==Handicap==
The reference I used is from a Go Wiki, so it may need replaced by a better reference, but Sensei's library is a solid Wiki without appreciable vandalism, so the information is good. I will try to find an AGA link later.[[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:26, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Go

2008-03-06T19:24:06Z

Boomcoach: add reference

'''Go''' is a two-player, strategic turn based board game. It originated in [[China]], probably in the third millennium B.C., and is very popular in [[Japan]] and [[Korea]] as well. It didn't reach [[Europe]] and [[America]] until the end of the 19th century.

The rules of the game are quite simple, involving the placing of black and white stones on a grid, and attempting to control squares on the grid by surrounding them with stones of one's own color. Despite the simple rules, the game is strategically very deep, even more complex than [[chess]]. Unlike [[chess]], computer programs for playing Go are considered highly inferior to most human players.<ref>[http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Compare.html "Comparison between Go and Chess"], Comparison between Go and Chess by Milton N. Bradley.</ref>.

Go also benefits from a good handicap system, which allows players of differing strengths to play competitive games against each other. The system involves allowing the weaker player to start with some stones already on the board, the number increasing with the difference in the players strengths.<ref>[http://senseis.xmp.net/?Handicap Sensei's Library: Handicap]</ref>

==Reference==
<references />

[[Category:board games]]

Go

2008-03-06T19:19:33Z

Boomcoach: Go's handicap system

'''Go''' is a two-player, strategic turn based board game. It originated in [[China]], probably in the third millennium B.C., and is very popular in [[Japan]] and [[Korea]] as well. It didn't reach [[Europe]] and [[America]] until the end of the 19th century.

The rules of the game are quite simple, involving the placing of black and white stones on a grid, and attempting to control squares on the grid by surrounding them with stones of one's own color. Despite the simple rules, the game is strategically very deep, even more complex than [[chess]]. Unlike [[chess]], computer programs for playing Go are considered highly inferior to most human players.<ref>[http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Compare.html "Comparison between Go and Chess"], Comparison between Go and Chess by Milton N. Bradley.</ref>.

Go also benefits from a good handicap system, which allows players of differing strengths to play competitive games against each other. The system involves allowing the weaker player to start with some stones already on the board, the number increasing with the difference in the players strengths.

==Reference==
<references />

[[Category:board games]]

Talk:Tides

2008-02-23T18:10:06Z

Boomcoach: /* Two tides per day */ signing comment

== Two tides per day ==

"Tides on the Earth result from the Moon's gravity, which is just enough stronger on the near side of the earth to attract ocean water more than on the far side." But there's a high tide on the side of the Earth facing away from the Moon as well. How does this thoery explain that? [[User:Sepura|Sepura]] 12:36, 21 February 2008 (EST)

:The entire earth is pulled slightly towards the moon, with the far side of the earth being pulled least, which is why there is a tide on both sides. Water, being a fluid, reacts more than the solid portions of the earth, but tidal forces affect the entire earth. Still not wording it well, am I? Oh well, that is why I am putting this on a talk page, not on the article page <grin>.[[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 12:57, 21 February 2008 (EST)

::"Water, being a fluid, reacts more than the solid portions of the earth" - are you saying that water experiences a stronger pull of gravity than solid objects? [[User:Sepura|Sepura]] 08:37, 22 February 2008 (EST)

:::I think he's saying that being fluid and not solid it is able to ''react'' more to the ''same'' gravitational force. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:42, 22 February 2008 (EST)

::::Exactly, Fox, thanks. When I step in a puddle of water, it moves more in response to the force than if I step on a sidewalk. If it doesn't, I need to lose some '''serious''' weight! <grin> [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:04, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::: Here is a [http://science.howstuffworks.com/question72.htm nice succinct explanation]. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:10, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Tides

2008-02-23T18:09:47Z

Boomcoach: /* Two tides per day */

Talk:Tides

2008-02-23T18:04:30Z

Boomcoach: /* Two tides per day */

Talk:Tides

2008-02-21T17:57:31Z

Boomcoach: /* Two tides per day */

Alcohol abuse

2008-02-05T17:40:23Z

Boomcoach: punctuation

'''Alcohol abuse''' is a problem that encompasses more than [[alcoholism]] (a chronic, lifelong acquired [[disease]] in which a person is dependent upon alcohol); one can abuse [[alcohol]] without being dependent on its effects. <ref>http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/FAQs/General-English/default.htm#whatis</ref> Over 17 million people in the [[United States]] are either alcohol abusers or alcoholics. Alcohol abuse is a problem for people of all demographics, but is highest among people aged 18-29. People who start drinking at a young age are much more likely to become alcohol abusers than people who do not start drinking until the age of 21.
== See also ==

*[[American Medical Association]]
*[[Doctor]]
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Convergent evolution

2008-02-05T15:58:30Z

Boomcoach: add comma

In [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] biology, convergent evolution is the process by which two [[organisms]] or taxonomic groups share a character due to independently adapting to a similar environment or niche not by [[homology]].

[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Comic book

2008-02-05T15:56:45Z

Boomcoach: Explaining edit

==Socially conscience==
I think that "became socially conscious" is what you wanted to say, unless you meant to say that they developed a "social conscience".[[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 10:56, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Comic book

2008-02-05T15:53:34Z

Boomcoach: A little cleanup

A '''comic book''' is a form of illustrated [[literature]].

Some popular comic books include:
#[[Superman]] and Action Comics.
#[[Batman]] and his related books: Detective Comics, Robin, and Nightwing
#The [[X-Men]] family of books: X-Men Legacy, Uncanny X-Men, Young X-Men, and X-Force. Following the adventures of a group of heroes and villains who believe themselves [[evolved]].
#Green Lantern, and the related book, Green Lantern Corps.
#The Amazing [[Spider-Man]]

Translated comic books from [[Japan]], known as "Manga" are also popular with girls and children.

In 1954, the Comics Magazine Association of America found a disturbing trend with indecent subject matter becoming more prominent in comic books. Homosexual subtext in many superhero related publications was brought to attention by the Dr. Fredric Wertham's book ''Seduction of the Innocent''. After a testimony from William Gaines in an attempt to defend the books his company published, the code was placed on all books which followed a strict list of regulation.

As the CMAA had no legal authority, during the sixties, there was a large underground comic movement, driven by talent such as R. Crumb. By the seventies, the Comics Code Authority logo was no longer sought as publishers went ahead and became socially conscious, like a popular run on Green Arrow by Neal Adams and Dennis O'Neil wherein issues such as [[Heroin]] addiction were addressed.

Currently, the largest publisher with every book approved by the Comics Code Authority is Archie Comics, who usually stay away from super-heroics and focus more on teen antics.

[[category:entertainment]]

Hunting

2008-02-01T19:34:19Z

Boomcoach: Change "slingshot" to "sling"

'''Hunting''' is the pursuit and killing of [[animal]]s for food, clothing, sport, or other purposes.

The term usually is not used to refer to the pursuit of [[fish]], which is known as [[fishing]], the capture of animals using a trap, which is known as [[trapping]], nor the raising and killing of animals on [[farm]]s.

Modern hunting is usually either [[bowhunting]] with a [[bow (weapon)|bow]] and [[arrow]], or [[gun hunting]] with a [[rifle]] or [[shotgun]]. Primitive hunters used such tools as [[sling]]s and [[spear]]s, or a simple longbow. Modern bowhunters use technically advanced equipment such as the [[compound bow]].

Animals hunted for sport are often referred to as '[[game animal]]s' or '[[game]]'. In modern times hunting is regulated including the [[license|licensing]] of hunters, specified hunting seasons for each species, and strict limits on the number of animals one is permitted to take per season or per day. Often special stamps or tags are required for some species in addition to the regular hunting license. [[Poaching]] is the illegal act of hunting in violation of these laws, such as hunting out of season or more than the legal limit. The legal limit is often called the 'bag limit'.

Different types of hunting can refer to the different types of species hunted. These include big game such as [[elk]], [[bear]], [[moose]], and [[deer]]; small game such as [[rabbit]]s and [[squirrel]]s; game birds such as [[grouse]] and [[pheasant]]; and waterfowl such as [[duck]]s and [[goose|geese]]. There also exist different methods of hunting, such as hunting in place from a tree stand, or hunting on foot which involves the skills of [[tracking]] and [[stalking]].

[[Category:Sports]]

Talk:Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

2008-01-31T20:10:08Z

Boomcoach: /* Matthew 28: 18,!9.'''Bold text''' */ formatting

== Matthew 28: 18,!9.'''Bold text''' ==
Absolutely,Yes, Jesus does make that claim:

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

This comes word for word from the King James version.

:Actually Mt 28:18, 19 does not support the claim that Jesus is God. As noted in verse 18, Jesus was given power in heaven and earth. Who ''gave'' him the authority? If Jesus is God, he would already have had that power. Same can be said with reference to the third of the Devil's temptations (Mt 4:8-10). Jesus rejected Satan's offer of world rulership by stating: "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (also word for word). If Jesus was God, he would have made it clearer that he was the one to be worshipped ... but that's not the case. [[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 12:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Paul, the apostle, taught that Jesus is Lord, not God. In contrast to all the pagan deities, of the region of Corinth, Paul made it abundantly clear "Yet for us there is one God, the Father of whom are all thing, and we for Him and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live. However there is not in everyone that knowledge. 1Cor 8:5 By what I observe, I'm convinced this simple truth is in very few who would consider themselves followers of Christ. It seems that they prefer to follow traditional views of man's teaching over the clear revealed truth of scripture. I know of no scripture where Jesus makes any claim to be God. He is indeed the Son Of God. He is never referenced in scripture to be "god the son" a title the vast majority of christendom would force you to believe or suffer the eternal consequences of "hell". As for mt 28:19, by their own admission Catholics fess up this is a later addition to the text not the original wording. They tried to add to 1jn. 5:7 as well, but thankfully, the greek manuscripts we have predated this interpolation. Jesus is the "Image" of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.Col 1:15.He is the IMAGE of God, not the God Himself. This God is Jesus's God and Father Eph. 1:3

== Did Jesus ever claim to be God ==

Paul, the apostle, taught that Jesus is Lord, not God. In contrast to all the pagan deities, of the region of Corinth, Paul made it abundantly clear "Yet for us there is one God, the Father of whom are all thing, and we for Him and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live. However there is not in everyone that knowledge. 1Cor 8:5 By what I observe, I'm convinced this simple truth is in very few who would consider themselves followers of Christ. It seems that they prefer to follow traditional views of man's teaching over the clear revealed truth of scripture. I know of no scripture where Jesus makes any claim to be God. He is indeed the Son Of God. He is never referenced in scripture to be "god the son" a title the vast majority of christendom would force you to believe or suffer the eternal consequences of "hell". As for mt 28:19, by their own admission Catholics fess up this is a later addition to the text not the original wording. They tried to add to 1jn. 5:7 as well, but thankfully, the greek manuscripts we have predated this interpolation. Jesus is the "Image" of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.Col 1:15.He is the IMAGE of God, not the God Himself. This God is Jesus's God and Father Eph. 1:3

Talk:Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

2008-01-31T20:09:45Z

Boomcoach: /* Did Jesus ever claim to be God */ formatting change

Annihilationism

2008-01-30T16:45:42Z

Boomcoach: Change link to a reference

'''Annihilationism''' is the minority [[Christian]] view that the wicked do not suffer eternally in Hell, but rather are annihilated and cease to exist after death. The view is regarded as heretical by many Christians. The view is subscribed to by [[Seventh-Day Adventist]]s.<ref>http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Christian Theology]]

Talk:Heavy metal music

2008-01-28T20:52:34Z

Boomcoach: /* Suicide */

== Christianity? ==
I find the statement on Christianity to be rather inaccurate. While I understand this is a conservative encyclopedia, that is no excuse for fallacies. Many metalheads and musicians are openly Christian, such as Dave Mustaine and Dave Ellefson of Megadeth, Jack Owen, and Tom Araya of Slayer. I believe a more accurate statement would be that Anti-Christian sentiments are quite prevalent in extreme metal music. There is also a strong Christian Metal Subgenre, see bands such as As I Lay Dying, Believer, and Stryper. I shall change the statements to be more accurate and less condemning. [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't even say that Anti-Christian sentiments are quite prevalent at all. I listen to metal music, and sure some of it is about death and killing and things like that, but I wouldn't say it's Anti-Christian. Some metal music includes themes that are similar to many popular songs of other genres, just in a different form. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

That's primarily what I hoped to get across, I suppose the term "present" is more accurate. I consider the music to show, when it discusses Satan, a Christian perception of the being. What I meant to say was that the only genre, to my knowledge, that contains overtly anti-Christian themes would be death metal or black metal, and even there it is somewhat rare. I think many mainstream Christians misconstrue the disrespect for organized religion (i.e, a church, pastors, or priests.) for being Anti-Christian. They are not one in the same, as to not believe in church is not the same as not believing in god. I'll change it to be more accurate.[[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 18:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

As a metal fan (who's wearing a Dream Theater shirt right now), I think that the Satan reference was ridiculous. I took it right out. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, i thought of it as inappropriate as well, but since it referenced it as the opinions of conservatives, I left it. Dream Theater! Another openly Christian metal band (though not in the Christian metal genre). I have a few more changes to make on the article, you left a slight typo! I forgive you! [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 18:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, creating this article in the way I did was almost a joke; this is indeed a conservative encyclopedia -- so I used those particular statements to be, in a way, on the extreme of what some people might think. Don't take it the wrong way. Plus, the username I chose might have tipped people off: I really don't know much in the way of creating encyclopedia articles, so I left things vague and unopinionated (my opinions, anyway). I am actually a metal fan who laughed at the article, not believing in what I was typing. Then again, some of the more extreme Black metal bands do reference Satan in non-metaphorical terms. But most of those bands are without actual substance and therefore suck. [[User:N00b|N00b]] 09:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, and I know only two people that worship the devil, as a god, in metal music of any form: Glen Benton, and Oystein Aarseth (Aka Euronymous), both extremists not to be considered the standard of a heavy-metaller.[[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It's hard to prove that anyone is actually "worshiping Satan". Let's not fall into that trap. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)

==Link==
Is that parody..? Linking to a cliched, comedic-parody of a heavy metal band in order to illustrate the article? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:34, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I was just about to say the same thing. Spinal tap was a fictionalized parody of a metal band. (And a darn good band, if I do say so myself, and I do). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::The movie [[Spinal Tap]] was a comedy; I'd like to write about its director, who made a few similar movies like [[A Mighty Wind]] (satirizing folk music performers). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:28, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:::Rob Reiner directed "This Is Spinal Tap", but it was Christopher Guest who directed "A Mighty Wind". Guest wrote/co-wrote both of them though. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:34, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::::You are devilishly clever, my friend! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:48, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Guest is quite an interesting subject for a bio, even without touching on his works - Jewish American British nobleman... Quite a mix. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:50, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==Spirituality and etiquette==

Let's tread carefully while describing the delicate issue of [[spirituality]] of metal bands. Some have exploited satanic imagery, to be sure, but their proportion might be less than 99%.

Mass reverts aren't good form. Just change one section at a time, please. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:As someone who is fairly knowledgable about heavy metal, I actually agree with Walker in that I've never heard the term Satan's Fire Metal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:27, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==State of the Article==
In it's current condition this article is a joke to anyone who knows anything about metal. 99.9 percent of bands that have pyrotechnics are not trying to recreate hell. Also "the horns" are more often just a sign for metal and unity amongst metalheads and are not done to look like satan or praise satan. It isn't even limited to metal you will see it at even country and boy band shows or how about a Texas Longhorns football game? The song meanings are ridiculous, Go To Hell is about someone that is damned to hell, it is not promoting satanism. It was written for the Bill and Teds Bogus Journey movie where the charecters go to hell. Take no prisioners is about military warfare. The song references Normandy and Panzers so it was probably inspired by D-Day, it is not promoting violence anymore than Saving Private Ryan. Suicide Sollution is about how abusing drugs and alcohol to solve your problems is a "suicide" sollution. Fade to Black is about losing the will to carry on, and was inspired by the bands equipment being stolen, it can be interpreted as a suicide song but even then how is it glamorized? Also why was the referenced content about Christians in non Christian bands removed? All the unreferenced stuff on this page should be removed before that was.--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 13:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:The idea of "Christian" metal strikes me as utterly proposterous. Just like the idea of African Klu Klux Klan members or Jewish Nazis is utterly proposterous. Quit trying to make Heavy Metal music into something that it is not. You've made various attempts to censor the material here or downplay Metal's dangerous nature, but it's not going to work. Maybe you'd feel more at home at Wikipedia. Your attempts to disassociate Metal with Satanism are pathetic. That's like saying you're a Ku Klux Klan member but you're not into the whole discrimination thing.. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

::Jose calm down. Metal is a style of music, not a way of thinking. There is absolutely no contridiction with someone using a certain style of music to promote ''any'' message -- good ''or'' bad. You should check out some Christian metal. A youth Christian musical concert (Ichthus) often features metal bands -- one of their tents is dedicated entirely towards "heavier" music. I also personally know the manager of a Christian metal band. He is old friends with my youth pastor at church and I've done some work with him. He is an intense Christian and his music is... well, rather intense. So please take a chill pill and open your mind to other possibilities.
::Think about it this way: even if metal ''were'' "satanist--dominated" (which I don't think it is), wouldn't that therefore be the best place for a Christian band? Jesus hanged out with prostitutes and beggars, remember. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:::There's even Christian rap, which uses the rapid-fire half-spoken style of [[hip hop]] to convey the pro-woman, anti-violence message of Jesus and salvation. My favorite "heavenly metal" group is [[The Ancestors]]. And there's always [[Stryper]] ("by his stripes we were healed"). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

First of all, I do not agree with what any of you have posted. However, perhaps I shall listen to some of this "Christian" metal and "Christian" rap. There might be a small chance that I am wrong. I was wrong about Spinal tap. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

:This music.. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huod7HJe4BM]] It's disgusting. I'm going to have to disagree with all those who support "Christian" metal. This just doesn't sound very Christian to me.. First of all, it's too loud and violent sounding and the screaming sounds very demonic. Even if there are pro-Christian lyrics in the songs it's impossible to tell because the screaming is incomprehensible. The choice of intervals strikes me as interesting.. Very evil sounding. Please listen and tell me what you think.. I really don't get it. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

::It obviously wasn't designed with you in mind. I don't hear anything "evil", except that you automatically associate the genre with evil, which is a circular argument. I don't hear any "evil-sounding intervals" either. Try looking up some lyrics before you base Christianity on how a group decides to play the guitar. Here's one called [http://lyrics.christiansunite.com/lyrics_1134_7.shtml If I Die] by Stryper. ("Living was hard /And loneliness easily justified / Oh, then I found You / Ooh, I suddenly knew / What I wanted to do was to make You satisfied / And not to die for selfish pleasure / But to live with You by my side"). It's not as heavy musically (here's a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIFOsQd34qE Youtube vid] -- ignore the visuals though), but still considered "metal" I would think.

::I did some searching, and here's the lyrics from one of the songs in the video you found [http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/lyrics/new/track.asp?track_id=8734]. Check out the description at the bottom: "True hope should only be placed in Christ, and no man. Christ will never fail you...".

::This isn't your mom's Christian music! But that doesn't make it wrong. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:00, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:::Would this qualify as metal? I could actually see myself listening to something like this. It's melodic, and the singing is clean and clear. Thanks.. This is inspiring. But I don't think it's heavy metal. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]
::::That's why I found the other lyrics for you. [http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/lyrics/new/track.asp?track_id=8734 These] are lyrics from that Youtube video you disagreed with. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:24, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::Well Jose all of what you are saying is your own personal opinion. How is it to loud? Any music can be to loud, if that is a problem turn the volume down. Different people have different tastes, just because you don't like a style of music doesn't make it "evil". Besides the bible instructs us to "Sing unto Him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise" (Psalm 33:3). God is infinitely bigger than your music tastes. Also many styles of metal have very easily comprehensable lyrics and so what if they aren't comprehensible? Does that make it wrong? If you don't like it thats fine, but it doesn't give you the right to try and demonize something just because it doesn't appeal to your personal tastes.--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 19:14, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I highly doubt Jesus would have "rocked out" to this garbage. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]
:I think if you feel that the music is "garbage" then we should find someone with a more neutral attitude to edit it, no? I'm not saying you shouldn't edit, but I would think hard about if you are the appropriate one. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:24, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:How do you know God's musical tastes?--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 19:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::God is absolutely Holy, therefore he wouldn't indulge in music with satanic connotation. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]
:::Could you be a little more specific as to what you mean by "satanic connotation".--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 19:39, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::A lot of heavy metal is inspired by Satan and the occult. This definitely would not cater to God's taste. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]
:::::Jesus hanged (hung? I never get that right) out with sinners, beggars and prostitutes. If this music really is as evil as you say, shouldn't Christians get in there to converted these supposed evildoers? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:48, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:::::Many books are inspired by Satan and the occult, does that mean all books are against God?--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 19:49, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Jesus would have discouraged the prostitutes from whoring themselves and they would have discouraged these bands from playing the music they are playing. He wouldn't encourage more Christians to become prostitutes or play heavy metal. A certain category of books are inspired by satan and the occult and all within that category are against god, just like how heavy metal is a certain genre of music which is against god. Not all music is against god. True heavy metal is. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

:Well I guess we know that these artists aren't Jesus himself then. It doesn't mean they aren't Christian, however. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::Jesus hung out with drunks and whores, I guess, him being so tolerant and all. But he also is famous for telling the adulterous woman to "go and sin no more".

::My impression of metal is that it invokes a lot of nasty symbols: devils, long tongues, gloomy or morbid lyrics, etc. Within the genre I'm sure there are a handful of Christian groups like [[Stryper]] (which I wrote, hint hint!) who I suppose decided to "move into the neighborhood" and seek converts among metalheads. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==Question==
How does linking to lyrics prove the song is "promoting" satanism.--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 21:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:It doesn't. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:03, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::Funny the Fade to Black reference actually say the opposite of what is stated in the article.--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 21:11, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:Clearly you and ''Jose'' disagree on many aspects of this genre of music. I suggest you '''add''' everything you want, while letting him do the same. I'll check back from time to time and see if I can integrate your work and his. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==Stop==
The article has seen plenty of edits going on, with no real improvement to its state. I can see both sides of the argument, but unless Walker and Jose83 can start to learn to work together, then we're just going to end up with a bigger pile of cowcake than when we started. The article is dire right now, and frankly the best thing is for you two to step away from it for a day and work out what you want to say in it, get together your references, then we'll take it from there. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:40, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:I was following Ed Poor's instruction from above. I wasn't changing his edits.--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 21:41, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::I'm not apportioning any kind of blame. And Ed's advice is good, excepting for the fact that the article is now a scab to both of you and you can't resist picking it. Leave it until tomorrow, it will be unlocked in about 12 hours, and we can try to put together a '''coherent''' article presenting the facts as we know them, instead of a point/counterpoint list of grievances. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:44, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:::==Dial-the-Truth-Ministries==
:::The Dial-the-Truth-Ministry is a controversial religious group that is part of King James Only Movement. One of the main goals of the group is to denounce the evil that they believe Christian metal or rock music is. The group believes that any form of music with a beat is evil. <ref>[http://www.av1611.org/ Dial-the-Truth-Ministries]</ref> Ted Kirkpatrick, the drummer for the Christian metal band Tourniquet stated the following about the groups website, ''"This site is so full of inaccuracies, so devoid of sound Biblical principles, and uses such twisted logic, that some have emailed us asking if it was done as a joke."''<ref>http://www.tourniquet.net/faq/</ref>

:::I added the above here since the article is locked so I can move it to the article when it is unlocked.--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 21:47, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:... this article needs to be a collaboration, not a rant, from both sides. Content: I'm working on adding some history and the "technicalities" of what HM is ("neutral to the facts"), and then the more controversial aspects can be worked in by you guys. As I said it would be, it's unprotected, but that doesn't mean you should just come along and edit in tiny soundbites. Try to edit cohesively, so that the article doesn't just resemble the transcript of two guys shouting each other down :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:32, 1 January 2008 (EST)

There needs to be SOME mention of Satanism in the article. Neglecting to do so is just plain irresponsible. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

:Try concentrating on an explanation of why some people believe there are Satanic elements in heavy metal. What satanic themes do they find in it? Imagery, lyrics? Be specific and provide references.

:If your work is being reverted, then create a user subpage like [[User:Jose83/metal]]. No one is allowed to edit there but you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:02, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Imagery of certain metal bands definitely attempt to make Satan appear "cool".
*[[http://www.teens411.com/newspics/mudvayne.jpg Mudvayne picture]] The guy actually looks like the Devil!
*[[http://static.metal-archives.com/images/3/9/4/394.jpg Countless]]
*[[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Iron_Maiden-Dance_of_Death.jpg Iron Maiden]]
*[[http://www.mystrands.com/photos/1/4/5/normal/14556.jpg Covers]]
*[[http://www.av1611.org/rock.html]] And lyrics of many metal songs clearly convey an Anti-Christian/Satanic message.

We need to give an honest depiction of what this music is instead of trying to make it out to be wholesome Christian music like Walker is trying to do. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

:You're preaching to the choir. Those are good links. Now do some writing. Don't worry about reverts; Fox and I can resurrect anything that gets killed. (Oops, am I getting arrogant?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:30, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::Instances of individual Satanic metal bands should only be used to argue against those bands being good, not just the whole genre. Should we argue that all movies of a certain genre are bad just because a few are rated R and point out instances of nudity and profanity in those movies? It's a logical fallacy. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:00, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==Suicide==

:suicide is the only way out

Is Ozzy quoting what the lad says to rebut it? Or is he promoting [[suicide]]? Perhaps it is this kind of ambiguity that makes parents and educators worry that metal is bad for kids. It's a far cry from, "Come and play / everything's A-OK" or "I love you / You love me". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::Is the Scripture that follows promoting suicide? "Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him." (1 Samuel 31:4-5) "But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree: and he requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers." (1 Kings 19:4 ) You have to put that line back into the context of the song, which is quite plainly about alcohol abuse, about how it is nothing glamorous, just a slow suicide for the alcoholic. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:25, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Jolly good. So let's point out that '''not all''' references to suicide in heavy metal music are intended to glorify it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:32, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:::Fact is you probaably can't find one example of a band '''glorifying''' suicide. Why would any band glorify suicide? If they are in the buisness of selling albums and filling the seats at concerts why would they want their fans to kill themselves? --[[User:Walker|Walker]] 15:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::::The closest I can come to a band ''glorifying'' suicide would be ''Don't Fear the Reaper'' by Blue Oyster Cult. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 15:52, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Links==
*http://www.thetruthforyouth.com/standard/main.htm - rock music
*http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Rock-n-Roll/satanic_quotes.htm
*http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Rock-n-Roll/nature.htm

== Christian metal is not evil ==

It is preposterous to say that all Christian metal is evil. Every claim is based upon specific instances of evil in secular metal, and thus not a valid comparison. This site defends Christian metal against every argument that groups like Dial-the-Truth can come up with: http://www.mindspring.com/~brucec/craindex.htm [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:59, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Yes this is quite obvious and wow that site is wonderful. This site here http://www.metalforjesus.org/friorfoe.html is also pretty good although it doesn't contain nearly as much information. I'd also like to point out that although there are secular acts that promote immorality and blaspheme and stuff like that, many of them do not. First of all just because a song is about something does not mean a band is advocating or promoting it. Oftentimes they are just telling a story for entertainment value and they often use satire. There are many different styles of metal and many of them have totally different common lyrical themes. These links Jose is posting are laughable. I'd also like to know how Jose knows what Satan physically looks like. According to one of the links, apparently when Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden told Hit Parader magazine that, "We can play with conviction every night, because we totally believe in the music we're performing." That means that he is a satanist. Also what does posting links of album covers prove. If you want to find viable criticisms of heavy metal that aren't going to make this article into one of the jokes of conservapedia you might want to stay away from using Terry Watkins as a source.--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 22:25, 2 January 2008 (EST)

::So you admit there are many Metal bands to promote immorality and blasphemy.. We have progress! If an Artist makes a song about "Killing 'em all" they don't need to openly promote it as a band to promote it because the song is already out there and young impressionable children are already being brainwashed and programmed. And you can also play dumb and and pretend that the guy from Mudvayne isn't trying to look like Satan but he looks exactly how popular culture has made him out to look like. Iron Maiden heavily relies on demonic images to sell-out concerts and sell albums. This is especially prevelant on their album covers where the marketing of a demon-like mascot is irrefutable. Do you listen to these bands, Walker? -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

Iron Maiden isn't a good influence. They had a song called "Number of the Beast". Nobody's saying that Iron Maiden is a good band. The issue here is Christian metal bands, who tend not to have songs like that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:56, 2 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry another point I am trying to make is that much of secular metal does not stand as a polar opposite to Christian metal as well--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 00:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:I'll concede that Christian Heavy Metal may not be ''evil'', but I think their Artists have selected the wrong medium in which to praise Jesus. I have not made any claims of Christian Metal being evil in the revised article. However, I will not write anything positive about it either. I shall leave that to you, Fox, or Walker. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

:I never denied that there weren't bands who did, you made the claim that either most or all bands do, which simply is not true. Also a question, if something is a medium that means it is neither right or wrong, so why is it wrong?--[[User:Walker|Walker]] 00:15, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::A medium is not inherently neutral. All heavy metal is aggressive and violent so it incites aggressive, violent behavior in the listener. My former friend was in a car wreck because the music he was listening to {System of a Down} caused him to drive irresponsibly. Also, just read the news. Riots at heavy metal concerts are the norm. There is no denying that Rock music in general evokes aggressive feelings in the listener. I just don't believe that these feelings should be evoked while praising Jesus. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]
:::Stop making generalizations. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:21, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:::Your friend was in a car wreck because he's a reckless driver. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 23:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Yes I admited there are some bands that blaspheme and promote immorality, you can find people that do that in pretty much every area of life so what is your point? That doesn't mean all of it is like that. There is no song called Killing Em All that I know of. I don't like Mudvayne but suppoesadly they are trying to look like aliens from a fictional story that they created and base there albums on. Well if you examine the lyrics of the song "Number of the Beast" which actually opens with a reading from the bible. The song is just a story about a guy who is trying to get away from a satanic cult and ultimately is unable to escape them. Apparently it was based on a nightmare Steve Harris had after seeing one of The Omen movies. Eddie is just a cartoon masscot and he is something different on pretty much every album cover. I've always thought of him as some sort of B horror movie type of zombie rather than a demon and by the logic you present I suppose the New Jersey Devils are also relying on satanism to promote their hockey team and Hot Tamales candies and other various hot sauce companies are doing the same? --[[User:Walker|Walker]] 00:12, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Pierre Trudeau

2008-01-25T20:58:19Z

Boomcoach: 15th Canadian liberal Prime Minister

==Sailor's mouth==
Is Trudeau's coining of "Fuddle Duddle" notable? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:41, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Ha ha :D but didn't the stenographer actually coin the phrase? I'm not persuaded that it's really notable. That's my opinion, maybe the N American editors think differently? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:46, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::No... he was accused of mouthing profanity while someone else was speaking. When asked about it (And then badgered for a bit and asked about the "nature of [his] thoughts") he responded with "What is the nature of your thoughts, gentlemen, when you say “fuddle duddle” or something like that? God, you guys…!"
::Personally, I'd say it should probably qualify as just a little piece of trivia, not it's own page or something. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::Yeah, I know the story. But its value to the article? "Trudeau was accused of silently mouthing obscenities at his opponents in Parliament." Beyond that, you then have to start explaining what the phrase is a euphemism for, and that certainly won't stand in CP :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:00, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::::Aww... :( [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:06, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== 15th Canadian liberal Prime Minister ==

The way this was written, it looked like Trudeau was the 15th liberal PM, rather than the 15th overall. I removed the Liberal part. He is clearly identified as the leader of the Liberal Party in the next paragraph, so I don't think I am commiting any liberal deceit by removing it.

Pierre Trudeau

2008-01-25T20:56:17Z

Boomcoach: Misplaced adjective, may need added somewhere else.

[[Image:Trudeau.jpg|250px|right|thumb]]
'''Pierre Trudeau''' was the 15th [[Canada|Canadian]] [[prime minister]], and a towering figure over Canadian politics even to this day. Trudeau is best known for [[repatriation|repatriating]] the Canadian [[constitution]] and for instituting the War Measures Act during [[Québec]]'s October Crisis.

Trudeau was born October 18, 1919, the son of Charles-Emile Trudeau and Grace Elliot. He attended the University of Montreal, [[Harvard University]], Université de Paris and the London School of Economics. He was first elected to the Canadian House of Commons in 1965. Almost immediately the young and charismatic Trudeau was seen as a [[Liberal_Party_of_Canada|Liberal Party]] star and he was made Justice Minister in 1967. The following year in what was dubbed "Trudeaumania", he was elected to be leader of the Liberal Party, and thus the Canadian Prime Minister, taking office on April 19 1968. Being the first Canadian Prime Minister born in the 20th century he was flamboyant and controversial but was also an intellectual. Trudeau and the Liberals would win another majority government, and landslide in 1968 a vindication for the young leader.

During his first 4 years in power Trudeau faced several politically volatile situations. The most dramatic was his facing down a home grown terrorist threat of the Front de Liberation du Québec (or the FLQ). For several years [[Quebec_separatist_movement|separatist]] thoughts were rising in the French-speaking province, and the FLQ decided to remove Quebec from Canada by force. In October 1970, Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act, for the first and only time in Canadian history. This gave the state broad powers of arrest and detention in a time of crisis. When asked how far and how long he would take the measures, Trudeau famously replied "Just watch me". Although the FLQ kidnappings would end with the death of Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte, the FLQ had it's back broken by military presence in the province who arrested only 2 dozen or so radicals. The general public overwhelmingly supported the emergency powers and the presence of the military in Quebec. When the crisis was over, Trudeau revoked the powers of the War Measures Act.

Trudeau would win only a minority government in the 1972 election, in part because of a slowing economy. In the 1974 election Trudeau won a majority, in part for making fun of the then Conservative policy, which he would have to enact only one year later regardless because of high inflation. The economy continued perform poorly through the late 1970's and Trudeau would loose his first general election to the Conservatives in 1979 under the young [[Joe Clark]].

However this minority was short lived. In 1980 Trudeau won another majority over Conservative Joe Clark, in which he would reform the Canadian constitution and entrench a [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]. It was during this term that Trudeau would also sow the seeds of western Canadian dislike of the central government, with the introduction of the National Energy Program. A bitter dispute arose over the socialization of oil companies, to increase Canadian control and generate federal revenues from the energy sector. Petro Canada was founded as a [[Crown Corporation]], although the Canadian government has since sold it's stake in the company.

Trudeau retired from politics on June 30th, 1984 and was succeeded by [[John Turner]]. Trudeau remained active in Law until late in his life and passed away on September 28, 2000 at the age of 80. Trudeau is remembered well in Canada, following his death the highest peak was to be named after him although this was later withdrawn at the protest of Canadian Geographic society. Trudeau was often cited for poor administrative and economic practices, as well as personal arrogance, and not having an understanding of Canada outside Quebec. Trudeau did lead Canada through a time of growth and by the end of his terms Canada was a very different place.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Trudeau, Pierre }}
[[Category:Canadian Prime Ministers]]

Pascal's wager

2008-01-25T19:03:07Z

Boomcoach: See comment on talk page

'''Pascal's Wager''' is a [[philosophy|philosophical]] proposition which takes the following form:

[[God]] either exists or not.

#If God does not exist and you do not not believe in God, you gain nothing and lose nothing.
#If God does exist and you do not believe in God, you are condemned to hell for eternity; infinite loss.
#If God does not exist and you do believe in God, you gain nothing and lose nothing.
#If God does exist and you do believe in God, you will receive an eternity in heaven; infinite gain.

[[Blaise Pascal]] reasoned that, given the relative gains and losses for each scenario, the only sensible course for a rational human being was to believe in God since the potentially infinite gains and losses which occur if God exists outweigh outweigh any possible loss in a finite situation if God does not exist. This is true regardless of what probability one assigns to God's existence as long as some possibility is assigned.{{fact}} Pascal's wager as Pascal stated it is flawed within the context of [[Christianity]], because based upon Christian theology, mere belief in God does not ensure salvation.

Pascal's wager is also not geared for multiple competing god scenarios where various forms or selections of gods are given they may be mutually or partially exclusive.

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:Pascal's wager

2008-01-25T19:00:12Z

Boomcoach: Questioning blanket statement

==This is true if==
The page says, "This is true regardless of what probability one assigns to God's existence as long as some possibility is assigned. " This is not accurate, if you assign an infinitely small value to the possibility. This would result in a finite value for the belief. This is one of the many hole's in the "Wager". It is more of a philosophical way of making fellow believers pretend there is a logocal basis to their belief, than anything meaningful. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:00, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Liberal supremacist

2008-01-25T18:51:25Z

Boomcoach: Add internal link

{{move|Liberal Supremacist}}

A '''liberal supremacist''' is one who acts as if he is intellectually superior to others because he believes in the [[liberal]] ideology.

Often people are surprised to learn when a '''liberal supremacist''' actually has relatively weak intellectual achievements.<ref>[[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism]]</ref>

== See also ==
[[Conservapedia_terms|Conservapedia term]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:politics]]

Talk:Liberal supremacist

2008-01-25T18:48:42Z

Boomcoach: /* Tautology */ added comma

I made a minor Spelling/Grammar change to the article, but I wanted to clarify one somewhat ambiguous point - do liberal supremacists believe that possessing a liberal ideology renders them intellectually superior, or is the belief that they are intellectually superior a side-effect of the liberal ideology? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:58, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Having never met a "Liberal Supremacist", I doubt the first one and know the second isn't true. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)

As it stands, the entire article has two sentences, subjective claims, and no citations. With no proof whatsoever, i doubt the existence of "Liberal Supremacists", having never heard of them before. I'll gladly change my view if i see one piece of proof.

To be fair, this term is on the list of "Conservapedia terms" that have been created for this site. Doing a quick google turned up 38 hits, all from blogs, except for CP's page (and frankly CP is essentially a fundamentalist blog with a bad desk encyclopedia attached.) CP is making no bones about this being a "made up" term, although they should probably make a category for these terms. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:48, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Tautology ==

Isn't creating a term, then using your own essay as a citation, more than a bit circular? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:48, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal supremacist

2008-01-25T18:48:18Z

Boomcoach: Tautology

I made a minor Spelling/Grammar change to the article, but I wanted to clarify one somewhat ambiguous point - do liberal supremacists believe that possessing a liberal ideology renders them intellectually superior, or is the belief that they are intellectually superior a side-effect of the liberal ideology? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:58, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Having never met a "Liberal Supremacist", I doubt the first one and know the second isn't true. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)

As it stands, the entire article has two sentences, subjective claims, and no citations. With no proof whatsoever, i doubt the existence of "Liberal Supremacists", having never heard of them before. I'll gladly change my view if i see one piece of proof.

To be fair, this term is on the list of "Conservapedia terms" that have been created for this site. Doing a quick google turned up 38 hits, all from blogs, except for CP's page (and frankly CP is essentially a fundamentalist blog with a bad desk encyclopedia attached.) CP is making no bones about this being a "made up" term, although they should probably make a category for these terms. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:48, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Tautology ==

Isn't creating a term, then using your own essay as a citation more than a bit circular? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:48, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

2008-01-24T14:01:28Z

Boomcoach: /* According to Jesus himself */

{{debate}}
jesus claimed to be the son of god...right?? according to christanity...

==According to GOD==
Matthew 3:17 "And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." That's according to the Jews of His time. The Son of God that became the sin offering for all of mankind. Need more? Read the rest of the Old and New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==According to Jesus himself==
God is refered to as "I AM" in Exodus 3:14; "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

In the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John, some Jews asked Jesus who he was claiming to be. In his response, he included both the claim that he is the Son of God, and took on the self-existant name, "I AM", that God declared to Moses.
"I AM" is not a clear evidence. This is language that is used by anyone. In other words, whenever anyone speaks about him/herself and says "I AM" we might consider as GOD?!! so "I AM" used in the bible and in any other religious statment does not proof that jesus was GOD.

Jhn 8:53-59 "Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? (v.54)Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: (v.55) Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. (v.56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad. (v.57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (v.58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (v.59) Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

The Jews obviously understood the dual statements of "my Father...is your God" and "Before Abraham was, I am" as a doubly strong claim to the divine nature of God, since they tried to stone him on the spot.
--[[User:DavidDeering|DavidDeering]] 13:41, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I missed it but I have not read any quotes from Jesus saying specifically He was God. Although there is plenty of scripture saying He was the Son and that there is one God. “There is no God but one.” “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Also if Jesus is God, how is it that He said that only the Father knows the Day of the Lord?

:Whether or not Jesus is God comes down to a stupid debate over the definition of "is." We all agree that Jesus was not God in the sense that you can replace the one word with the other, so what's the question? --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 21:00, 17 November 2007 (EST)

:Although the ''King James'' and other versions (''New English Bible'', ''Jerusalem Bible'', ''New American Bible'' (St. Joseph Edition) translate the Greek ''e•go΄ ei•me΄'' as "I am" and render it in capitals to appear to be a title, that is not the only rendering possible. Context is incredibly important here. The Jews were asking Jesus not about his ''identity'' but about his ''age''. Jesus' answer then had to do with his age, the fact that he had a pre-human existence in heaven ... not a statement of who he is. The book, ''A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research'' states that: "The verb [''ei•mi΄''] ... does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [''e•go΄ ei•me΄''] (Jo. 8:58)." (A.T. Robertson, p. 394). This same idea is conveyed by the wording in ''The Bible-An American Translation'', ''A New Translation of the Bible'' (James Moffat), ''The New Testament-A Translation in the Language of the People'', ''The Simple English Bible'', and ''The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures''.

::*Looking at the context of the entire gospel of John, Jesus consistently draws a separation between himself and God. He refers to God as "Father" and shows that he is subordinate to the Father (John 14:28) and was sent at his Father's direction (John 3:16; 17:3).
::*Looking at the context of all four gospels, Jesus again consistently shows that he is does not believe himself to be God. For example, Luke 22:42 Christ prays in the Garden for, not his will to be done, but the Father's. Mark 15:34, he cries out "My God, my God, what have you forsaken me?" Matthew 28:18, Jesus tells his disciples that authority had been ''given'' him in heaven and on earth. If Jesus knew he was God, none of these would make sense.
::*Looking at the context of the New Testament, the early Christians did not believe Jesus to be God. The most prolific writer, the Apostle Paul, consistently writes about Jesus as the ''Son'' of God ... not God himself. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:24: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." (''KJV'') - in other words Christ hands over the Kingdom to God the Father, a transaction between two separate people. At Colossians 1:15, Paul refers to Christ as the first-born of all creation. This harmonizes with the concept of Christ Jesus (the Son of God) and God the Father.[[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 17:26, 16 December 2007 (EST)

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." yeah...that kind of says he claimed to be God to me...However, the refrence is right, but it is just a text and we need to look at the whole context, which starts at John 10:22. The whole context shows that there is a difference between GOD and Jesus (the father and the son), and the whole context would mean that GOD and jesus are the same as far as the walk in Faith is concerned, and it does not mean that they are one and the same. So This does not present any proof that Jesus was GOD.

:Jesus also said at Matthew 19:5, regarding Adam and Eve, that they were "one flesh" (referring to their marital union). Nobody would ever construe his words to mean that Jesus ''literally'' meant that the first couple walked around like conjoined twins. Again, context is critical. John 10:36 asks the Jews if they feel he has blasphemed because I said, I am Son of God? At John 17:21, 22 Christ prayed, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." (''KJV'') The Greek word being translated as "one" (''hen''), at both John 10:30 and John 17:21, 22, is neuter, literally "one (thing)," and is used to indicate oneness in cooperation.

:French theologian John Calvin (July 10, 1509 – May 27, 1564), said in the book ''Commentary on the Gospel According to John'': “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.” [[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 17:26, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Did jesus claim to be be God?... No he did not, because there is not a single vocal statment in the bible where Jesus says that he is God, or where he says worship me...Jesus is not God, however he is a mighty messenger from God.

the concept of the Trinity seems missing in this debate. {{unsigned|Wargammer2005}}

The word trinity is not mentioned in the Bible, but there are a number of verses which mention Father, Son and Holy Spirit together; such as the baptism of Jesus and following his resurrection. The word Godhead is used a number of times in the KJV which means trinity, interestingly this has been taken out of new translations! I'd be interested on peoples views on this as I find it a difficult doctrine. Adam

:My remembrance of textual criticisms is a bit fuzzy, but I thought that the use of Godhead, in KJV, was specifically added to have the translation include the Trinity. The text used for the translation was one that included the reference, and that is why it was chosen. I am several years away from any TC study, however, so cannot make this as a solid claim. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 09:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Abortion

2008-01-23T19:11:53Z

Boomcoach: Proofedit at Legal History of Abortion in the United States

'''
== Your definition is misleading and downright false. ==
'''

I would just like to point out the the term abortion is used in the medical community to describe the termination of a pregnancy both voluntarily and involuntarily (otherwise known as a miscarriage)-- This came to my attention when I read a story about a woman who experienced severe degradation at a gynecologist's appointment for noting on her medical intake form that she had several abortions. In her case she was referring to a series of miscarriages. I don't think any person should be made to feel that horrible under any circumstance, but the fact that it was a complete misunderstanding based on existing personal beliefs and unwillingness on behalf of the doctor to even investigate before making her remarks makes it even more upsetting. If a doctor doesn't know something like this, how can the public be expected to when you perpetuate the wrong idea? This isn't a bias, its a fact. Words are very powerful and its wrong to tell readers only what you want them to think or know and leave out the rest. It's disrespectful.

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

The image presented at the beginning of the article is of a healthy fetus nearing 40 weeks (very close to birth) and is not a probable subject or candidate for abortion. [[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

:The fact that the child's eyes are formed but still sealed would indicate an age of around 12 weeks. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:35, 19 January 2008 (EST)

==Maintain the neutrality of the article==
Reading through this article, nearly 1/3 of all the sentences cite a 'fact' yet have no reference. And because it is edit-locked, a mod with a true notion of what it is to create informative articles needs to go over this with a fine tooth comb.--[[User:Nosferatu.feuertote|Nosferatu.feuertote]] 21:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a "billion dollar industry", neither of the linked "references" make any claims about the value of the "abortion industry". I am NOT pro-abortion, however I am PRO-FACT. If you make a claim and list citations directly afterwards, THOSE CITATIONS SHOULD DIRECTLY VERIFY THE CLAIM YOU HAVE JUST MADE! A quote from the first "source":

Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents.

The second "source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual.

Brian

"The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity." Is a bit weasly. Hippocrates also would not perform surgery, and definitely interfering with the heart was out of the question. But we know how many people are prevented from dying through heart-surgery. I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the oath in the first paragraph. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 15:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="This is Conservapedia"==
Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" ''are'' opposed to abortion, I doubt that all of them are. I don't think opposition to abortion is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for conservatism. Nor do I think it is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for Christianity. Of course one could say that anyone who claims to be a "pro-choice conservative" is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.

See, for example, the Seventh-Day Adventists' [http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html nuanced statement] on abortion. Most would regard them as a conservative Christian group. They say:

:prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

:Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

If this was just Conservative you might have a point, but it is Conservative and Christian. There is no way a Conservative Christian could support abortion in any way. It is contrary to everything in the Bible, so you must be willing to either 1.) Ignore parts of the Bible like some liberal Christians. or ignore all of the Bible like non Christians. Otherwise you can't support abortion. Adventists are as much Conservative as they are Christian--which is to say NOT AT ALL. They are a cult, and ignore the Bible in many significant ways. Come up with better evidence then tehm if you think your point is valid.
--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference

That's very interesting. The Seventh-Day Adventists run many hospitals, including one in New Jersey. I'm disappointed in its official stance, though I suspect that many adherents to the religion are more opposed to abortion that the statement implies. I doubt the Adventist hospital in NJ performs any elective abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: I ''assume'' that they're thinking about situations where the life of the mother is at stake.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that there can be conservatives who support abortion. Personally however, as a Christian myself, I believe it is impossible to be a Christian and support abortion at the same time. This would be a major contradiction. Also, I highly doubt that "most" would regard the Seventh-Day-Adventist church as Christian as they add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus. Just my opinion on the matter. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"

:: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians?

:: And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''Reply:''' It is very true that churches have added onto the teachings of Jesus even though it clearly states in Revelation 22:18-19 that anyone who adds or takes away any words from the Bible will be harshly punished:

:::''"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19''

:::It is made very clear that God does not want to be edited. But Dpbsmith, I ''do'' believe that there are churches that hold very tightly to the teachings of Jesus and base their faith completely on His Word. So, yes, there are denominations that do not add their own ideas to the Bible.
::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called "abortion" in the Bible, Exodus 21: 22-25 refers to God giving his explanations to the Israelites about how to deal with matters of women with child:

:::"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21: 22-25

:::'''Reply:''' It is funny that you reference the old mosaic law when Jesus clearly gave a new law to take place of the eye for an eye law. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.

:::It is very obvious that the life of an unborn child is valued and considered a human life by God. There is another verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that also deals with the value of an unborn child's life, but I am sure that Conservapedia would rather have an article on the Bible than try to be it. :) --[[User:David R|David R]] 20:35, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, a number of issues- first, that verse has classically has a very different translation, premature birth actually means miscarriage in most translations (and from my (admittedly minimal knowledge of Hebrew, is more plausibly correct). (Examples of ones which translate as such in English are the KJV ASV,)). The vulgatus in fact used the word "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" which is interesting because there is a separate verb used generally to mean giving birth. Now the upshot of all of this is important, if this refers to a miscarriage then one must conclude that if anything the Bible does not see the unborn child at the same level as that of a human since the punishment for manslaughter of a normal human is much more severe than just a monetary fine. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that the Bible see a serious distinction between the unborn and the born. And even if you insist on translating this as premature birth then it simply becomes a tort of born individuals. Thus, if anything, this verse undermines pro-life arguments.

::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Again, there are interesting translational issues but they aren't as directly germane. This one simply requires a bit of context. When it is quoted as attempting to support pro-life arguments the last part of the verse is generally not quoted. When you look at the entire verse and the verse right above one thing is very clear, this verse is talking about a single person - Jeremiah. Jeremiah was known to God in womb, Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed as a prophet. This isn't talking about generic babies. Furthermore, one could make the argument that if God consecrated every single unborn baby then there would be no point in telling Jeremiah that he had been consecrated as such and that you can therefore see this verse as possibly arguing against every baby being consecrated (I find this argument very weak, but that's a different matter). The bottom line however is that this verse doesn't support a pro-life stance and if it has anything to say on the matter says the opposite. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua Z, you have twisted the translation badly. A premature birth does not equal a miscarraige. It didn't mean that in Biblical times and it doesn't mean that now. Please go [[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion| here]] for an educated translation and discussion on that specific topic. --[[User:David R|David R]] 10:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

: I find it interesting that you accuse me of twisitng the translation when the translation I have given you is that of the Vulgatus and the KJV. Also, this is how the verse was classicly intepreted in ancient Israelite law as seen in the talmud (certainly this is the majority view in the talmud, I don't even remember the possiblity of premature birth in this matter coming up- looking this up now) . As to the christian courier article, it is rife with problems. Among other problems, Job and Kings are written far after Exodus and there is a much larger vocabularly. The last verse quoted in the article about Menachem is in fact clearly in context referring to such ripping as a torture or punishment of the female in question. There are a variety of other issues with the article, but I'm not going to go into them in detail. The bottom line is that the KJV agrees with this translation, the Vulgatus agrees with this translation and the ancient Israelite law used this translation. It is at best inaccurate to call such a translation "twisted." (I incidentally presume from the lack of comment that you don't disagree with my analysis of Jeremiah)[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" from the King James Version. It does not contain the word miscarriage. In fact, it says premature birth. The last time I check a premature birth was a premature birth, not a miscarriage. You could say that a miscarriage resulted from a premature birth(verse 23). Nevertheless, the translation provides no miscarriage. Going to the Hebrew translation, the fact that they did have a separate verb for "birth" and "and the child came out" goes to show that the second verb refered to a unorthodox birth. But it is pure speculation to call it a miscarriage. As for why I did not reply to your second paragraph containing your thoughts, it is only because I was focusing more on the first one and happened to forget about the second. Be patient. It is a mistake on your part to simply assume that I have no counter to your "analysis". The verses in Jeremiah imply that Jeremiah was set apart to become a great prophet, not to be the only baby to have life before birth. I admit, after looking over this verse a couple times, that it wasn't the strongest material to back my argument, but it surely does not oppose a "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

: It doesn't say miscarriage. It refers to the fruit departing which is a euphemism for miscarriage in other texts in the late 1500s. As to the Jeremiah point, as I said the argument for it being against a pro-life stance is weak and I find that unpersuasive. However, in context it is at best neutral on the matter. (In any event, the fact that the ancient Israelites interpreted it as miscarriage and the Vulgati translate it as abortivum is very hard to get around). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The Bible and Christianity are clearly incompatible with abortion. First off, abortion is an act of murder. The Bible never once refers to an unborn child as an "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

<blockquote>At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.</blockquote>

:At two weeks from fertilisation, the embryo has not even [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/7.html implanted], indeed, many embryos don't even make it as far as implantation, which happens at about [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/8.html two and a half weeks]. At [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html four weeks] the fetus has no hands, hands don't fully appear until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/22.html week eight], and the arms are little more than buds[http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html buds]. The fetus doesn't practice breathing until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/12_weeks.html 12] to [http://www.babydiscovery.co.uk/pregnancy-timeline.asp 14] weeks, so I'm not sure how it would try to take a breath at 8 weeks. At twelve weeks, abortions are surgical abortions that do not result in an entire fetus, so the fetus could hardly struggle for life after that. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" any problems as some people would like to believe, it just makes the problem bigger. If God condoned abortion then he would be contradicting himself. Ecclesiastes 3:14 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Abortion is an''' attempt to bring an end to God's work... to make him a liar. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:: A charming response that doesn't deal with either the matter in Exodus or the matter in Jeremiah. The use of the same word in all those cases is explainable by the simple fact that most ancient cultures didn't have separate words for fetus, embryo and baby (ancient Hebrew and aramaic do not seem to have had separate words, if they did, they are no longer extant). Again, the above verse in Exodus if anything demonstrates that abortion is not murder since the punishment is less than that for murder. The quote you have about the features of a child at an early age has nothing to do with biblical exegesis. Finally, the last paragraph is also irrelevant- whether or not abortion encourages sin is a distinct question from whether abortion is Biblically forbidden or whether it is murder. Finally, you are applying that quote from Ecclesiastes in a highly selective fashion- under that logic since God makes diseases medicine shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that verse is making a very different statement- the end of the verse is not a commandment but a statement of futulity in fighting God's work- anything that God ordains to occur, will occur whether or not humans attempt to interfere. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)
::: '''Reply''' The fact that they did not have separate words proves that they were considered equal. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: '''REPLY''': Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are '''Conserv'''apedia --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research|WP:NOR]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...

*if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''REPLY:''' There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.
::But an abortion procedure (a legal one at least) is statistically safer than childbirth. Also, if a women has no children, then she does not have the lower risk of breast cancer gained when having a child, but surely she has not increased her risk of cancer, rather she has not decreased it. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

*if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''REPLY:''' There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.

*if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives.

:'''REPLY:''' Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.

However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence.
-Neurocat

:'''REPLY:''' I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)

It is interesting to note that several times it has been stated that NOTHING good has come of abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt makes a very strong causal link between the introduction of abortion and fall of crime in the US. Perhaps it would be worth a read for some people.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

: Hello. I know I might be jumping in a bit late here, but I thought I'd explain what ex-cathedra meant, as someone seemed to be of the impression that the Pope can add things to the Bible, but this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ex Cathedra] defines it as: "Literally 'from the chair', a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the '''definitions''' given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority..." (emphasis added) Anyway, what I think is relevant here is that when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra teaching, he is not just making something new up, he is '''defining''' the Church's stance on the matter. Take, for example, the topic we have here - abortion. On the subject of life beginning at conception John Paul II wrote in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html Evangelium vitae]: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium." (I'm not actually sure if this is an ex-cathedra document, but you get the idea). What he is doing here is not adding something to the Bible but clarifying the Church's stance on this, '''in accordance with''' the Bible, for example Luke 1:39-41 "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" The Council of Ancyra also said "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). The Early Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra proclaimed these things to be in concurrence with the Bible, and (as far as Catholics believe) that is just what the Pope (with the help of Cardinals, etc.) does nowadays. Anyway, I know that was a rather long explanation, but thank you if you read it all and I hope you now understand a bit better what we believe about ex-cathedra proclamations. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to know more about what the Church says about abortion (although I think most people already know lol) or anything else Catholicism-related. :D --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Additional Information==
I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Perhaps pointing out the fact that the link between abortion and breast cancer is not a causal one. The way in which the link is presented in the article is biased, it portrays abortion as being a cause of breast cancer. It is much better defined as an indicator, for abortion itself does not cause breast cancer.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

This article needs serious work. There's one sentence talking about what an abortion is, and BAM! Breast cancer. Why is breast cancer at the top? Is that the most important topic relevant to abortion?

== profitability of abortion ==

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html
http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

:While fetuses are very usful for research purposes, I find the idea of them as a food quite laughable - who would actually eat it? And the source is hardly credible. Abortiontv.com? Hmm.. really respectable and unbiased. And Phelps is a calm and polite debater. Also, before anyone brings it up, the stories about fetuses being used for embryonic stem cell based cosmetic therepy is also a load of nonsense: Such therepy wouldn't work any better than conventional treatments, and the most likely outcome is a rather nasty tumor. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

==Should the article introduce and define the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&curid=3937&diff=17574&oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

One of our rules is conciseness. The above terms are self-evident and not even used much in the article. The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure that's true. That would I presume depend on both what your intended readership is and other issues. (For example, would you be at all aiming for non-native English speakers who don't know much about the English terminology? I always taught to aim to explain to the least knowledgable reader) Furthermore, I think it's important to point out the terms in relation to what the different sides emphasize in regard to the debate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: As a matter of conciseness, the current article isn't exactly concise (I would think for example that it would make sense to have one section on health risks, not 3. The level of detail there compared to other issues such discussions of the the basies for attitudes towards abortion as well as the political history seems a bit unbalanced. The article doesn't even mention Griswold for exampe.). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::It's my sentence so let me explain why I put it there. It was not to define the terms, but a) to justify the use of terms with "spin" and b) set ground rules. Both terms are so ''thoroughly'' dishonest that I really detest using either of them and think that a justification for their use is needed. The ground rules for the language used throughout the article should be to use the terms which each side likes to have used (no edit wars between "pro-choice" and "pro-murder" or "pro-life" and "pro-non-adult-life," please).

::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the "spin" represented by the ''other'' side's term. They're absolutely wretched and I have to think it would be very helpful if the two factions could bring themselves to call themselves "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (where it's understood that "abortion" is short for "the continuing availability of legalized abortion.)

::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not "self-evident." A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what "pro-choice" means, or that a "pro-lifer" can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Pro-lifers cannot support capital punishment; that's an oxymoron. The main force in the fight against abortion is the Catholic church, and they have made it extremely clear that a "culture of life" cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*I personally know some people who are indeed a) Roman Catholic, b) against abortion, and c) against the death penalty. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all "pro-lifers" support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as "pro-life" can be assumed to be against the death penalty, nor do I think that the term is generally understood to include that. I'm willing to be corrected on that if I'm wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::Due diligence:

::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's "Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says "antiabortion."[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under "issues," includes abortion, euthanasia, Medicare, and human cloning. Capital punishment is apparently not considered by them to be a right-to-life issue. Their [http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm mission statement] says specifically "The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense." Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says "This bill does ''not'' reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes."

::::I actually think that particular website is avoiding the issue, and I suspect it's because there's a wide spectrum of opinion on capital punishment within the "pro-life" community. I happen to agree with you that pro-life ''should'' imply opposition to capital punishment, but I don't think it does. That's exactly why I think it's a dishonest term. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Thanks, Dpbsmith, for moving this discussion over here, and I apologize for only getting back to everyone until now. The abortion article never references "pro-choice", and its passing references to "pro-life" near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.

: Most people in the abortion movement on both sides reject any analogy between abortion and the death penalty. The same could be said for abortion and war. The issues are very, very different. Criminal punishment is based on retribution and deterrence. Those are not factors in abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

==Portugal==
I'm not sure that the Portuguese still make abortion illegal. I heard recently that they had a referendum on the issue and they voted to legalize, but the voter turnout was too low for it to count. Last I heard, the ruling party had stated that they were going to enforce the ruling, but I'd assume there would be some challenges from the opposition, so it's definitely worth following. Either way, a factcheck needs to be done on the first bit.--[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:You're right. The law legalising abortion within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy comes into effect real soon.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2053831,00.html]

== Article weight ==

There seem to be issues of weight- almost three quarters of the article as it currently stands deals with potential health complications of abortion, while there is almost no details of the history of abortion or abortion outside the US. I'm a bit puzzled that this level of detail is in here but a single sentence detailing the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Moreover, this article tells nothing about the types of abortions or the procedures used. Why isn't that the article on abortion has no information actually about abortions? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bible==
the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment "You shall not murder". The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The bible proposes no scientific arguments at all against abortion. A commandment is merely a command issue by a higher power, there is no scientific proof shown in it at all. Religion simply puts forward a moral argument. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]

The Bible clearly indicates in Jeremiah 1 and the Psalms that God regards an unborn baby as being a fully human being separate from any other, and as such, is subject to the protection from being murdered in the 6th Commandment. The Bible also has a great deal of historical evidence to support its accuracy. A read through Josh Mcdowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" should help to demonstrate this. [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Seriously, please add this to the article ==

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].
</div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

*Support. I'm Catholic and absolutely against abortion, but I think the article is anything but neutral. I appreciate that this is a conservative website but that doesn't mean that we have to push our agenda and beliefs right from the beginning of the article

==Proposed new section==
While some aspects of the Wikipedia articles on abortion are quite confronting, the fact that this article only devotes a single sentence to a definition is a bit surprising. The current article doesn't actually say anything about the "rightness" of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.

Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
===Alternatives to abortion===
Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people.

The obvious way to avoid an abortion is for the woman not to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]] in the first place. This can best be achieved by abstinence from [[sex]] before [[marriage]]. If a woman does have sex but does not wish to risk becoming pregnant, the couple should use [[contraception]] to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy.

Once a woman has become pregnant, the only alternative to abortion is to allow the pregnancy to proceed to a live birth. If the parents are unable or do not wish to bring up the child, it can be offered for [[adoption]]. Otherwise one or both parents will look after the child in a [[family]] until it is old enough to move out of home on his or her own.

:*Hmm. When I was at Law school my tutor said that the only 100% way to not get pregnant was abstinence (it was a seminar on the Abortion Act). I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp these days. --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This argument tends to fall apart for victims of sexual abuse and rape. Of late, I've also seen fringe left-wingers using images of the Virgin Mary with the subtitle "Abstinence doesn't always work" as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

:::Which argument falls apart? All of the above is true even if the sex was involuntary. I'm sure the trauma of the act is magnified by the effects, but if a woman, her friends or relatives believe "abortion is murder", then it doesn't change based on how the conception occurred. I just hope and pray that nobody I know and love is ever in that situation. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently this proposed paragraph is not acceptable for the article in its present state as it is not suitably referenced. I'm not quite sure specifically which sentences need reference, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable references on the internet that you don't need an abortion if you don't have sex! Even any pages I can find about alternatives look more biased and pushy than the paragraph above that needs to referenced to be acceptable. [[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]], are you able to reference it from your law book? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==danger of life and abortion needs discussion
Poland, Portugal and Irland permit abortions in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. A discussion of this topic is deerly needed. -- SchiFra.

==Add Category:Abortion==
Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Definition of abortion==
According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=abortion online] [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion medical dictionaries]), the term abortion relates to the termination of pregnancy, whether planned (induced abortion) or unplanned (spontaneous abortion ak miscarriage). As the everyday useage and the medical terminology are conflicting, I think that this should be clarified and the page possibly split. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 16:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==
Abortion is clearly not family-friendly. If [[Sex]] isn't allowed, this article has to go. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 20:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

As other posters have said, the very first line of this article contains a startling inaccuracy. Abortion is the purely medical term for the ending of a pregnancy before the foetus can have independent life. Most abortions are caused by Nature, or depending on your personal beliefs, God. Surprisingly, humans have great difficulty getting pregnant, compared to most other mammals, and just as much problems staying pregnant - at least a third, and up to one half of all conceptions which implant, naturally abort before term, although many of these before the mother realises she is pregnant. On a note not wholly related to abortion, the joining of a human egg and sperm is not the begining of a potential human life, it is the begining of TWO or THREE potential human beings, even under natural conditions. It just so happens that identical twins and triplets are even more prone to spontaneous abortion than their single brothers and sisters. KT

== Reply to the above ==

The user Scott sent me over here to respond to the above comments, but I didn't find anything here to add to the content page. The content page is a high-quality, thoroughly sourced description of information often censored elsewhere (e.g., Wikipedia omits much of this information). Any additions would have to be of the same quality and cited support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

In the first sentence of that article section, it states that studies show abortion causes breast cancer, supported by 16/17 statistically significant cases. In a statistical sense, the word "cause" or "causation" is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state "there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies." Statistics class has ground this principle into me, and so i feel the need to point it out. I would change it myself, but this appears to be another one of those articles that needs "Big Brother" to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

To balance the assertions about abortion and breast cancer in this article, it ought to be shown that many factors affect breast cancer rates - for example diet: http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0104023.htm

and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm

Life is full of risks. Your risk of dying of breast cancer is about the same as your risk from radon by living in Cornwall: http://www.cplusc.co.uk/risks.html (Can't say I've noticed women fleeing Cornwall in droves...)

A higher risk factor for breast cancer than abortion, research published today reveals, is the eating of red meat. See: Red meat ‘raises risks of breast cancer’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/04/04/nmeat04.xml

Breastfeeding your baby greatly reduces your risk of breast cancer. Having large numbers of children and breastfeeding them all reduces the risk of breast cancer:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html

Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html

The National Breast Cancer Coalition does not endorse the view that induced abortions increase the risk of breast cancer - one would have thought this kind of organisation would be the first to look at the evidence that exists, since there is no profit in abortion for them. Nor do the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organisation endorse this view.

Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the EU and the trend for incidence at younger ages (where abortion rates are usually highest) is downwards:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf

It's dishonest to write an article that greatly overstates the connection between abortion and breast cancer and doesn't put it in the context of all the other things women do that increase or decrease their risk. Getting in a car any day of the week puts you at infinitely higher risk of death than having an abortion: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm

There are legitimate arguments against abortion, but this kind of manipulative shroud-waving isn't among them. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:19 4 April 2007 (EDT)

According to Reuters, the largest study ever done on the abortion/cancer link has come to the conclusion that they are not correlated. According to the article, this is going to "fit" with the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23311428.htm --[[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]] 16:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Which medical school did the Reuters' reporter go to, or how many cases of breast cancer has he reviewed? Childbirth prevents breast cancer, and termination of childbirth increases breast cancer. By the way, I don't care how many uninformed biased articles might say that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::So that allows you to ignore the studies Reuters references? Strange logic. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Every study denying an ABC link that I have looked at, such as [[Harvard Abortion Study]], I have found to be fraudulent or misleading. How many of those pro-abortion studies have you actually looked at? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Denying, pro-abortion? LOL, nice wording. Your opinions on these studies '''do not permit''' you to pretend they don't exist and not include them in the article. I have read recent studies, and GASP, I find them flawed regurgitations of scientific consensus. Doesn't excuse your excuses and assumptions about me and the researchers. After you're done getting over yourself and "pro-abortion" notions (people/scientists are allowed to simply be wrong without a grandiose agenda), mention them in the article with relevant (referenced) criticism; if you can't find criticism, then include them anyway! Also, don't refer to the studies as "Lancet" and "Harvard", that is authoritative wording used by anti-abortion breast cancer reporters (which makes up the majority, something you should also substantiate/analyze in the article, but you don't bother). Instead you should call these studies, "Melbye" and "Michels" studies, to clarify shortsighted people can be in charge scientific studies, not just online encyclopedias. If you just reference marginalized science and scientists, then your article will be of marginal quality, importance and persuasiveness. But hey, whatever, it's conservapedia that ends up looking bad. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 19:34, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately you also don't seem to care about the number of methodologically sound studies that find no ABC link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT) 

:::You may wish to consider though, why so many do. Most studies usually have a 95% threshold for saying there is a statistical correlation. So if there was no statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion, we would expect that given 20 studies that 18 would show there is no correlation, 1 would show a statical correlation that abortion leads to an increased rate of breast cancer, and 1 would show that abortion lowers the chances of having breast cancer. For so many studies to show a correlation, even if there are many that do not, chances are very high that some level of correlation exists. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::That does not answer why studies indicating no link are not included. The answer seems obvious, they aren't included because people write about what they want to hear. There are very large studies indicating no link -- which form the current scientific consensus by the way -- and so should be included. Murray is assuming they are "methodologically sound," I do not take the NCI's nor the media's interpretation of the evidence at face value; but how people here think it is okay to excluded from the article is beyond me.

::::Also, there is no mention of criticism of studies which indicate an ABC link, such as response bias and small data sets. There is plenty of criticism of these studies but has not been mentioned here. The section also repeatedly makes use of the word "expert", yet cites no expert who concludes there is marginal or no ABC link; I'm sure they exist. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

== Historical view of abortion ==

Abortion has been an issue for a long while, though historians and anthropologists rarely write about it. Yet, if abortion became illegal in every country on Earth, with the most severe, harshest penalties imaginable, abortions would still happen. Women who really didn't want to carry to term would find a way. Medically trained people would perform black market sorts of abortions here and there. It is a human issue, an emotional issue. Our grandmothers knew this and their grandmothers. Today's modern medicine allows safe (for the mother) abortion in most cases. Today's law proposes that the decision might not reside in the realm of the mother, but could be mandated, to the benefit of society. Let us not fool ourselves, abortion might be illegal but abortion happens anyway. Who can legally try a woman for falling down stairs or falling against the edge of a table? The article does not, at this time, confront the real reasons why abortion is an issue (my opinion). [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

To add to the above, in Thailand, procuring an illegal abortion is subject to the death penalty. Yet the midwives there are the ones mothers turn to for this service, the same people they turn to to deliver their babies safely. And much as the the ultra right may hate the idea, midwives throughout the ages have always carried out this function, unknown to (or ignored by) males. Even with legal terminations, girls still go to their mothers, not to their fathers, and there is many a Pro-lifer who has no idea what his mother's, wife's, sisters' and daughters' reproductive history is. KT

: Well, fine, burglary and drugs and prostitution and everything else one can imagine will always exist too, no matter how harsh the penalties. Here in the U.S. there is an abortion industry that owns one of the two major political parties (the Democrats), and most women who have an abortion have no idea that they are increasing their risk of breast cancer and future premature birth. The abortion industry does everything it can to prevent that information reaching their potential customers. The tobacco industry did the same thing in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The tobacco industry even got the American Medical Association (AMA) to help it cover up how smoking causes cancer. History repeats itself with abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It's anything but an industry in UK, here Termination of Pregnancy (as you describe abortion) is carried out mainly by the National Health Service. Hospitals in our country are under financial constraints (private insurance does not pay for it), yet still publically funded doctors perform these procedures for the benefit of the woman concerned, and no other reason. They do NOT receive financial reward, and it is the taxpayer who pays. And the British taxpayer is happy to pay for this.

: I'm not an expert on the UK by any means, but I'm confident physicians perform the operation for payment, not for charity. In the U.S., the operation has little risk of malpractice, is done outside of hospitals and in profitable clinics, and often the physicians do abortions after they have been excluded from their own specialty and/or from hospitals.

: Your claim that the British taxpayer "is happy to pay for this" strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were "happy to pay for this" then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aschlafly - I think you aren't clear about how the NHS works. It isn't funded by taxation. It's funded by National Insurance, which all working people pay in the same way as Americans pay Social Security, and it covers the same range of things as Social Security except that it covers health care as well. Because of inadequacies in the NHS, some people choose to pay privately for a termination of pregnancy, but the law in the UK states that two doctors have to agree that there are satisfactory grounds for it. The majority of UK opinion supports the availability of legal abortion on the NHS, though there are a number of people who would prefer to see the upper time limit (currently 24 weeks) brought down to 20-22 weeks. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]]

You may also like to consider that the majority of women who have terminations (abortions) either already have families, or go on to have families. No woman ever takes this decision lightly, and many women have this procedure to safeguard their real family (people who already exist). KT

: Unfortunately those women who do have future children (and many can't, by the way) have greatly increased their chance of premature birth, and the severe injuries that causes. Those women should be told that, just as informed consent is required for any other operation. Surely you don't think that the women considering an abortion should not be told?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If abortions 'causes' breast cancer, is it terminations of pregnancy 'cause' breast cancer, or/and miscarriages (spontaneous abortion)'cause' breast cancer. If spontaneous abortion causes breast cancer, the solution is to never get pregnant, and avoid the 50% risk of natural abortion which comes with every pregnancy. Would that suit Mr/Ms Aschafly; or would this defy the Biblical injunction to go forth and mulitply? KT

==Portugal==
Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.
--[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: I thought the vote failed because of low turnout. In other words, the law did not change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP "The bill is now subject to presidential ratification in the next 20 days but becomes law only after published, a process that could take several months." [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/09/portugal.abortion.ap/index.html] So yes, it's still illegal as of today. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference, refresh my memory. Many thanks KT

== Blocked? ==

So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that "liberal" alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Incidentally, Conservapedia is not a ''free'' encyclopedia, but a ''trustworthy'' encyclopedia. If vandalism or edit clashes break out then pages should be blocked. --[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

: What do the above comments have to do with whether something is "free"? Nothing as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== death rate ==

The first paragraph of the "Other health effects" section is
:''A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.''
Apart from "association" where it presumably should say "associated", I find it surprising that the death rate of women who have had abortions is higher than in women who haven't, given that the death rate amongst women who have not had abortions is effectively 100%! That is, ''all'' women who have not had abortions die eventually, but proportionately more women who ''have'' had abortions die? "110% of women who had abortions die" would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was hoping i could edit the article to make it less biased and more factual. I want this site to be taken seriously, and it's articles like this one that destroy it's credibility. If allowed to edit this article, i would not take it from one bias to another, i would simply remove some of the opinion and make it purely factual.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 17:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::*<nowiki>:</nowiki>D There's your smile! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

There is a footnote for the "abortion is now a billion dollar industry" factlet here: [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/09/fetal.tissue/index.html]. A very quick search of the page yields no mention of the words "billion" "dollar" or "industry" and a more thorough search discovers that the article is, in fact, dealing with a 2000 congressional hearing over the illegal sale of fetal tissue. I'm sure this was just an oversight... could a source be provided for the billion dollar indutry fact? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 06:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed the same thing that [[User:Myk|Myk]] mentioned above but no one seems to have addressed it. If the sentence is going to make the billion-dollar-industry claim, then shouldn't the sources, you know, back that statement up somehow instead of being remotely and tangentially related?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

This article on abortion either needs the medical background behind abortion (reasons for abortions and methods of abortion) and reasons why abortion can be beneficial added or its title changed to 'Reasons Why Abortion is Wrong'. This is another biased article that is lacking in facts about the topic itself. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=

You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get serious. The American Medical Association used to defend smoking too. That is because it is easy for an industry to influence the handful of people who run these organizations at any given time.

: If you're going to support abortion, at least support giving the mothers information so that they can make an informed decision.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - "science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect"? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Giving the mothers the correct information is indeed the right thing to do. Which is why to claim that 16/17 studies show a link is either misinformed or untruthful. I don't know where that claim came from, but if you search yourself you'd find a lot more than 16 studies showing no statistically significant link. To make it a little easier I've listed 24 of them on my talk page. Have you taken a look? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are "liberal biased." Facts don't matter to these people.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ames, I have no doubt that you're right. Just hoping that some people who read the article might end up here on the talk page and realize that that article is basically one big lie. Or maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment, so I'll keep tilting away! :) [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a link to the new breast cancer article might be added to this section? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Listen up==

Ok, folks, there are many reasons to be against abortion, almost all of them moral. I am pretty liberal but I have some problems with it myself. HOWEVER, adding specious medical claims does not help the case. ''At this point'' there is '''no''' credible evidence linking abortion to any malignancies. Move on, discuss the real reasons to oppose abortion.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.

:Was just thinking about the "16 out of 17 statistically significant studies" thing. Aschafly, I initially interpreted that as you claiming that most studies that have looked at the relationship have found that abortion is a risk factor. But now it occurs to me that it likely actually means that there are 16 studies finding that it is a significant risk factor, 1 finding that it's a significant protective factor, and some unlisted number finding no significant relationship. Without knowing the number finding no relationship, it's completely meaningless. As I posted above, there are at least 24 studies in that category, and my search was not that comprehensive. It's nonsensical to claim that when less than half of the studies find a relationship that it definitely exists, and suggests misunderstanding of statistical significance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Quite astute, young grasshopper. Given all the other reasons to oppose abortion, there is no good reason to just make stuff up.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bizarre fixation on abortion==

I'm wondering how Schlafly's slightly freaky obsession with abortion (see eg that the most notable feature of [[Wisconsin]] is its abortion statistics) squares with the not-in-front-of-the-kids squeamishness which pervades other articles of a [[sexual intercourse|reproductive]] or genital-related nature. Are home-schooled children allowed to know about abortion without knowing how a woman gets into the situation of being able to have an abortion? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Confused ==

Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== But what about the benefits of abortion? ==

This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:
*Saving the mother's life
*Protecting the mother's physical and mental health
*Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer
I know that these points can be debated and there are others that could be added. Just remember that debate does not belong in the article! --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==

I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer

For example, why do pro-life people say selection bias is responsible in regards to studies showing there is no abortion and breast cancer connection? I realize that Wikipedia gave this reference in regards to the selection bias possibility: http://bcpinstitute.org/printabc_html.htm '''However, are there more sources? '''

I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information.

I also think we should take on the link above from JoshuaZ which is this link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html

I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: This isn't a pro-life v. pro-choice issue. I'm basically pro-life. That doesn't alter what the scientific consensus or the evidence says about this matter one iota. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT) (restoring comment that seemed to get accidentally lost in the edting).

::I really don't understand why there's quite so much focus on the breast cancer thing here. Of course abortion will have some risks, as does any medical procedure. But guess what? There are also risks associated with pregnancy (such as an increased risk of thrombosis) and with many contraceptives (eg the breast cancer link with the pill). Yet strangely those things aren't mentioned in this article. I wonder why?
::The point isn't that '''Abortion carries risks! Abortion Bad!''' but that all the options carry risks and it is down to women to decide which ones they consider worth taking and which ones not. And before anyone leaps in to say that abstinence is the risk free choice, remember that women who never have children are at a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have had children. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Even the supporters of abortion don't deny that preventing childbirth increases risk of breast cancer. Guess what? Abortion prevents childbirth, and therefore increases breast cancer risk. It increases breast cancer risks in additional ways also.

: Where's the Harvard study, or any other study that tries to deny this? I'd be happy to analyize the study. Its lack of availability, however, does not lend credibility to exaggerated press reports.

: A few years ago, Harvard researchers claimed to have found a link between gun ownership and increased harm to children. My simple review of their paper revealed severe flaws and biases, and the ''Economist'' published my letter debunking it. In addition, the Harvard researchers were uncooperative in releasing their data. Looks we have the same old, same old with this latest abortion study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Andrew, um have you even looked at this study? That seems a bit presumptious this early on. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more "presumptuous" to assume the study is valid without reading it. And, by the way, there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand. Do you really fall in that tiny 20%? I'm skeptical, and wonder why you volunteered that you're "pro-life". It's amazing how many people volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone. No one cares about a self-proclaimed Democrat who says he favors Bush, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Since you're reading it, I'd be curious what you think about it. My initial impression is that the most serious possible problem is that the disproportionate number in the sample who were premenopausal (a problem they acknowledge). However, I'm not aware of any biological reason to think that pre and post menopausal females would have significantly different responses. As to your claim that "there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand" -I'd be very curious as to how you arrived at that claim although it would not surprise me if something of that sort were true. I would in any event point out that 20% isn't exactly tiny and that a number of prominent conservatives share this set of views such as John Derbyshire and George Will. As to your comment about people volunteerring "volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone" - if I had been doing that it would have been a nice rhetorical remark and you'd be correct to observe that it would carry no logical weight. My point was however exactrly that this wasn't an issue of one "side" as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is "liberal" v "conservative" and this would definitely be an example. (I should note however that the insistence in this case that abortion must be such a dangerous procedure seems to be a possible example of belief-overkill). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It's good to know that you guys are so concerned about women's health. I do hope you are going to campaign for it to be illegal for women not to breastfeed their babies, since this could really slash the rate of breast cancer. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 It affects the baby's health too, since a formula-fed baby is more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for severe respiratory illness as an exclusively breastfed baby. http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/items/research_detail.asp?item=94. When am I going to see Conservapedia condemn all those mothers who withhold breast milk from their babies? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, women should be told that also. I'm for telling the truth to women, rather than having abortionists exploit them the way that the tobacco industry did years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that is a very strange comparison. How many women do you think are persuaded to get pregnant with a baby they want and then have it aborted because of some massive advertising campaign? And I really do think you ought to stop stating so unequivocally that abortion is a leading cause of breast cancer, when all the discussions and links that have taken place on this and the breast cancer talk page seem to show that the consensus of medical opinion is that there is no such definite link. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, there is massive advertising for abortion. Ride a subway in a minority community sometime and look at the ads. Does that influence women? You bet. The ads wouldn't be there if they weren't effective.

: History repeats itself. The tobacco industry denied its cause of cancer for decades, and got lots of other people to deny it also, including the AMA.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me be sure I understand you - are you of the opinion that a woman pregnant with a baby she wants will be influenced to go and have an abortion by seeing an advert on the subway?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:40, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: The abortionists wouldn't be paying for the ads unless they had an influence. Would you pay for an advertisement that didn't have an influence???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy for your honesty. It's good to have it made really clear what your opinion of women is. Personally, as a middle aged women with three adult children and a long history of voluntary work with a childbirth organization as a breastfeeding counsellor, knowing many women who have had unwanted pregnancies (some terminated by abortion and some gone through to delivery and raising of the child) and many women who have had wanted pregnancies (some that have miscarried and some that have gone through to raising the child) I can say, hand on heart, that I do not know one who would have been influenced to terminate a wanted pregnancy by seeing an advert on the subway. But maybe you know a lot more dumb women than I do.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, are you seriously saying that the abortion providers that pay for those ads are completely wasting their money???? Have you ever run a business or purchased advertising yourself???

: Tell you what. If you're being sincere, then I suggest you call Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and tell them your great idea for how they can save lots of money. Let me know how they response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Surely these adverts (which, by the way, I have never seen in my life) are to inform women of how to get a safe abortion rather than an unsafe one, and to encourage them to do it early rather than late? I can't see any woman who wants her baby deciding to change her mind just on the basis of some advert, that's crazy. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I can't believe how many smart businessmen and businesswomen we have here. Silverfish, how about calling up the abortion providers and telling them how you know they are wasting their money on advertising! Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the abortionists have already done studies and concluded that their money on advertising is money well-spent for their business???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:
#Many Christians are sad, knowing that human life begins at conception yet millions of girls and women choose [[elective abortion]] rather than bring their baby into the world
#There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]

Emotionally, it may be difficult to deal with the linkage between the two issues. But this writing project is not just for homeschooled minors any more. It has become a project to create an encyclopedia. We'll just have to deal with these difficulties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:47, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed - any argument against abortion needs to hinge around the moral issues, because any unbiased look at the evidence concludes that the level of risk to the mother's health is actually higher from pregnancy than from abortion and that there is no significant link between abortion and breast cancer. A woman who is joyfully pregnant with a planned and wanted baby, or even pregnant with a baby that she didn't plan but feels able to raise herself or give birth to and give to adopters to raise, takes those risks willingly. People who oppose abortion need to put their efforts into helping and supporting women in the decision to have and raise the child, or to give it for adoption, because every time they distort or cherry-pick the evidence they undermine their own case.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 08:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==

This morning researchers at Harvard University released the results of a study they finished that surveyed 100,000 women over 10 years and failed to find any statistically significant link between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriages. This result seems to confirm the opinion of the National Cancer Institute's 2003 expert panel.

Related news article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm

Study abstract:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814

Full text of study:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814

Given the absolute prominence that this encyclopedia chooses to give to the question of a relationship between cancer and abortion, wouldn't it be required diligence to include this study (giving fair provenance to countering opinions and evidence of course)?

== Quick question ==

What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Exodus 20:13[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks :D --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::That says "thou shalt not kill". I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The "thou shalt not kill" rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, it says "You are not to murder". For many of us, that includes life in the womb. I am probably a bit more liberal than some, in that I do feel it is ok to debate the issue, but if you believe, as i do, that an unborn child is human, then "No murder" applies.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm using the [http://www.bartleby.com/108/ Bartleby] online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says "thou shalt not kill". I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says "thou shalt not kill" as well. Which version are you using? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between "dont kill" and "dont murder", including such issues as the death penalty, etc. Some will argue (perhaps correctly) that nearly-cannonical translations such as KJV can be taken as is since they are so widely accepted. I could go on forever, but I wont. [[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

===Round 2===
I never seem to have gotten a clear answer above, so I'll try again: Where does the Bible say that life ''begins at conception''? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:The lack of an answer so far is ''very'' encouraging. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The idea that life begins at conception is not a universally shared one and actually a certain paradox exists because of that reason. The idea is that "potential life" is created at conception. Many people, apparently, believe that life begins at conception as a cell is formed, however whether this is actually life depends on your definition of "life". I assume that from a religious perspective one would assume that this is the moment where the soul enters the body and the soul is then released when it is killed and thus the moment it is actually immoral to cause the destruction of that life. To my understanding people of the Jewish faith believe that life begins with one's first breath. This being said I know of no reason why that definition has changed with Christianity, and I am not aware of any Bible verse that discusses when a soul enters a body. So, unless I'm wrong no biblical scriture mentions anything about abortion. It does bring up an interesting point in the process. The first ammendment of the American Bill of Rights protects the freedom of religion, thus providing a legal definition of when "life" occurs and making abortion prior to that point would be restricting the religious freedoms of others because it is creating morality where morality is unclear and different according to different religions and beliefs. --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

I see a logical problem with what appears to be a an attempt to link abortion to a number of health problems. Opposition to abortion is not based on the notion of risks to the mother, it is based on the risk to the fetus. There is a 100% chance of fetal death. If studies showed conclusively that say: Abortion had no effect on cancer risk and Early term abortion was safer for the mother than full term delivery (Which it is), pretty much all the people who oppose abortion now would still oppose abortion, because of the fetal death issue.

--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: The logical flaw is yours. The link between abortion and breast cancer should be disclosed to the mother regardless of one's views on abortion. It is the abortion industry and its allies and recipients of federal funding who have a motivation to cover up this link, which cannot seriously be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Any doctor should disclose all known risks and benefits for any procedure, and my comment did not seek to dispute the existence of a link. I am not a doctor/cancer researcher and would not pretend to know about that. But the problem is that if it could be shown that an abortion presented lower overall risk, making the choice to abort based on that would still be the height of selfishness and would in my view be immoral. What I am saying is that if you frame an argument against abortion around the relative risks/benefits to the mother you are positioning the debate in some dangerous and territory. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people who seek abortions do so because they feel that they are too poor, too busy or otherwise unable to care for the child and maintain their current standard of living. From a certain point of view they may be correct. That still makes the choice a very selfish and immoral one, and as such thinking about the issue from a risk reward point of view if flawed, some people will always come out on the side of abortion. Essentially the way to frame this is: the doctor has two patients, the mother and the fetus. The principal of "first do no harm" implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Consider to include in "See also" section==

I just created an article on the [[National Right to Life Committee]], it might be good to add this to the "see also" section in this article. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion in minnesota ==

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf 14,065 abortions in Minnesota in 2006 according to Minnesota Department of Health. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 22:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks. I just added it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Thanks. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:23, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Health risks ==

The section headed ''health risks'' should start out with the fact that abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child (except when the child survives, which is even more gruesome). [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I added it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== China ==

I think a new section would be justified talking about the use of forced abortion as a population control tool. I personally know somebody who took part in round-ups of women for forced abortion and have personally seen family planning officials stationed outside a block of flats in order to coerce a women hiding in one of the flats to go and have an abortion. Here's my suggestion. Perhaps others could add some improvements

== Forced Abortion as a Family Planning Enforcement Tool ==

Abortion is not only legal up to full term in the [[Peoples Republic of China]] but is frequently used both as a method of [[birth control]] and an instrument of enforcement of that country's [[one-child policy]], despite official protestations to the contrary.

From the introduction of the [[family planning]] policy in the 1970's until the early 21st century, coerced or forced abortion was used as an instrument of enforcement against women who violated the one child rule. Local officials are held responsible for meeting birth targets in their areas and are usually the ones invovled in such action. In rural areas, teams would be sent out to villages to round up pregnant women without birth permits and take them to a hospital where they would be forced to have abortions. In urban areas, if a pregnant woman was discovered in hiding without a birth permit, the local family planning office would have people stationed by the entrance to the block until the woman either agreed to abort the baby or was forcibly taken.

Despite the use of forced abortion being outlawed by the central government, the practice has persisted in some areas, most notably, [[Linyi]], [[Shandong]] Province, where it was exposed to [[''Time'']] magazine by blind [[activist]] [[Chen Guangcheng]] in 2005. As a result of his expose of Linyi officials, Chen was sentenced to four years and three months prison for "intentionally damaging property" and "organising a crowd to disturb traffic" after a [[show trial]] in August 2006.
[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocrisy==
How can conservapedia devote an entire article to bias in wikipedia, and then vomit out a bias-ridden article like this mess? It's the same with other articles on atheism, homosexuality, Islam and other anti-Conservative topics. An encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral - this isn't neutral it is republican party propaganda. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 16:12, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: No, this isn't republican party propaganda; the GOP isn't this extremist! Seriously, this is more of an essay or blog than an encyclopedia article. [[User:Gootbean|Gootbean]] 16:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:: One comment above uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "hypocrisy"; the other uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "extremist"! Check out [[liberal style]] and see yourselves in the mirror.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I kind of wonder about their use of the word "extremists" on us. We're not the ones killing children here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:22, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::: Right. Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream! Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of [[liberals]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::::I do have to say that this article has issues. It is currently a piece of propaganda, not a good encyclopedia article. This all should be mentioned, sure (the idea of Conservapedia is to avoid the censorship so common to such causes), but if we want to create an encyclopdia people can come to an read (not read a political treatise), we should fix this up. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 19:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I find it odd that you just have come to Conservapedia, and seconds later you begin lecturing sysops about the ideals of Conservapedia. I would tread lightly, because your motivations seem questionable at best. If you are here to edit fine, but if you are here, as I suspect, to stir up trouble, then please feel free to leave. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 19:24, 3 January 2008 (EST)

==Picture==
Is the picture of the unborn fetus really an integral part of this article? Because I can see it being used as ammo by PETA loons bent on trying to stick cute pictures of cows into the [[hamburger]] and [[beef]] articles. "Give a man an inch..." -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 14:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)

: That's your sole contribution to this encyclopedia. How about doing yourself a favor, and [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|opening your mind]] a bit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::I made a suggestion about how to close a potential loophole, which people here are free to either take up or pass over, but I would appreciate it if others would consider things on merit, and not resort to roundabout, ad hominem jabs. -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 18:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]] ==

Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]]; I cannot do it because [[Abortion]] is locked. [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:Also, let's just unlock this article. What fun is it if I cannot edit [[abortion]], [[evolution]], and [[gun control]]? StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::Are you serious? Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:59, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::Which says a lot about public opinion regarding Conservapedia - they're not stupid enough to take this page seriously. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 14:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Do you equate the acts of a few vandals with public opinion..? --[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::::"'''Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.'''" Think about the contributions conservapedia looses with these draconian measures (such as mine due to night time restrictions). StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: Stephen: "loses" is with only one "o". Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Stephen it's not as though a bunch of sysops just decided one day, "Eh, it would be really awesome if we just pissed people off by not letting them edit certain articles or at certain times!" Certain articles get lots of vandalism - which is why they are locked - all wikis do this. I'm not even going to respond to your reference to night editing as this page is not the place to vent your general frustration)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:56, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Hippocrates' Oath==

I suggest a reference to the oath in the second sentence of the article; not because it's at all contested, but simply in order to demonstrate clearly how it is "expressly prohibited". I would suggest the following:

<nowiki><ref>"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."</ref></nowiki>

I would add it myself instead of pestering here, but... the article is unfortunately still locked... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)

== Proofedit at Legal History of Abortion in the United States ==

Since the article is locked, I cannot make this change. (Not complaining about the block, as its need is obvious.) There are 2 or 3 extraneous spaces between the [3] footnote and the following period. On my browser, this happens to hit right at the beginning of a line and looks very odd. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Sunday

2008-01-23T18:56:52Z

Boomcoach: Source of name

==Origin==
I don't have time to look this up right now, but I thought that Sunday and Monday are also from the Norse gods, Sunne (god of the sun, and IIRC, source of our word "sun", as oppsed to the Latin Sol), and Mani (god of the Moon). Saturday is the only day to still have its roots in the Roman names, named for Saturn, a Roman god. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal supremacist

2008-01-23T18:48:56Z

Boomcoach:

Talk:Mardi Gras

2007-12-19T20:59:49Z

Boomcoach: Questioning redirect direction

Why the redirect to Mardi Gras? This is the proper English term for the event. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:You're absolutely right. I'll fix that. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]] 22:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Since "Mardi Gras" is the name it is far better known as, I would think it would make more sense to have the main page be Mardi Gras, even if that is the name in French. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 15:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Obstruction of justice

2007-12-19T20:02:53Z

Boomcoach: Category

An attempt to interfere with the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers, including threatening witnesses, improper conversations with jurors, hiding evidence, or interfering with an arrest. Such activity is a crime.<ref>[http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/obstruction+of+justice The Free Legal Dictionary]</ref>

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Crimes]]

Obstruction of justice

2007-12-19T20:01:07Z

Boomcoach: Fix reference link

Obstruction of justice

2007-12-19T19:58:49Z

Boomcoach: Add reference section

Obstruction of justice

2007-12-19T19:56:42Z

Boomcoach: New page

An attempt to interfere with the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers, including threatening witnesses, improper conversations with jurors, hiding evidence, or interfering with an arrest. Such activity is a crime.<ref>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/obstruction+of+justice The Free Legal Dictionary</ref>

Watergate

2007-12-19T19:52:18Z

Boomcoach: Move period outside of red link

The '''Watergate Affair''' was a political scandal leading to [[President of the United States|President]] [[Richard Nixon|Richard M. Nixon's]] resignation. It began when members of the campaign to reelect Richard Nixon broke into the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] National Committee headquarters in the [[Watergate Hotel]] during the 1972 presidential election campaign. Nixon had no prior knowledge of the burglary plans, nor gave consent to the escapade, yet his loyalty to subordinates led to Nixon consenting to cover up activities and transferring money from the Presidential election campaign fund to pay for the legal defense of those who were involved. Nixon resigned when it became clear he had lost support within his own party and [[Congress]] was likely to [[impeach]] him for [[obstruction of justice]].

==The Watergate Break-In==
On June 17, 1972, five men were caught breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate complex in [[Washington, D.C.]] The burglars included [[James W. McCord]], a former [[CIA]] employee, and several [[Cuba|Cuban]] expatriates with ties to the CIA. The subsequent investigation of the break-in revealed that the intruders were acting on behalf of the [[Committee to Reelect the President]] (also known as CRP or CREEP). They, along with accomplices [[E. Howard Hunt]] and [[G. Gordon Liddy]], were convicted of burglary and wiretapping in Jan. 1973.

==From Burglary to Political Scandal==
Evidence that emerged at the burglary trial suggested that the break-in had the approval of higher-level government officials who were attempting to cover up their involvement. This possibility was aggressively pursued by investigative reporters in the print [[media]], with [[Washington Post]] reporters [[Carl Bernstein]] and [[Bob Woodward]] playing particularly critical roles. Woodward and Bernstein, as well as others, discovered evidence that the break-in was only part of a wider effort of political "dirty tricks" designed to discredit Democratic candidates. They also uncovered the existence of a secret [[slush fund]] used to finance these activities<ref>Bernstein, Carl and Woodward, Bob. ''All The President's Men''</ref>.

==Senate Investigation==
In April 1973, with a [[Senate]] investigation underway, several top Nixon aides, including [[H. R. Haldeman]] and [[John D. Ehrlichman]], resigned over the scandal, and White House counsel John Dean III was fired. Dean subsequently testified during televised hearings beginning in May, exposing Nixon's participation in the Watergate cover-up and massive illegalities in Republican fundraising in 1972.

The hearings also revealed that since 1971 Nixon had recorded conversations and telephone calls in his office. The president, however, refused to turn the tapes over to the Senate Watergate committee, citing executive privilege. In Oct. 1973 Nixon ordered [[Elliot Richardson]], the attorney general, to fire [[Archibald Cox]], the special prosecutor who had subpoenaed the tapes, but Richardson chose to resign instead. Richardson's assistant, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was himself fired. Finally, it was the solicitor general, Robert Bork, who fired Cox. The incident, which became known as the "[[Saturday Night Massacre]]," led to widespread calls for Nixon's [[impeach|impeachment]].

The White House released edited transcripts of the tapes in April 1974, and eventually the tapes themselves, after the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim to executive privilege. But the damage was done; President Nixon's behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—and the erosion of the public's confidence in his administration, led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power.

"In all of this," the articles of impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." Impeachment appeared inevitable, and Nixon resigned on [[Aug. 9, 1974]].

Nixon was succeeded in office the same day by [[Vice President]] [[Gerald R. Ford]], who a month later issued a full pardon to Nixon for any crimes he might have committed in office, thus eliminating the possibility of future prosecution. A number of other administration officials served time in prison for their offenses, including former attorney general John Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Dean, and [[G. Gordon Liddy]], a former FBI agent who helped plan the Watergate break-in.

==The Tapes==
Nixon was caught by a recording system whose installation he had himself ordered. It transpired during the course of the investigation that all conversations in the President's office had been secretly recorded for years, as an historical record.<ref>Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson also made secret recordings: [http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK+Library+and+Museum/News+and+Press/JFK+Library+and+Museum+to+Host+Presidential+Tapes+Conference+in+February.htm JFK Library and Museum to Host Presidential Tapes Conference], JFK Library, February, 2003</ref> During the investigation the White House was forced to release transcripts of Watergate-related tapes. These transcripts showed that at the very least Nixon was participating in near-daily, ongoing discussions of how to manage the spreading Watergate scandal. Many dubious actions, such as the payment of "hush money" to the defendants, were openly discussed and, seemingly, considered.

Tension was heightened when a tape with a key conversation, recorded a week after the burglary, turned out to have an eighteen-minute gap. To date the gap has not been explained, nor has anyone managed to recover the erased material. White House chief Alexander Haig provoked derision by a suggestion that the erasure had been caused by "some sinister force." Nixon's secretary Rose Mary Woods told the press that she could have erased the tape by accident while talking on the phone; when the press asked her to demonstrate, it became clear that this explanation was literally a long stretch.<ref>[http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page=a&zoom=2 Rosemary Woods demonstrating how she may have erased tape recordings].</ref> Later analysis by acoustics firm Bolt, Baranek and Newman concluded that the gap was the result of at least five separate erasures; since the tape recorder had a two-button interlock to prevent accidental erasure, the conclusion was that it must have been a deliberate action.<ref>[http://foi.missouri.edu/destructiondocs/natarchives.html National Archives Has Given Up on Filling the Nixon Tape Gap], New York Times, 2003</ref> If the conversation had involved Watergate, then it might have proved that Nixon learned of the burglary earlier than he had admitted.

==David Frost interview==
In 1977, Nixon had an interview with British journalist David Frost. The event is recounted in Peter Morgan's play [[Frost/Nixon]]

==Notes and references==
<references/>

==See also==

*[[Carl Bernstein]]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2007-12-19T19:47:09Z

Boomcoach: /* Possibly */

{{debate-project}}

==With Unique Style, Conservative Cooperation and Majority Religion Rule==

I believe that Conservapedia has an important task. I am also convinced that if Conservapedia can get past its Wikitrauma (I too left Wikipedia)and develop its own intelligent identity and be FOR something unique and positive it will succeed. Let me go into detail. I would like to share an important vision as to what Conservapedia could be, what niche it could fill in today's world.

Firstly, in many modern societies today people are being divided into at least two camps- those who have some kind of strong ethic (be it religiously oriented or simply the strong voice of an internal "parent") and those without a strong ethic and often without any notable self-discipline. Those who tend to strive toward the honourable, the good, the respectful and the decent or ethical need to be able to find information which helps them to do this. And they need to find other like-minded people to share ideas with. In essence, the particular religion (or lack thereof) is not a major issue here. That those who are conservative and who support conservative ideals tend to have a strong sense of order, decency and self-discipline is more than just a curiosity; it is the very force or common denominator which will ultimately unite a Conservapedia community.

Secondly, like any country, Conservapedia must adopt a policy for freedom of religion. I have often posited that our current system of freedom of religion collapses in like a house of cards on its own absurdity. Attempting to accomodate all religions in absurdum does not work. There is another model which may be more realistic and still allow everyone the right to basic freedom to believe and worship as they choose. There must be a host religion or primary religion and guest religions or secondary religions. Here in Conservapedia, the host religion is Christianity. It is, from what I can tell, the majority religion. That religion sets the tone and has the final say about the general identity of Conservapedia. Where there is a rare conflict of interest between my secondary religion and the primary religion, the interests of my religion (excluding my right to practise my own religion personally) give way to the interests of the primary religion.

This has implications for articles on various religions here in Conservapedia. I propose that when we write an article about a religion, that any controversies or criticisms be included in a separate article, always outside of the main descriptive article about the religion in question. In the case of the ongoing LDS articles (I write this because there was a request for a polygamy article in connection with the LDS articles), there would be an LDS portal with the regular article about the religion and its founder and notable persons. Then any controversy about the religion would be put into a separate article entitled "Criticisms of the LDS faith". If there is a controvery with Joseph Smith (for instance) then it would either be a separate article or located toward the end of the main article in a section called "Controversy". The point of departure should be: "If a member of that religion were to seek information about his or her own religion from Conservapedia, what would their experience be?". The person could choose from the articles in the portal and would be able to readily identify articles in which their religion is criticized from the vantage point of mainstream Christianity which also has a right on Conservapedia to criticize.

Thirdly, we should have something physically unique to offer readers. This would include, in my opinion, an easy to read style or format that is different from Wikipedia, whether it be simpler structure for articles, fonts and colours that are easier on the eye, logical structure of articles which is psychologically proven to enhance the reading experience and learning. By developing logical and intelligent rules and styles and by providing a reading experience that is more organized and simple than Wikipedia, I believe we could create an important advantage.

Fourthly, conservative cooperation is the only factor that will keep Conservapedia afloat. I can presently identify the following major client groups which (if we can get along) would push Conservapedia into the future: educated mainstream Christians, LDS (mormons), politically conservative Jews, secular classical conservatives. If we can make the "qualified freedom of religion" I write of above work, I think we will have a firm base to build upon in this conservative cooperation. And the more cooperation there is, the better the content and the wider use of that content among the various communities who trust Conservapedia.

Let me throw in another idea, before I stop. Conservapedia is about learning and it is about the wholesome and trustworthy. Libraries, including the Library of Congress and media such as the Christian networks and BYU TV would be easily attracted by special projects presented now and then by Conservapedia. One such project could be a Veterans' Biographical Memory portal of articles on Conservapedia. Another would be a Head Start in Ethical Learning portal of articles about child rearing and teaching ethics as early as possible. This information in simple form would surely be invaluable to many parents in today's society. Each of these projects would increase both the publicity and relevance of Conservapedia.

Most of us have left the Wikipedia community, because we do not share the values of many Wikipedians. We are a people of strong ethics, a people who strive torward the decent, the noble, the wholesome and respectable. That is a remarkable strength, in my opinion. Let's turn our glance aware from Wikipedia and toward a future where we have something to offer which is uniquely ours and badly needed in today's world. --ExFin 17:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Possibly ==

I'm new to Conservapedia. From my perspective, too much time is spent at present debating the "controversial" articles (Creationism, Abortion, etc) and too little time is spent making a great number of the more mundane articles authoritative. I've flicked through 20-30 articles (free time can be a good thing!) using the Random Page function and it saddened me that many of them are one or two lines long with no proper references or citations. What use is any encyclopedia if it goes out of its way to offer a particular perspective at the expense of containing good factual articles about, well, everything that might be useful to the home schooled or the intellectually curious?

I'd like to see something like this succeed - from an educational perspective it would be a credit to all involved. But, in my opinion, unless time and effort are spent on ALL articles, not just the emotive ones, it will never be functional in the way it deserves to be.

I've made a few scattergun edits so far (mythology and random trivia are my strong points) but there are a whole host of topics that should be informative that clearly no real time has been spent on.

I'll judge Conservapedia to be a success when I see people linking to articles as a source of facts about, well, anything and everything. Whilst people are only interested in certain controversial topics, it will only ever be a limited viewpoint, not an encyclopedia.

Let's face it, people should be able to look at this site as having well written articles on, oh, I don't know (thinks of random things), hamsters, walnut trees and the production of rubber byproducts, not just a select few articles relating to purely Conservative interests. Otherwise, it's not an encyclopedia, it's purely propaganda. Of which the internet already has plenty...--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 19:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll accept your well-phrased challenge. I've noticed the stub problem myself.
:As far as I know, the only forbidden subjects on Conservapedia are those that might primarily appeal to a prurient interest--about which, I trust nothing further need be said.
:What sort of mythology are you strong in? Classical? Nordic? Chinese?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say my main strengths are in Classical mythology in addition to the myths and folklore of the British Isles. That's what you get growing up in what is historically known as "the witches county" - some fascinating history there. And yes, I'd like to start filling out more of the "stub" articles as I come across them. The Random Page function is a real bonus. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 20:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Conservapedia's main challenge is reaching critical mass. Pick a topic at random, and in nearly all cases, ''CP will not have any information about it.'' That just sends people elsewhere. Wikipedia certainly had the same problem at first, but had the advantage of attracting academics of all kinds with a devotion to its mission: ''open-source information''. They didn't care about this religion or that political philosophy, they just believed in an idea that inherently bred content (most of it factual... let's be honest: a WP article about, say, [[fruit bat]]s will in fact tell you what they look like, where they live, etc). CP's (nonexisting) article... doesn't. If I were setting out to create something like Wikipedia, but with a conservative agenda to it, I'd start by taking advantage of what all those Wikipedians hath wrought. I'd copy the whole thing (as allowed by the GFDL), ''fork'' it, and get rid of all the things that are anathema to what CP is trying accomplish. Delete the sex info, excise the liberal perspective, add the ministry that WP won't allow, etc. and present the result as an example of what WP would be if a conservative POV could be enforced. Yes, that would require keeping CP licensed under the GFDL, which would make the information in it available to others to copy... but what would be the harm in that? Wouldn't you like to see Answers.com mirroring CP articles instead of WP articles? Some might argue that the content in WP could never be redeemed... but that's what a certain Adversary once said to the Creator, the Messiah, and the Redeemeer about mankind. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 23:48, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have questioned in the past, and still question, the emphasis on "concise". The debates over "liberal" and "conservative" really hit a very small area of what an encyclopedia should cover. I question the political slant pushed on those areas, but I readily acknowledge my own bias in that area. Even if I was a YECist, and a fundamentalist Christian, plus a die-hard conservative, I would not be using Conservapedia to find actual information, I would be using Wikipedia. I use WP in a sensible way, i.e. I realize its flaws and take its entries with a degree of wariness, but I use the same techniques with the Britannica or any other encyclopedia.

:::What WP provides, and CP currently does not, is in-depth coverage of a broad range of topics. In the past couple of years I have used WP to find out more about: differences between Rugby League and Rugby Union; rules of Australian Rules Football; how to create a proxy.pac file; background on the Roman general Belisarius and the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus; discography of Deep Purple; horror films of Universal and Hammer studios. These were all topics in which I had a surface knowledge, but wanted to know more.

:::If CP continues a focus on "concise", it will never be a place where I would look up information on the above topics, as I already have a level of knowledge of them that CP would provide. I want depth. Number of topics is very much related to the "critical mass" idea that JasonAQuest mentioned above, but depth of topic requires a change in focus. Until then, CP will remain a YEC/Homeschool/Christian Conservative blog, with a desk encyclopedia attached. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 09:54, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::All of that is indeed the difference between WP, and CP. However, CP is targetting something other than "expansive knowledge" about things like Pop Culture, and such. For instance, never expect to see an article on "Insane Clown Possé" on this site... it just would not fit the requirement to stay and always remain family-friendly. This naturally limits the topics that could be covered by CP, but not a real concern, as CP isn't about covering them. CP, as I see it, is not really intended to supply ''deep'' knowledge, but rather simply surface knowledge, unless the issue is, for instance, about something of great importance to conservative teachers, or students. They will expound upon the information, and create more detail about the topics that conservatives support, rather than anything and just about everything that the anarchic mob at Wikipedia covers. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::::What of the items that I mentioned looking up, with the possible exeption of Deep Purple, would be inappropriate topics for CP? I am not arguing the number of topics covered by CP, I am talking about the depth of information. So far, in bouncing around CP for a while, I have come across few articles that had more depth than I would have known on my own. Some, perhaps, in areas that I am less aware of, but even in those, the amount of information isn't enough to be satisfying. If I actually want to know something abouta subject, and am going to look it up, I am rarely going to be happy with one or two paragraphs. You talk of "surface knowledge", if that is the case, then who, outside of elementary or junior high age people are going to use it for information? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== No ==
Of course not! Anyone who thinks it will is either a paranoid naive liberal or one of the kooky creationists writeing the handful of articles posted in this project. -- [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 10:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Because it is quite frankly turning out to be just as liberal as Wikipedia. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 14:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
: I will agree with this because it appears the editing process seems to be slanted towards removing anything that could be considered part of the conservative ideology. Perhaps this could be an effort by liberal subjugators to undermine the integrity of what is supposed to be a conservative knowledge base. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]]
: No it is not as liberal as Wiki yet. ALL Wiki articals are up for editing while Conservapedia has blocked some of the most highly debated ones --[[Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:32 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

::And as we all know, the best way to promote accuracy of information is to completely block all alternate thinking on any given subject. Conservapedia has already failed because in many cases it has allowed ideology to trump all other considerations. Apparantly to be a Conservapedia conservative you must be ethnocentric, Christian, and a YEC. Those of us who don't fit this mold are suspect. Wikipedia may have its own issues, but it has a far more effective dispute resolution system than Conservapedia, and the existence of many voices does tend to move towards an NPOV in many cases. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 14:10, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
---------------
No. Not until you reject NeoCon Republicanism and adopt the ideals of Pat Buchanan. He is the real Conservative. Not a group of men packaged and delivered by Carl Rove.

Hopefully not. Wouldn't it be better if there was a source of information that didn't have any bias? Instead of putting together conservative biased information, how about putting together FACTUAL information?{{Unsigned|Gasmonkey}}

No.

== ????? ==
What is Conservapedia's goal exactly? I think it will fail as a replacement to Wikipedia, but it is a nice place to hang out communicate to other people, and have debates like this one.

Double Edge

:I'm unsure of Conservapedia's mission. I don't think the person/people who govern it have actually focussed on one.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by downplaying its identity as "Conservative alternative to Wikipedia" and by seriously trying to become a useful information resource for a teenaged audience and for Christian homeschoolers.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by trying to become a serious, factual encyclopedia whose policies and governance are tweaked just enough to give it a somewhat different emphasis from Wikipedia. My model for this is the Christian Science Monitor in the days when it was a serious, first-rate daily newspaper. It was respected by everyone as serious journalism, was widely read by people who were not Christian Scientists, and was aligned with the Christian Science church without pushing in-your-face, over-the-top Christian Science spin in every article one every page. I think this ''might'' be what Aschlafly wants. I don't give it much chance of getting there. It took Wikipedia about three years to become credible, and I think it pretty much dominates the ecological niche for volunteer-created encyclopedias.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by become a repository for articles that do not even pretend to be serious information resources, but self-celebratory exercises in anti-liberal rhetoric. Not the George WIll of encyclopedias, but the Ann Coulter of encyclopedias. Conservatives would come to it, not for information, but to experience the reassurance of being in among their own mob. It can probably exist indefinitely as a web forum billing itself an encyclopedia, but which nobody takes seriously as an encyclopedia. And there is of course endless fascination to be had trying to figure out of the edits presenting the most extreme points of view are mocking pranks, and which are sincere.

:I do ask Conservapedians to entertain the following question: would they allow teenaged children to use Conservapedia as a schoolwork resource? Now? Ever? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::To add to this, and I surely hope someone checks this page because I'm not getting a response elsewhere, I see this particular phrase or a variation of it repeated fairly often:

<blockquote>Ah, but there's a key flaw in your comparison, isn't there? '''We disclose our point-of-view, while Wikipedia denies it.''' We're not trying to fool anyone. We give the reader the information, and we let the reader decide. Wikipedia, while pretending to be neutral, is actually far more liberal than the American public and its bias results in censorship of vast amounts of information that readers would like to evaluate for themselves, such as biblical authorities.--Aschlafly 23:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Pro-Christian.3F] (emphasis added)</blockquote>

::But Conservapedia doesn't disclose its POV. It is called "Conservapedia" and it says on the main page that we "we give full credit to Christianity and America" but that surely does not adequately describe our POV. I see lots of logos on the main page with a cross as a significant focus... is this a Christian encyclopedia? Is this an American encyclopedia? What, exactly, is the POV of Conservapedia? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

"What is Conservapedia's goal exactly?" It's clearly and openly an attempt to supplant Wikipedia with an encyclopedia more palatable to American conservatives, and its bias reflects this. Wikipedia is more suitable for people who - irrespective of their personal politics - understand that the world does not end at the US border. Imitation is, of course, still the sincerest form of flattery. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 14:59, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==
Yes, it can succeed, and it will. Ironically, the (ahem) user who fired the opening shot (see "No" below) suggested the obvious thing: Disable automatic registration and have people register by invitation and application.

[[CreationWiki]] does the same thing. They've set up a special "informational" e-mail account and published its address on their Main Page. Anyone wishing to register as an editor must ''apply'' for the job either to info@creationwiki.org or directly to its founder, Christopher W. Ashcraft of the Northwest Creation Network. The results have been very good, if I do say so myself (as an editor of CreationWiki as well as an editor here).

Much of BPearl's opening statement is a rant against conservatism generally, and also a contradiction: he maintains that conservatives argue with reality, and then proposes that reality is arrived at by consensus. Sorry, but that's a [[non sequitur]]. Of course, liberals always want to deny absolute truth (which is not a trademark, by the way) because their reality is only what feels like a good idea at any given time.

The rest of it is, frankly, a threat: that vandalism will continue unless we--what--shut down? Trust a liberal to write a claim-of-responsibility and an ultimatum that tries to pretend that it's neither. Your average front-liner in [[Al-Qa'ida]] would guffaw.

I make two recommendations to the Bureaucrats and the Sysops:
# Make registration by invitation and application. Disable automatic registration entirely, and publish contact e-mails on the Main Page, or a page that links directly to it, so that people can apply.
# Recruit in more home-school groups, Christian schools, and other private schools.

This place needs a lot of expansion--and also a firm editorial policy that recognizes that certain (ahem) people are never going to appreciate what we have to offer, because they can't even agree with us on what is real and what is unreal. Why, some of them wouldn't even agree that grass was green until they put it to a vote--and then they'd want a stipulation about whether the word ''grass'' properly referred only to fescue. St. Augustine, and other traditional lawn grasses, or whether it could refer also to ''Cannabis sativa''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:CreationWiki isn't a serious source of information beyond case studies in logical fallacies and it's peculiar brand of paganism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Has CreationWiki "succeeded?" At what? In terms of press mentions and Alexa rank, it could be argued that Conservapedia is, at the moment, more successful than CreationWiki. (Incidentally, do people have any theories about the apparent spike in activity that Alexa shows for CreationWiki around the beginning of March?[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=www.creationwiki.org&url=www.creationwiki.org]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:45, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== No: ==

Why Conservapedia is Doomed

Ok, first off, full disclosure: I'm a self-declared Liberal. And I have to say that this site manages to some of my worst stereotypes about Conservatives: A bunch of paranoid control-freaks desperately afraid of (in no particular order) Communists, Satan, Terrorists, Liberals, and their own genitals. And this site is exactly what I expected when I first heard about it: a poorly done effort to create an entire alternate reality out of HTML in an attempt to escape the utter hash you (and the clowns you've elected) have made of the REAL world.

Now, assuming any of you made it this far without hitting the 'delete' button, let me explain why.

The central problem with this site is that it wants to be Wikipedia without any of the things that make Wikipedia WORK: most notably, tolerance for dissenting opinions, allowing half-baked articles to sit around until someone comes along and elaborates on them, and a willingness to let people post on topics that may seem irrelevant to The Cause (because Wikipedia doesn't have a Cause--you do). The syspos here are far too trigger-happy, with the obvious chilling effect this has on posters--who wants to spend a half-hour writing an article if there's a good chance a sysop will revert it or delete it for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct"?

To me, this looks like a textbook example of the difference between the "Liberal" view, which tries to include as many conflicting viewpoints as possible, as opposed to your apparent desire to find the Truth(tm) ONCE, and then crush any False Opinions that might contaminate it.

As long as you keep thinking like that, this site can't possibly survive. You are going to be flooded by people:

* Bored teenagers, pranksters and other vandals
* Well-meaning Liberals (and Moderates, and Reality-Based Conservatives, and Off-the-Mappers) trying to clear a few spoonfuls of what looks to them like a vast ocean of misinformation
* Irritated Liberals intentionally making you look bad
* Scary beady-eyed fanatical True Believers unintentionally making you look bad

These problems are not going to go away, unless you give up on letting new people register altogether, which will make this site stagnate and rot.

The other big problem is that you perceive "Liberal Bias" where the problem is that as of late, the Conservative Movement in the USA seems to have a marked anti-Reality bias.
[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html I miss Republicans]

Well, I hope whichever sysop deletes this at least reads through it, and gets SOMETHING out of it and gets something out of it besides "Blah blah blah I hate Jesus and America". If you can manage that much, I'll call it a win for both of us. (Forgive me for so drastically underestimating your intelligence, but I accidentally glanced at Ann Coulter's column recently.) --[[User:BPearl|BPearl]] 06:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Spot on, this could not have been said any more clearly. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 07:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is quite a strange concept. The truth is not something that can be saved by ruling out opinions that don't fit into ones concept of reality. It's rather the other way 'round: by ruling out other opinions you can be quite sure you rule out quite a lot of truth. History has shown that many concepts, such as the shape of the earth or the existence of wiches, promoted by religious leaders, had to be revised after being proven false. It took a lot of couragious men and women to challenge widely accepted delusions and replace them with theories based upon facts rather than belief. These challenges are the hart that pumps the blood of truth and wisdom. Ruling out such challenges will keep this project ignorant. It therefore can never be an instrument of exploiting free will, it will be - or at least appear to be - an instrument of intellectual repression. Now, apart from those who wish to remain ignorant, who wants to put his beliefs into such an institute? Mankind will never know the full truth about everything, we will only be able to find little pieces of the Big Puzzle and put them together into a forever changing concept of what truth really is. It's that proces that keep our brains from getting knumb. I don't believe in god, and it is amazing how many people fall from belief when they exploit their natural curiosity. I wish the world will one day be free of religion. Where god begins, thinking ends. An encyclopedia based on the contibutions of those who trade their mental skills for religious ignorance can never be of any value, other than to those who contribute themselves. So maybe Conservapedia cán succeed after all, but only as a database of delusions. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 00:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[Logical fallacy#Conflation|Conflation]], must we? Are you, in short, comparing [[creationism]] to the sad misapprehensions about [[witchcraft]] in [[Salem, Massachusetts]]? Or perhaps you are trying to suggest that [[John T. Scopes]] was a man of courage. He was not, sir. That trial was rigged. [[William Jennings Bryan]] simply did not know what kind of wily confidence trickster he faced in [[Clarence Darrow]]. Then again, I am not an attorney; I'll let [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] talk about lawyers, and what sort of lawyer Clarence Darrow was.

::::Likewise, I'll let Andrew speak for himself. For my part, I want to this project to be ''correct,'' and by that I do not mean [[political correctness|politically correct]]. Beyond a certain point, you have to accept the plain fact that two plus two make four--not five!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am not going to look up all the persons and events you mentioned. No need to since you don't reply to the argument that someone who creates his own truth can't be taken serious. I have made the equasion, and when you add it all up, there simply is no god. And the historical lies promoted on this project serve no other purpose than to hide logical fallacies of religion. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 20:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Behold! When I provide references, the determined, inveterate [[Atheism|atheist]] refuses to consider them. Furthermore, you exaggerate greatly my own importance, when you imply that I have somehow created the [[Bible]]. You force me to disclaim that honor, and to remind one and all that only One Person has ever created truth--and that is God, because God ''is'' Truth.

::::::If what you have written is how you believe, then may I ask exactly what, in the name of Clarence Darrow, are you doing here?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You don't provide references, you create a lot of smoke to conceal the fact that you don't (want to?) react on the thesis. I think you are the author of lies within this project and call them truth. I don't think you are the author of the Bible. That book itself was written by many contributors, it was not created by god. I am here to asses the importance of this project. I am satisfied. It is quite harmless. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 06:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Again you exaggerate my particular importance. I am merely one of many editors here. I am not an administrator. But while we're on the subject, I answer ''only'' to administrators. If you have a complaint against me, then I suggest that you address yourself to one of them. You can take it to [[User talk:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]] himself, if you so desire. He will, of course, ask ''you'' to cite ''your'' references that say, or imply, that any contribution of mine has been a lie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
=== The Annals of the World ===
You wrote: ''It (The Annals of the World). would make a valuable addition to any school or home-schooler's library, for its comprehensive treatment of ancient history alone''. Now this is clearly a lie, since it can't be of value as it's treatment of ancient history obviously is a fraud. But don't worry, I will not complain about you. This site doesn't need me and I don't need this site. Cheer up TerryH, I don't hold you personally responsible for accidently ruining lives, just your kind. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 05:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nice to see that you keep up with the [[Special:Recent changes|recent changes]]. So you saw my article on [[The Annals of the World]]. Too bad no one invented an emoticon for taking a bow (and I don't think MediaWiki software has any emoticon routines, anyway).
:Now I have a few nits to pick with Ussher on the length of the Sojourn in [[Egypt]], and the birthday of [[Abraham]], and certainly his treatment of [[Egyptian chronology]] must fall to more recent research by someone who knows what to look for. But in all fairness to Ussher, if he were alive today, then he wouldn't make that mistake with Egyptian chronology.
:For his treatment of very ancient (pre-Olympiad) Greek history, he relies on others who have attempted the same thing.
:But where has he ''invented'' history that did not occur? Where is the "fraud" of which you accuse him?
:If you want to talk about fraud, then we can talk about [[Piltdown Man]], [[Peking Man]], [[Archaeoraptor]], and the [[Ernst Haeckel]] embryo drawings--all of which are frauds, and everybody except the authors of biology textbooks has always known this. Now why, you ask, is this relevant to a discussion of ''The Annals''? Simply because I know your real claim against ''The Annals'': that it posits a history of the earth that is not much longer than six thousand years, and [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] requires a time frame that is far greater.
:And if you want to talk about the ruination of lives, you have that backwards. [[Atheism]] and [[Theory of evolution|evolutionism]] have been the chief ruiners of lives here, not [[Christianity]] and [[creationism]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, let's talk about the Piltsown Man. Now that was a case of serious fraud. Mr. Dawson really tried to convince the world that the bones he found were 500 thousand years old. It was quite a shock when it came out they were only 50 thousand years old.
::I've never seen an emoticon for taking a bow. And I can't see why you would want to take a bow for me, all I did was looking up a relevant reference, just like I always do. How could I make a statement so pronounced without checking whether there is scientific evidence supporting it? I can't ask you to take notice of something I only believe.
::I fail to see how Atheism and evolutionism ruin lives whereas I only have to take a look in the newspaper to read how the first man of the catholic church helps spreading AIDS. How the first man of the United States of America continues a bloody war in the name of (his) god. Anyone, Anyone who puts his faith in a god fails to take proper responsability for his own live and acts at some point.
::On the other hand I know that many believers live a healthier live when it concerns their body. There are less smokers and heavy drinkers among believers, most likely they feel that their life is ''borrowed'' in a way, they take good care of what they believe is not theirs. (For arguments sake I don't consider the many soldiers who don't hesitate to take someone elses life in name of god).
::Haeckel was a crook too. A nice bunch of cons you have dug up. Though Haeckel was a crook only for exaggerating rather then forging.
::Well, time's up. Nice talking with you again. Cheerio. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 13:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

No. Conservapedia will not succeed. Why? Not only are the 'commandments' biased (which you might expect, given the name of the site), but the sysops sometimes bias that even more by breaking those commandments, or not enforcing them, to bias pages even more towards the conservative point of view. As such, I fail to see how this place can possibly succeed when it breaks even it's own rules, when not doing so doesn't fit into it's own little blinkered world view.
[[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Are you serious? Wikipedia breaks its own rules all the time. Self-inconsistency is not damning, it's an inseparable part of humans. This site speaks to a very specific audience, and if you don't agree with the views here, then go, because you're not going to help anything by pushing an agenda. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::My 'agenda' that I am 'pushing' is that, if Conservapedia sees fit to make rules, and go so far as to call them 'commandments', then it should abide by those rules - even when doing so does not agree with the sysops' preconceived notions and ideas. If it fails do so, especally when this happens so flagrantly, it cannot call itself an 'encyclopedia', of any kind, far less 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia'. If Wikipedia has also broken it's own rules (which it may have, but I would have to see this for myself), so what? Never heard the expression, 'two wrongs don't make a right'? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::The statement was made not to state that "two wrongs make a right", but rather that no organization, no group of people, no ''anyone'' will ever not break their own rules. (Except God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they're all infallable perfection.) The idea here is ''not'' to make up rules, and then hit people over the head with it. The idea is to make an encyclopedia with a conservative bias (Conservapedia's undeniably stated goal). Wikipedia breaks its own rules anytime it would make Wikipedia "better", see their article "WP:Ignore all rules" for an example of it being policy. In the same way, if rules need to be broken by the admins and sysops in order to keep Conservapedia conservative, then GOOD! Go do it! The goal is to make the encyclopedia conservative, not to pander to some liberal agenda that Conservapedia needs to be perfect (which it can't be because only God is perfect.) So, seriously. If you're not on the boat then go use Wikipedia, they'll allow you to advance your agenda there. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::Note how I put 'agenda' and 'pushing' in quotes? That's because I have no agenda to push. Only you seem to think I do. You seem to suggest they only break the rules to make this place 'more conservative'. Well, I'll take an example. The page on Jesus. At one point, the page began by stating that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God. It has been changed, more than once, to 'Jesus Christ is the only Son of God' by sysops. That is in clear breach of commandment 5 - 'do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry', as they are deleting the FACT that Christians believe this to be true and replacing it with the OPINION that it is definitely true. This has nothing whatsoever to do with making it more conservative, and everything to do with making it more Christian fundamentalist. Whilst many conservatives are Christian, not all are, and, indeed, most Christians can tell the difference between verifiable fact and something that is opinion - even if it happens to be an opinion they share, and have an unshakeable belief they're right to believe. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Dude, there's a book called "The Bible", and around these parts it's undeniably true. You don't have to say "Christians believe..." because this site has the Bible as an authoritative source. If you can't accept the Bible as a given truth, then you're not going to do well here at all. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::Unless you can provide absolute, conclusive proof that the Bible is true, then stating anything as fact that only has the Bible as a source is opinion, not fact. The Bible MAY be true, it may not be, I don't know - and neither do you. You may fervently believe it's true, but, unless you have verifiable evidence of this, that is only your belief and opinion, not fact. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Also, you're pushing an agenda. That science trumps the truth in the Bible. And you're attempting to push that believe on the viewers and contributors of this site. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:20, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::No, this site is pushing an agenda - that the Bible is true and unquestionable, and dressing that up as 'conservatism'. It's not. It's fundamentalist Christianity. I'm merely pointing out that this is the case. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::So what is conservativism? Most conservatives have a respect for God and religious traditions and acknowledge the role of church in the lives of our founding fathers and through the history of our nation. Remove that from conservativism and it is unclear what is remaining or how unifying it is. Cutting taxes? Generally speaking historically there is a bit more. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Read the page on 'Conservative' on this very site, and you get your answer - 'a conservative is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue.' Incidentally, I note that you say 'most conservatives', not 'all conservatives', so even you must agree that not all conservatives are Christian. Even if they were, not all Christians agree that the Bible is LITERALLY true, like this site seems to think it is - some think some of the things in the Bible are God speaking in simile or metaphor. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 09:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Actually, come to think of it - it is also perfectly possible to have respect for religious traditions and acknowledge the role of the church in the lives of our founding fathers without necessarily following those same traditions for religious reasons or the same religion yourself. Therefore it is perfectly possible to even follow that part of this particular brand of 'conservatism' without being Christian. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 09:31, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I agree. Even for those conservatives who have a deep respect for the Bible and religious tradition, not all will have a personal knowledge of Christianity. But then that shouldn't exactly cause a conflict. I'm not Catholic, but I have helped to organize and put Catholic information into Conservapedia -- and I was pleased to do so. Perhaps you should concentrate on beginning to make useful entries yourself. As it stands now, you are coming across as someone arguing what a conservative is and trying to put a wedge when you yourself only know conservatism by looking at it from a distance as a foreign entity. True? If not, start contributing -- Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 19 December 2007 (EST)

The fact that you reject the Bible as truth, shows that you have no meaningful comment to give on this site... now, if only I could block. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Well, unless this site changes to 'christianfundamentalopedia.com', then the fact I do not accept the Bible as absolute proof without evidence is completely irrelevant, quite frankly. Or should be, anyway. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:49, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::The name of the site is irrelevant. Unless wikipedia changes it's name to "ifyoudontlikesciencegoawayapedia" then Conservapedia would consider changing their name. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you equated my belief or lack of belief in the Bible to my ability to give meaningful comment on this site - which, by it's name, is a 'conservative wikipedia'. For your point to be relevant, this site would need to be a 'Christian fundamentalist wikipedia' instead, and thus should change it's name. So which is it - is it relevant, or not? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 00:01, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:I can block, but we don't do it for debate discussions. It's expected not everyone is going to embrace the overall Conservapedia value structure, and we understand that. We just hope that people can respect our right to exist and present opinions that are generally shunned or not allowed on other sites and we welcome anyone who wants to make constructive contributions. Interestingly, if we were as bad as some claim, we wouldn't have these debate pages to begin with. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

==When liberals spend time refuting an idea ... it's already a success==
I remember when FOX News was mocked because it wouldn't make it. I doubt anyone at CNN or MSNBC is laughing now. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You are exactly right.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I've changed my mind. In it's present incarnation, this idea is doomed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

When there are twenty topics in the Scientific Debates section, and eight of them mention God or the Bible in the title, that is not a sign that this place will be any kind of success except for people who imagine the truth is whatever they want it to be. Truth is a double-edged sword for conservatives and liberals alike, and even scientists who are believers should know the difference between a laboratory and a church. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:35, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

:Religion is the most important thing in many people's lives. To some, it trumps everything else, even science. You're taking the wrong approach by trying to push your liberal agenda. Trying to prove your point by liberal "science" won't ever work here, because the audience does not want to hear it at all. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::I don't know if you intended it, but that actually sounded sort of sarcastic... Anyway, I agree with you in respect to your last point. I don't think this site will move beyond its target audience (American Conservative Christians, primarily YEC), but that audience is plenty large for it to gain a considerable following. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Nope no sarcasm at all, honest and earnest belief. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:07, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== ''"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."'' - Oscar Wilde ==

From a glance at (the admittedly-liberally-biased) GoogleNews, it would appear that for the past week, nobody has had anything whatsoever to say about Conservapedia. There is precisely '''one''' minor and sarcastic reference to Conservapedia in all of the last weeks news, ''worldwide''.

I can only deduce from this that Conservapedia has ''already'' failed. This site could hardly be more dead if God had struck it down himself. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 20:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Oh come on, it's at least a very active de-vandalization exercise. And a great place to practice technical writing, since WP is a bit, well, full of already-written articles. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Who cares what agenda the liberal news people are putting out there. Of course it's not covered by liberal news, because this place is what liberals fear. They will not talk about it, because they do not want to give it any credibility. The point you were trying to make it fundamentally flawed in that Conservapedia doesn't care what the liberally agendaed media say. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Actually, I think you'll find, after a good look around this place, it actually does a fairly good job of 'not giving it any credibility' all by itself. There are quite a few parts that fit the worst stereotypes of conservatism. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:25, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have taken a good look around. And it gives itself credibility to the audience that it targets, conservatives. The wackiness that you're using "conservatism" as if it were immediately a bad thing is completely stupid. I though liberals were supposed to be smarter than conservatives? Apparently, you're not because you refuse to believe any evidence presented by this site. You start immediately with a bias that this place is bad, simply because it's "conservative". God give me strength... you need some help. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::Actually, I did not come here with a view that this place is bad because it's conservative. Having a look round this place gave me that view. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::You obviously cannot accept that Conservapedia considers the Bible as infallably true. If you cannot take accept that in any way, then leave, you're not welcome here. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::I would have no problem accepting that Conservapedia accepted the Bible as infallibly true - if it stated, clearly, that it was a fundamentalist Christian encyclopedia, not a conservative one. Currently, it seems to be trying to dress up fundamentalist Christian ideals and beliefs as 'conservatism', and presenting them as facts in an encyclopedic form, which I have an objection to because of it's deceitfulness. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 00:08, 19 December 2007 (EST)

You have the most unusual way of showing that you didn't believe that this place is bad right off the start. You reject the conservative, christian ideals, and because of that, you reject the authorities, and sources used on this site. It is not my problem, nor is it anyone's problem here that you cannot accept it. Wikipedia doesn't accept the Bible as truth for anything but articles specifically about the Bible, and Christianity. They reject the truth presented by the Bible, and that's where they fail for the contributors of this site. By ignoring the Bible, they ignore truth. Just like you claim conservatives ignore science. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I reject the sources used on this site because...well...they're not very good. From what I've seen, it's not uncommon for the 'source' to be a single quote taken from a larger passage that diametrically opposes the editor's claims, or a 'source' that is actually giving second or third-hand information, or a 'source' that successfully manages to actually prove itself wrong, or a 'source' that simply makes claims that are not true, and fairly easily proven as such. Wikipedia does not accept the Bible as truth for anything because, to date, there isn't verifiable evidence that the more fantastical things in it are true. Oh, and I do not claim conservatives ignore science - just some of them, including, it seems, many of the ones here. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:35, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::I don't need to debate this any longer. Obviously reject the Bible as truth, because you're so closed-minded that you can't accept that as an axiom, a Christian should believe that the Bible is true. That means, I don't have to prove that it's true, because it just is. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:42, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Which is more closed-minded? That it is possible that the Bible is true, but there is no verifiable proof it is, or that it is utterly impossible for the Bible not to be true? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:46, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Dr. Laura Schlessinger

2007-12-19T18:45:54Z

Boomcoach: spelling correction

'''Dr. Laura Schlessinger''' is a radio talk host and author specializing in relationship issues. She holds a Ph.D. in [[physiology]] from [[Columbia University]].<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/lauraschlesinger.html</ref> A venture on TV was short lived when it was denounced by [[homosexual]] groups who were annoyed that Schlessinger would not treat their lifestyle as being equal with [[heterosexuality]].<ref>http://www.amazon.com/New-Thought-Police-Inside-Assault/dp/0761534040</ref> A conservative that strongly believes in [[family values]] and putting children first in relationships, she is heard by 8 million listeners daily, putting her fourth in radio ratings<ref>Newsweek, April 23, 2007 issue, Pg. 29</ref>

Very vocal in her ties to [[Orthodox Judaism]] and yet backed strongly by [[Christians]], she was even given the [[National Religious Broadcasters]] yearly award, the first non-Christian to receive it. In recent years Schlessinger has cut her ties to Orthodox Judaism. She is still widely embraced in conservative circles.

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Schlessinger, Laura}}

[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Women Authors]]

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2007-12-19T14:55:12Z

Boomcoach: /* Possibly */ Correct my own indenting

{{debate-project}}

==With Unique Style, Conservative Cooperation and Majority Religion Rule==

I believe that Conservapedia has an important task. I am also convinced that if Conservapedia can get past its Wikitrauma (I too left Wikipedia)and develop its own intelligent identity and be FOR something unique and positive it will succeed. Let me go into detail. I would like to share an important vision as to what Conservapedia could be, what niche it could fill in today's world.

Firstly, in many modern societies today people are being divided into at least two camps- those who have some kind of strong ethic (be it religiously oriented or simply the strong voice of an internal "parent") and those without a strong ethic and often without any notable self-discipline. Those who tend to strive toward the honourable, the good, the respectful and the decent or ethical need to be able to find information which helps them to do this. And they need to find other like-minded people to share ideas with. In essence, the particular religion (or lack thereof) is not a major issue here. That those who are conservative and who support conservative ideals tend to have a strong sense of order, decency and self-discipline is more than just a curiosity; it is the very force or common denominator which will ultimately unite a Conservapedia community.

Secondly, like any country, Conservapedia must adopt a policy for freedom of religion. I have often posited that our current system of freedom of religion collapses in like a house of cards on its own absurdity. Attempting to accomodate all religions in absurdum does not work. There is another model which may be more realistic and still allow everyone the right to basic freedom to believe and worship as they choose. There must be a host religion or primary religion and guest religions or secondary religions. Here in Conservapedia, the host religion is Christianity. It is, from what I can tell, the majority religion. That religion sets the tone and has the final say about the general identity of Conservapedia. Where there is a rare conflict of interest between my secondary religion and the primary religion, the interests of my religion (excluding my right to practise my own religion personally) give way to the interests of the primary religion.

This has implications for articles on various religions here in Conservapedia. I propose that when we write an article about a religion, that any controversies or criticisms be included in a separate article, always outside of the main descriptive article about the religion in question. In the case of the ongoing LDS articles (I write this because there was a request for a polygamy article in connection with the LDS articles), there would be an LDS portal with the regular article about the religion and its founder and notable persons. Then any controversy about the religion would be put into a separate article entitled "Criticisms of the LDS faith". If there is a controvery with Joseph Smith (for instance) then it would either be a separate article or located toward the end of the main article in a section called "Controversy". The point of departure should be: "If a member of that religion were to seek information about his or her own religion from Conservapedia, what would their experience be?". The person could choose from the articles in the portal and would be able to readily identify articles in which their religion is criticized from the vantage point of mainstream Christianity which also has a right on Conservapedia to criticize.

Thirdly, we should have something physically unique to offer readers. This would include, in my opinion, an easy to read style or format that is different from Wikipedia, whether it be simpler structure for articles, fonts and colours that are easier on the eye, logical structure of articles which is psychologically proven to enhance the reading experience and learning. By developing logical and intelligent rules and styles and by providing a reading experience that is more organized and simple than Wikipedia, I believe we could create an important advantage.

Fourthly, conservative cooperation is the only factor that will keep Conservapedia afloat. I can presently identify the following major client groups which (if we can get along) would push Conservapedia into the future: educated mainstream Christians, LDS (mormons), politically conservative Jews, secular classical conservatives. If we can make the "qualified freedom of religion" I write of above work, I think we will have a firm base to build upon in this conservative cooperation. And the more cooperation there is, the better the content and the wider use of that content among the various communities who trust Conservapedia.

Let me throw in another idea, before I stop. Conservapedia is about learning and it is about the wholesome and trustworthy. Libraries, including the Library of Congress and media such as the Christian networks and BYU TV would be easily attracted by special projects presented now and then by Conservapedia. One such project could be a Veterans' Biographical Memory portal of articles on Conservapedia. Another would be a Head Start in Ethical Learning portal of articles about child rearing and teaching ethics as early as possible. This information in simple form would surely be invaluable to many parents in today's society. Each of these projects would increase both the publicity and relevance of Conservapedia.

Most of us have left the Wikipedia community, because we do not share the values of many Wikipedians. We are a people of strong ethics, a people who strive torward the decent, the noble, the wholesome and respectable. That is a remarkable strength, in my opinion. Let's turn our glance aware from Wikipedia and toward a future where we have something to offer which is uniquely ours and badly needed in today's world. --ExFin 17:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Possibly ==

I'm new to Conservapedia. From my perspective, too much time is spent at present debating the "controversial" articles (Creationism, Abortion, etc) and too little time is spent making a great number of the more mundane articles authoritative. I've flicked through 20-30 articles (free time can be a good thing!) using the Random Page function and it saddened me that many of them are one or two lines long with no proper references or citations. What use is any encyclopedia if it goes out of its way to offer a particular perspective at the expense of containing good factual articles about, well, everything that might be useful to the home schooled or the intellectually curious?

I'd like to see something like this succeed - from an educational perspective it would be a credit to all involved. But, in my opinion, unless time and effort are spent on ALL articles, not just the emotive ones, it will never be functional in the way it deserves to be.

I've made a few scattergun edits so far (mythology and random trivia are my strong points) but there are a whole host of topics that should be informative that clearly no real time has been spent on.

I'll judge Conservapedia to be a success when I see people linking to articles as a source of facts about, well, anything and everything. Whilst people are only interested in certain controversial topics, it will only ever be a limited viewpoint, not an encyclopedia.

Let's face it, people should be able to look at this site as having well written articles on, oh, I don't know (thinks of random things), hamsters, walnut trees and the production of rubber byproducts, not just a select few articles relating to purely Conservative interests. Otherwise, it's not an encyclopedia, it's purely propaganda. Of which the internet already has plenty...--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 19:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll accept your well-phrased challenge. I've noticed the stub problem myself.
:As far as I know, the only forbidden subjects on Conservapedia are those that might primarily appeal to a prurient interest--about which, I trust nothing further need be said.
:What sort of mythology are you strong in? Classical? Nordic? Chinese?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say my main strengths are in Classical mythology in addition to the myths and folklore of the British Isles. That's what you get growing up in what is historically known as "the witches county" - some fascinating history there. And yes, I'd like to start filling out more of the "stub" articles as I come across them. The Random Page function is a real bonus. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 20:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Conservapedia's main challenge is reaching critical mass. Pick a topic at random, and in nearly all cases, ''CP will not have any information about it.'' That just sends people elsewhere. Wikipedia certainly had the same problem at first, but had the advantage of attracting academics of all kinds with a devotion to its mission: ''open-source information''. They didn't care about this religion or that political philosophy, they just believed in an idea that inherently bred content (most of it factual... let's be honest: a WP article about, say, [[fruit bat]]s will in fact tell you what they look like, where they live, etc). CP's (nonexisting) article... doesn't. If I were setting out to create something like Wikipedia, but with a conservative agenda to it, I'd start by taking advantage of what all those Wikipedians hath wrought. I'd copy the whole thing (as allowed by the GFDL), ''fork'' it, and get rid of all the things that are anathema to what CP is trying accomplish. Delete the sex info, excise the liberal perspective, add the ministry that WP won't allow, etc. and present the result as an example of what WP would be if a conservative POV could be enforced. Yes, that would require keeping CP licensed under the GFDL, which would make the information in it available to others to copy... but what would be the harm in that? Wouldn't you like to see Answers.com mirroring CP articles instead of WP articles? Some might argue that the content in WP could never be redeemed... but that's what a certain Adversary once said to the Creator, the Messiah, and the Redeemeer about mankind. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 23:48, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have questioned in the past, and still question, the emphasis on "concise". The debates over "liberal" and "conservative" really hit a very small area of what an encyclopedia should cover. I question the political slant pushed on those areas, but I readily acknowledge my own bias in that area. Even if I was a YECist, and a fundamentalist Christian, plus a die-hard conservative, I would not be using Conservapedia to find actual information, I would be using Wikipedia. I use WP in a sensible way, i.e. I realize its flaws and take its entries with a degree of wariness, but I use the same techniques with the Britannica or any other encyclopedia.

:::What WP provides, and CP currently does not, is in-depth coverage of a broad range of topics. In the past couple of years I have used WP to find out more about: differences between Rugby League and Rugby Union; rules of Australian Rules Football; how to create a proxy.pac file; background on the Roman general Belisarius and the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus; discography of Deep Purple; horror films of Universal and Hammer studios. These were all topics in which I had a surface knowledge, but wanted to know more.

:::If CP continues a focus on "concise", it will never be a place where I would look up information on the above topics, as I already have a level of knowledge of them that CP would provide. I want depth. Number of topics is very much related to the "critical mass" idea that JasonAQuest mentioned above, but depth of topic requires a change in focus. Until then, CP will remain a YEC/Homeschool/Christian Conservative blog, with a desk encyclopedia attached. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 09:54, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== No ==
Of course not! Anyone who thinks it will is either a paranoid naive liberal or one of the kooky creationists writeing the handful of articles posted in this project. -- [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 10:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Because it is quite frankly turning out to be just as liberal as Wikipedia. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 14:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
: I will agree with this because it appears the editing process seems to be slanted towards removing anything that could be considered part of the conservative ideology. Perhaps this could be an effort by liberal subjugators to undermine the integrity of what is supposed to be a conservative knowledge base. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]]
: No it is not as liberal as Wiki yet. ALL Wiki articals are up for editing while Conservapedia has blocked some of the most highly debated ones --[[Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:32 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

::And as we all know, the best way to promote accuracy of information is to completely block all alternate thinking on any given subject. Conservapedia has already failed because in many cases it has allowed ideology to trump all other considerations. Apparantly to be a Conservapedia conservative you must be ethnocentric, Christian, and a YEC. Those of us who don't fit this mold are suspect. Wikipedia may have its own issues, but it has a far more effective dispute resolution system than Conservapedia, and the existence of many voices does tend to move towards an NPOV in many cases. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 14:10, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
---------------
No. Not until you reject NeoCon Republicanism and adopt the ideals of Pat Buchanan. He is the real Conservative. Not a group of men packaged and delivered by Carl Rove.

Hopefully not. Wouldn't it be better if there was a source of information that didn't have any bias? Instead of putting together conservative biased information, how about putting together FACTUAL information?{{Unsigned|Gasmonkey}}

No.

== ????? ==
What is Conservapedia's goal exactly? I think it will fail as a replacement to Wikipedia, but it is a nice place to hang out communicate to other people, and have debates like this one.

Double Edge

:I'm unsure of Conservapedia's mission. I don't think the person/people who govern it have actually focussed on one.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by downplaying its identity as "Conservative alternative to Wikipedia" and by seriously trying to become a useful information resource for a teenaged audience and for Christian homeschoolers.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by trying to become a serious, factual encyclopedia whose policies and governance are tweaked just enough to give it a somewhat different emphasis from Wikipedia. My model for this is the Christian Science Monitor in the days when it was a serious, first-rate daily newspaper. It was respected by everyone as serious journalism, was widely read by people who were not Christian Scientists, and was aligned with the Christian Science church without pushing in-your-face, over-the-top Christian Science spin in every article one every page. I think this ''might'' be what Aschlafly wants. I don't give it much chance of getting there. It took Wikipedia about three years to become credible, and I think it pretty much dominates the ecological niche for volunteer-created encyclopedias.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by become a repository for articles that do not even pretend to be serious information resources, but self-celebratory exercises in anti-liberal rhetoric. Not the George WIll of encyclopedias, but the Ann Coulter of encyclopedias. Conservatives would come to it, not for information, but to experience the reassurance of being in among their own mob. It can probably exist indefinitely as a web forum billing itself an encyclopedia, but which nobody takes seriously as an encyclopedia. And there is of course endless fascination to be had trying to figure out of the edits presenting the most extreme points of view are mocking pranks, and which are sincere.

:I do ask Conservapedians to entertain the following question: would they allow teenaged children to use Conservapedia as a schoolwork resource? Now? Ever? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::To add to this, and I surely hope someone checks this page because I'm not getting a response elsewhere, I see this particular phrase or a variation of it repeated fairly often:

<blockquote>Ah, but there's a key flaw in your comparison, isn't there? '''We disclose our point-of-view, while Wikipedia denies it.''' We're not trying to fool anyone. We give the reader the information, and we let the reader decide. Wikipedia, while pretending to be neutral, is actually far more liberal than the American public and its bias results in censorship of vast amounts of information that readers would like to evaluate for themselves, such as biblical authorities.--Aschlafly 23:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Pro-Christian.3F] (emphasis added)</blockquote>

::But Conservapedia doesn't disclose its POV. It is called "Conservapedia" and it says on the main page that we "we give full credit to Christianity and America" but that surely does not adequately describe our POV. I see lots of logos on the main page with a cross as a significant focus... is this a Christian encyclopedia? Is this an American encyclopedia? What, exactly, is the POV of Conservapedia? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

"What is Conservapedia's goal exactly?" It's clearly and openly an attempt to supplant Wikipedia with an encyclopedia more palatable to American conservatives, and its bias reflects this. Wikipedia is more suitable for people who - irrespective of their personal politics - understand that the world does not end at the US border. Imitation is, of course, still the sincerest form of flattery. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 14:59, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==
Yes, it can succeed, and it will. Ironically, the (ahem) user who fired the opening shot (see "No" below) suggested the obvious thing: Disable automatic registration and have people register by invitation and application.

[[CreationWiki]] does the same thing. They've set up a special "informational" e-mail account and published its address on their Main Page. Anyone wishing to register as an editor must ''apply'' for the job either to info@creationwiki.org or directly to its founder, Christopher W. Ashcraft of the Northwest Creation Network. The results have been very good, if I do say so myself (as an editor of CreationWiki as well as an editor here).

Much of BPearl's opening statement is a rant against conservatism generally, and also a contradiction: he maintains that conservatives argue with reality, and then proposes that reality is arrived at by consensus. Sorry, but that's a [[non sequitur]]. Of course, liberals always want to deny absolute truth (which is not a trademark, by the way) because their reality is only what feels like a good idea at any given time.

The rest of it is, frankly, a threat: that vandalism will continue unless we--what--shut down? Trust a liberal to write a claim-of-responsibility and an ultimatum that tries to pretend that it's neither. Your average front-liner in [[Al-Qa'ida]] would guffaw.

I make two recommendations to the Bureaucrats and the Sysops:
# Make registration by invitation and application. Disable automatic registration entirely, and publish contact e-mails on the Main Page, or a page that links directly to it, so that people can apply.
# Recruit in more home-school groups, Christian schools, and other private schools.

This place needs a lot of expansion--and also a firm editorial policy that recognizes that certain (ahem) people are never going to appreciate what we have to offer, because they can't even agree with us on what is real and what is unreal. Why, some of them wouldn't even agree that grass was green until they put it to a vote--and then they'd want a stipulation about whether the word ''grass'' properly referred only to fescue. St. Augustine, and other traditional lawn grasses, or whether it could refer also to ''Cannabis sativa''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:CreationWiki isn't a serious source of information beyond case studies in logical fallacies and it's peculiar brand of paganism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Has CreationWiki "succeeded?" At what? In terms of press mentions and Alexa rank, it could be argued that Conservapedia is, at the moment, more successful than CreationWiki. (Incidentally, do people have any theories about the apparent spike in activity that Alexa shows for CreationWiki around the beginning of March?[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=www.creationwiki.org&url=www.creationwiki.org]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:45, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== No: ==

Why Conservapedia is Doomed

Ok, first off, full disclosure: I'm a self-declared Liberal. And I have to say that this site manages to some of my worst stereotypes about Conservatives: A bunch of paranoid control-freaks desperately afraid of (in no particular order) Communists, Satan, Terrorists, Liberals, and their own genitals. And this site is exactly what I expected when I first heard about it: a poorly done effort to create an entire alternate reality out of HTML in an attempt to escape the utter hash you (and the clowns you've elected) have made of the REAL world.

Now, assuming any of you made it this far without hitting the 'delete' button, let me explain why.

The central problem with this site is that it wants to be Wikipedia without any of the things that make Wikipedia WORK: most notably, tolerance for dissenting opinions, allowing half-baked articles to sit around until someone comes along and elaborates on them, and a willingness to let people post on topics that may seem irrelevant to The Cause (because Wikipedia doesn't have a Cause--you do). The syspos here are far too trigger-happy, with the obvious chilling effect this has on posters--who wants to spend a half-hour writing an article if there's a good chance a sysop will revert it or delete it for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct"?

To me, this looks like a textbook example of the difference between the "Liberal" view, which tries to include as many conflicting viewpoints as possible, as opposed to your apparent desire to find the Truth(tm) ONCE, and then crush any False Opinions that might contaminate it.

As long as you keep thinking like that, this site can't possibly survive. You are going to be flooded by people:

* Bored teenagers, pranksters and other vandals
* Well-meaning Liberals (and Moderates, and Reality-Based Conservatives, and Off-the-Mappers) trying to clear a few spoonfuls of what looks to them like a vast ocean of misinformation
* Irritated Liberals intentionally making you look bad
* Scary beady-eyed fanatical True Believers unintentionally making you look bad

These problems are not going to go away, unless you give up on letting new people register altogether, which will make this site stagnate and rot.

The other big problem is that you perceive "Liberal Bias" where the problem is that as of late, the Conservative Movement in the USA seems to have a marked anti-Reality bias.
[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html I miss Republicans]

Well, I hope whichever sysop deletes this at least reads through it, and gets SOMETHING out of it and gets something out of it besides "Blah blah blah I hate Jesus and America". If you can manage that much, I'll call it a win for both of us. (Forgive me for so drastically underestimating your intelligence, but I accidentally glanced at Ann Coulter's column recently.) --[[User:BPearl|BPearl]] 06:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Spot on, this could not have been said any more clearly. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 07:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is quite a strange concept. The truth is not something that can be saved by ruling out opinions that don't fit into ones concept of reality. It's rather the other way 'round: by ruling out other opinions you can be quite sure you rule out quite a lot of truth. History has shown that many concepts, such as the shape of the earth or the existence of wiches, promoted by religious leaders, had to be revised after being proven false. It took a lot of couragious men and women to challenge widely accepted delusions and replace them with theories based upon facts rather than belief. These challenges are the hart that pumps the blood of truth and wisdom. Ruling out such challenges will keep this project ignorant. It therefore can never be an instrument of exploiting free will, it will be - or at least appear to be - an instrument of intellectual repression. Now, apart from those who wish to remain ignorant, who wants to put his beliefs into such an institute? Mankind will never know the full truth about everything, we will only be able to find little pieces of the Big Puzzle and put them together into a forever changing concept of what truth really is. It's that proces that keep our brains from getting knumb. I don't believe in god, and it is amazing how many people fall from belief when they exploit their natural curiosity. I wish the world will one day be free of religion. Where god begins, thinking ends. An encyclopedia based on the contibutions of those who trade their mental skills for religious ignorance can never be of any value, other than to those who contribute themselves. So maybe Conservapedia cán succeed after all, but only as a database of delusions. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 00:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[Logical fallacy#Conflation|Conflation]], must we? Are you, in short, comparing [[creationism]] to the sad misapprehensions about [[witchcraft]] in [[Salem, Massachusetts]]? Or perhaps you are trying to suggest that [[John T. Scopes]] was a man of courage. He was not, sir. That trial was rigged. [[William Jennings Bryan]] simply did not know what kind of wily confidence trickster he faced in [[Clarence Darrow]]. Then again, I am not an attorney; I'll let [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] talk about lawyers, and what sort of lawyer Clarence Darrow was.

::::Likewise, I'll let Andrew speak for himself. For my part, I want to this project to be ''correct,'' and by that I do not mean [[political correctness|politically correct]]. Beyond a certain point, you have to accept the plain fact that two plus two make four--not five!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am not going to look up all the persons and events you mentioned. No need to since you don't reply to the argument that someone who creates his own truth can't be taken serious. I have made the equasion, and when you add it all up, there simply is no god. And the historical lies promoted on this project serve no other purpose than to hide logical fallacies of religion. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 20:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Behold! When I provide references, the determined, inveterate [[Atheism|atheist]] refuses to consider them. Furthermore, you exaggerate greatly my own importance, when you imply that I have somehow created the [[Bible]]. You force me to disclaim that honor, and to remind one and all that only One Person has ever created truth--and that is God, because God ''is'' Truth.

::::::If what you have written is how you believe, then may I ask exactly what, in the name of Clarence Darrow, are you doing here?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You don't provide references, you create a lot of smoke to conceal the fact that you don't (want to?) react on the thesis. I think you are the author of lies within this project and call them truth. I don't think you are the author of the Bible. That book itself was written by many contributors, it was not created by god. I am here to asses the importance of this project. I am satisfied. It is quite harmless. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 06:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Again you exaggerate my particular importance. I am merely one of many editors here. I am not an administrator. But while we're on the subject, I answer ''only'' to administrators. If you have a complaint against me, then I suggest that you address yourself to one of them. You can take it to [[User talk:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]] himself, if you so desire. He will, of course, ask ''you'' to cite ''your'' references that say, or imply, that any contribution of mine has been a lie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
=== The Annals of the World ===
You wrote: ''It (The Annals of the World). would make a valuable addition to any school or home-schooler's library, for its comprehensive treatment of ancient history alone''. Now this is clearly a lie, since it can't be of value as it's treatment of ancient history obviously is a fraud. But don't worry, I will not complain about you. This site doesn't need me and I don't need this site. Cheer up TerryH, I don't hold you personally responsible for accidently ruining lives, just your kind. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 05:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nice to see that you keep up with the [[Special:Recent changes|recent changes]]. So you saw my article on [[The Annals of the World]]. Too bad no one invented an emoticon for taking a bow (and I don't think MediaWiki software has any emoticon routines, anyway).
:Now I have a few nits to pick with Ussher on the length of the Sojourn in [[Egypt]], and the birthday of [[Abraham]], and certainly his treatment of [[Egyptian chronology]] must fall to more recent research by someone who knows what to look for. But in all fairness to Ussher, if he were alive today, then he wouldn't make that mistake with Egyptian chronology.
:For his treatment of very ancient (pre-Olympiad) Greek history, he relies on others who have attempted the same thing.
:But where has he ''invented'' history that did not occur? Where is the "fraud" of which you accuse him?
:If you want to talk about fraud, then we can talk about [[Piltdown Man]], [[Peking Man]], [[Archaeoraptor]], and the [[Ernst Haeckel]] embryo drawings--all of which are frauds, and everybody except the authors of biology textbooks has always known this. Now why, you ask, is this relevant to a discussion of ''The Annals''? Simply because I know your real claim against ''The Annals'': that it posits a history of the earth that is not much longer than six thousand years, and [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] requires a time frame that is far greater.
:And if you want to talk about the ruination of lives, you have that backwards. [[Atheism]] and [[Theory of evolution|evolutionism]] have been the chief ruiners of lives here, not [[Christianity]] and [[creationism]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, let's talk about the Piltsown Man. Now that was a case of serious fraud. Mr. Dawson really tried to convince the world that the bones he found were 500 thousand years old. It was quite a shock when it came out they were only 50 thousand years old.
::I've never seen an emoticon for taking a bow. And I can't see why you would want to take a bow for me, all I did was looking up a relevant reference, just like I always do. How could I make a statement so pronounced without checking whether there is scientific evidence supporting it? I can't ask you to take notice of something I only believe.
::I fail to see how Atheism and evolutionism ruin lives whereas I only have to take a look in the newspaper to read how the first man of the catholic church helps spreading AIDS. How the first man of the United States of America continues a bloody war in the name of (his) god. Anyone, Anyone who puts his faith in a god fails to take proper responsability for his own live and acts at some point.
::On the other hand I know that many believers live a healthier live when it concerns their body. There are less smokers and heavy drinkers among believers, most likely they feel that their life is ''borrowed'' in a way, they take good care of what they believe is not theirs. (For arguments sake I don't consider the many soldiers who don't hesitate to take someone elses life in name of god).
::Haeckel was a crook too. A nice bunch of cons you have dug up. Though Haeckel was a crook only for exaggerating rather then forging.
::Well, time's up. Nice talking with you again. Cheerio. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 13:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

No. Conservapedia will not succeed. Why? Not only are the 'commandments' biased (which you might expect, given the name of the site), but the sysops sometimes bias that even more by breaking those commandments, or not enforcing them, to bias pages even more towards the conservative point of view. As such, I fail to see how this place can possibly succeed when it breaks even it's own rules, when not doing so doesn't fit into it's own little blinkered world view.
[[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Are you serious? Wikipedia breaks its own rules all the time. Self-inconsistency is not damning, it's an inseparable part of humans. This site speaks to a very specific audience, and if you don't agree with the views here, then go, because you're not going to help anything by pushing an agenda. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::My 'agenda' that I am 'pushing' is that, if Conservapedia sees fit to make rules, and go so far as to call them 'commandments', then it should abide by those rules - even when doing so does not agree with the sysops' preconceived notions and ideas. If it fails do so, especally when this happens so flagrantly, it cannot call itself an 'encyclopedia', of any kind, far less 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia'. If Wikipedia has also broken it's own rules (which it may have, but I would have to see this for myself), so what? Never heard the expression, 'two wrongs don't make a right'? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::The statement was made not to state that "two wrongs make a right", but rather that no organization, no group of people, no ''anyone'' will ever not break their own rules. (Except God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they're all infallable perfection.) The idea here is ''not'' to make up rules, and then hit people over the head with it. The idea is to make an encyclopedia with a conservative bias (Conservapedia's undeniably stated goal). Wikipedia breaks its own rules anytime it would make Wikipedia "better", see their article "WP:Ignore all rules" for an example of it being policy. In the same way, if rules need to be broken by the admins and sysops in order to keep Conservapedia conservative, then GOOD! Go do it! The goal is to make the encyclopedia conservative, not to pander to some liberal agenda that Conservapedia needs to be perfect (which it can't be because only God is perfect.) So, seriously. If you're not on the boat then go use Wikipedia, they'll allow you to advance your agenda there. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::Note how I put 'agenda' and 'pushing' in quotes? That's because I have no agenda to push. Only you seem to think I do. You seem to suggest they only break the rules to make this place 'more conservative'. Well, I'll take an example. The page on Jesus. At one point, the page began by stating that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God. It has been changed, more than once, to 'Jesus Christ is the only Son of God' by sysops. That is in clear breach of commandment 5 - 'do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry', as they are deleting the FACT that Christians believe this to be true and replacing it with the OPINION that it is definitely true. This has nothing whatsoever to do with making it more conservative, and everything to do with making it more Christian fundamentalist. Whilst many conservatives are Christian, not all are, and, indeed, most Christians can tell the difference between verifiable fact and something that is opinion - even if it happens to be an opinion they share, and have an unshakeable belief they're right to believe. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Dude, there's a book called "The Bible", and around these parts it's undeniably true. You don't have to say "Christians believe..." because this site has the Bible as an authoritative source. If you can't accept the Bible as a given truth, then you're not going to do well here at all. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::Unless you can provide absolute, conclusive proof that the Bible is true, then stating anything as fact that only has the Bible as a source is opinion, not fact. The Bible MAY be true, it may not be, I don't know - and neither do you. You may fervently believe it's true, but, unless you have verifiable evidence of this, that is only your belief and opinion, not fact. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Also, you're pushing an agenda. That science trumps the truth in the Bible. And you're attempting to push that believe on the viewers and contributors of this site. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:20, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::No, this site is pushing an agenda - that the Bible is true and unquestionable, and dressing that up as 'conservatism'. It's not. It's fundamentalist Christianity. I'm merely pointing out that this is the case. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::So what is conservativism? Most conservatives have a respect for God and religious traditions and acknowledge the role of church in the lives of our founding fathers and through the history of our nation. Remove that from conservativism and it is unclear what is remaining or how unifying it is. Cutting taxes? Generally speaking historically there is a bit more. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Read the page on 'Conservative' on this very site, and you get your answer - 'a conservative is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue.' Incidentally, I note that you say 'most conservatives', not 'all conservatives', so even you must agree that not all conservatives are Christian. Even if they were, not all Christians agree that the Bible is LITERALLY true, like this site seems to think it is - some think some of the things in the Bible are God speaking in simile or metaphor. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 09:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Actually, come to think of it - it is also perfectly possible to have respect for religious traditions and acknowledge the role of the church in the lives of our founding fathers without necessarily following those same traditions for religious reasons or the same religion yourself. Therefore it is perfectly possible to even follow that part of this particular brand of 'conservatism' without being Christian. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 09:31, 19 December 2007 (EST)

The fact that you reject the Bible as truth, shows that you have no meaningful comment to give on this site... now, if only I could block. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Well, unless this site changes to 'christianfundamentalopedia.com', then the fact I do not accept the Bible as absolute proof without evidence is completely irrelevant, quite frankly. Or should be, anyway. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:49, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::The name of the site is irrelevant. Unless wikipedia changes it's name to "ifyoudontlikesciencegoawayapedia" then Conservapedia would consider changing their name. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you equated my belief or lack of belief in the Bible to my ability to give meaningful comment on this site - which, by it's name, is a 'conservative wikipedia'. For your point to be relevant, this site would need to be a 'Christian fundamentalist wikipedia' instead, and thus should change it's name. So which is it - is it relevant, or not? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 00:01, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:I can block, but we don't do it for debate discussions. It's expected not everyone is going to embrace the overall Conservapedia value structure, and we understand that. We just hope that people can respect our right to exist and present opinions that are generally shunned or not allowed on other sites and we welcome anyone who wants to make constructive contributions. Interestingly, if we were as bad as some claim, we wouldn't have these debate pages to begin with. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

==When liberals spend time refuting an idea ... it's already a success==
I remember when FOX News was mocked because it wouldn't make it. I doubt anyone at CNN or MSNBC is laughing now. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You are exactly right.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I've changed my mind. In it's present incarnation, this idea is doomed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

When there are twenty topics in the Scientific Debates section, and eight of them mention God or the Bible in the title, that is not a sign that this place will be any kind of success except for people who imagine the truth is whatever they want it to be. Truth is a double-edged sword for conservatives and liberals alike, and even scientists who are believers should know the difference between a laboratory and a church. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:35, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

:Religion is the most important thing in many people's lives. To some, it trumps everything else, even science. You're taking the wrong approach by trying to push your liberal agenda. Trying to prove your point by liberal "science" won't ever work here, because the audience does not want to hear it at all. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::I don't know if you intended it, but that actually sounded sort of sarcastic... Anyway, I agree with you in respect to your last point. I don't think this site will move beyond its target audience (American Conservative Christians, primarily YEC), but that audience is plenty large for it to gain a considerable following. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Nope no sarcasm at all, honest and earnest belief. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:07, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== ''"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."'' - Oscar Wilde ==

From a glance at (the admittedly-liberally-biased) GoogleNews, it would appear that for the past week, nobody has had anything whatsoever to say about Conservapedia. There is precisely '''one''' minor and sarcastic reference to Conservapedia in all of the last weeks news, ''worldwide''.

I can only deduce from this that Conservapedia has ''already'' failed. This site could hardly be more dead if God had struck it down himself. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 20:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Oh come on, it's at least a very active de-vandalization exercise. And a great place to practice technical writing, since WP is a bit, well, full of already-written articles. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Who cares what agenda the liberal news people are putting out there. Of course it's not covered by liberal news, because this place is what liberals fear. They will not talk about it, because they do not want to give it any credibility. The point you were trying to make it fundamentally flawed in that Conservapedia doesn't care what the liberally agendaed media say. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Actually, I think you'll find, after a good look around this place, it actually does a fairly good job of 'not giving it any credibility' all by itself. There are quite a few parts that fit the worst stereotypes of conservatism. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:25, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have taken a good look around. And it gives itself credibility to the audience that it targets, conservatives. The wackiness that you're using "conservatism" as if it were immediately a bad thing is completely stupid. I though liberals were supposed to be smarter than conservatives? Apparently, you're not because you refuse to believe any evidence presented by this site. You start immediately with a bias that this place is bad, simply because it's "conservative". God give me strength... you need some help. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::Actually, I did not come here with a view that this place is bad because it's conservative. Having a look round this place gave me that view. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::You obviously cannot accept that Conservapedia considers the Bible as infallably true. If you cannot take accept that in any way, then leave, you're not welcome here. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::I would have no problem accepting that Conservapedia accepted the Bible as infallibly true - if it stated, clearly, that it was a fundamentalist Christian encyclopedia, not a conservative one. Currently, it seems to be trying to dress up fundamentalist Christian ideals and beliefs as 'conservatism', and presenting them as facts in an encyclopedic form, which I have an objection to because of it's deceitfulness. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 00:08, 19 December 2007 (EST)

You have the most unusual way of showing that you didn't believe that this place is bad right off the start. You reject the conservative, christian ideals, and because of that, you reject the authorities, and sources used on this site. It is not my problem, nor is it anyone's problem here that you cannot accept it. Wikipedia doesn't accept the Bible as truth for anything but articles specifically about the Bible, and Christianity. They reject the truth presented by the Bible, and that's where they fail for the contributors of this site. By ignoring the Bible, they ignore truth. Just like you claim conservatives ignore science. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I reject the sources used on this site because...well...they're not very good. From what I've seen, it's not uncommon for the 'source' to be a single quote taken from a larger passage that diametrically opposes the editor's claims, or a 'source' that is actually giving second or third-hand information, or a 'source' that successfully manages to actually prove itself wrong, or a 'source' that simply makes claims that are not true, and fairly easily proven as such. Wikipedia does not accept the Bible as truth for anything because, to date, there isn't verifiable evidence that the more fantastical things in it are true. Oh, and I do not claim conservatives ignore science - just some of them, including, it seems, many of the ones here. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:35, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::I don't need to debate this any longer. Obviously reject the Bible as truth, because you're so closed-minded that you can't accept that as an axiom, a Christian should believe that the Bible is true. That means, I don't have to prove that it's true, because it just is. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:42, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Which is more closed-minded? That it is possible that the Bible is true, but there is no verifiable proof it is, or that it is utterly impossible for the Bible not to be true? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:46, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

2007-12-19T14:54:33Z

Boomcoach: /* Possibly */ to concise or not to concise, that is the bare bodkin

{{debate-project}}

==With Unique Style, Conservative Cooperation and Majority Religion Rule==

I believe that Conservapedia has an important task. I am also convinced that if Conservapedia can get past its Wikitrauma (I too left Wikipedia)and develop its own intelligent identity and be FOR something unique and positive it will succeed. Let me go into detail. I would like to share an important vision as to what Conservapedia could be, what niche it could fill in today's world.

Firstly, in many modern societies today people are being divided into at least two camps- those who have some kind of strong ethic (be it religiously oriented or simply the strong voice of an internal "parent") and those without a strong ethic and often without any notable self-discipline. Those who tend to strive toward the honourable, the good, the respectful and the decent or ethical need to be able to find information which helps them to do this. And they need to find other like-minded people to share ideas with. In essence, the particular religion (or lack thereof) is not a major issue here. That those who are conservative and who support conservative ideals tend to have a strong sense of order, decency and self-discipline is more than just a curiosity; it is the very force or common denominator which will ultimately unite a Conservapedia community.

Secondly, like any country, Conservapedia must adopt a policy for freedom of religion. I have often posited that our current system of freedom of religion collapses in like a house of cards on its own absurdity. Attempting to accomodate all religions in absurdum does not work. There is another model which may be more realistic and still allow everyone the right to basic freedom to believe and worship as they choose. There must be a host religion or primary religion and guest religions or secondary religions. Here in Conservapedia, the host religion is Christianity. It is, from what I can tell, the majority religion. That religion sets the tone and has the final say about the general identity of Conservapedia. Where there is a rare conflict of interest between my secondary religion and the primary religion, the interests of my religion (excluding my right to practise my own religion personally) give way to the interests of the primary religion.

This has implications for articles on various religions here in Conservapedia. I propose that when we write an article about a religion, that any controversies or criticisms be included in a separate article, always outside of the main descriptive article about the religion in question. In the case of the ongoing LDS articles (I write this because there was a request for a polygamy article in connection with the LDS articles), there would be an LDS portal with the regular article about the religion and its founder and notable persons. Then any controversy about the religion would be put into a separate article entitled "Criticisms of the LDS faith". If there is a controvery with Joseph Smith (for instance) then it would either be a separate article or located toward the end of the main article in a section called "Controversy". The point of departure should be: "If a member of that religion were to seek information about his or her own religion from Conservapedia, what would their experience be?". The person could choose from the articles in the portal and would be able to readily identify articles in which their religion is criticized from the vantage point of mainstream Christianity which also has a right on Conservapedia to criticize.

Thirdly, we should have something physically unique to offer readers. This would include, in my opinion, an easy to read style or format that is different from Wikipedia, whether it be simpler structure for articles, fonts and colours that are easier on the eye, logical structure of articles which is psychologically proven to enhance the reading experience and learning. By developing logical and intelligent rules and styles and by providing a reading experience that is more organized and simple than Wikipedia, I believe we could create an important advantage.

Fourthly, conservative cooperation is the only factor that will keep Conservapedia afloat. I can presently identify the following major client groups which (if we can get along) would push Conservapedia into the future: educated mainstream Christians, LDS (mormons), politically conservative Jews, secular classical conservatives. If we can make the "qualified freedom of religion" I write of above work, I think we will have a firm base to build upon in this conservative cooperation. And the more cooperation there is, the better the content and the wider use of that content among the various communities who trust Conservapedia.

Let me throw in another idea, before I stop. Conservapedia is about learning and it is about the wholesome and trustworthy. Libraries, including the Library of Congress and media such as the Christian networks and BYU TV would be easily attracted by special projects presented now and then by Conservapedia. One such project could be a Veterans' Biographical Memory portal of articles on Conservapedia. Another would be a Head Start in Ethical Learning portal of articles about child rearing and teaching ethics as early as possible. This information in simple form would surely be invaluable to many parents in today's society. Each of these projects would increase both the publicity and relevance of Conservapedia.

Most of us have left the Wikipedia community, because we do not share the values of many Wikipedians. We are a people of strong ethics, a people who strive torward the decent, the noble, the wholesome and respectable. That is a remarkable strength, in my opinion. Let's turn our glance aware from Wikipedia and toward a future where we have something to offer which is uniquely ours and badly needed in today's world. --ExFin 17:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Possibly ==

I'm new to Conservapedia. From my perspective, too much time is spent at present debating the "controversial" articles (Creationism, Abortion, etc) and too little time is spent making a great number of the more mundane articles authoritative. I've flicked through 20-30 articles (free time can be a good thing!) using the Random Page function and it saddened me that many of them are one or two lines long with no proper references or citations. What use is any encyclopedia if it goes out of its way to offer a particular perspective at the expense of containing good factual articles about, well, everything that might be useful to the home schooled or the intellectually curious?

I'd like to see something like this succeed - from an educational perspective it would be a credit to all involved. But, in my opinion, unless time and effort are spent on ALL articles, not just the emotive ones, it will never be functional in the way it deserves to be.

I've made a few scattergun edits so far (mythology and random trivia are my strong points) but there are a whole host of topics that should be informative that clearly no real time has been spent on.

I'll judge Conservapedia to be a success when I see people linking to articles as a source of facts about, well, anything and everything. Whilst people are only interested in certain controversial topics, it will only ever be a limited viewpoint, not an encyclopedia.

Let's face it, people should be able to look at this site as having well written articles on, oh, I don't know (thinks of random things), hamsters, walnut trees and the production of rubber byproducts, not just a select few articles relating to purely Conservative interests. Otherwise, it's not an encyclopedia, it's purely propaganda. Of which the internet already has plenty...--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 19:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll accept your well-phrased challenge. I've noticed the stub problem myself.
:As far as I know, the only forbidden subjects on Conservapedia are those that might primarily appeal to a prurient interest--about which, I trust nothing further need be said.
:What sort of mythology are you strong in? Classical? Nordic? Chinese?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say my main strengths are in Classical mythology in addition to the myths and folklore of the British Isles. That's what you get growing up in what is historically known as "the witches county" - some fascinating history there. And yes, I'd like to start filling out more of the "stub" articles as I come across them. The Random Page function is a real bonus. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 20:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Conservapedia's main challenge is reaching critical mass. Pick a topic at random, and in nearly all cases, ''CP will not have any information about it.'' That just sends people elsewhere. Wikipedia certainly had the same problem at first, but had the advantage of attracting academics of all kinds with a devotion to its mission: ''open-source information''. They didn't care about this religion or that political philosophy, they just believed in an idea that inherently bred content (most of it factual... let's be honest: a WP article about, say, [[fruit bat]]s will in fact tell you what they look like, where they live, etc). CP's (nonexisting) article... doesn't. If I were setting out to create something like Wikipedia, but with a conservative agenda to it, I'd start by taking advantage of what all those Wikipedians hath wrought. I'd copy the whole thing (as allowed by the GFDL), ''fork'' it, and get rid of all the things that are anathema to what CP is trying accomplish. Delete the sex info, excise the liberal perspective, add the ministry that WP won't allow, etc. and present the result as an example of what WP would be if a conservative POV could be enforced. Yes, that would require keeping CP licensed under the GFDL, which would make the information in it available to others to copy... but what would be the harm in that? Wouldn't you like to see Answers.com mirroring CP articles instead of WP articles? Some might argue that the content in WP could never be redeemed... but that's what a certain Adversary once said to the Creator, the Messiah, and the Redeemeer about mankind. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 23:48, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have questioned in the past, and still question, the emphasis on "concise". The debates over "liberal" and "conservative" really hit a very small area of what an encyclopedia should cover. I question the political slant pushed on those areas, but I readily acknowledge my own bias in that area. Even if I was a YECist, and a fundamentalist Christian, plus a die-hard conservative, I would not be using Conservapedia to find actual information, I would be using Wikipedia. I use WP in a sensible way, i.e. I realize its flaws and take its entries with a degree of wariness, but I use the same techniques with the Britannica or any other encyclopedia.

::What WP provides, and CP currently does not, is in-depth coverage of a broad range of topics. In the past couple of years I have used WP to find out more about: differences between Rugby League and Rugby Union; rules of Australian Rules Football; how to create a proxy.pac file; background on the Roman general Belisarius and the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus; discography of Deep Purple; horror films of Universal and Hammer studios. These were all topics in which I had a surface knowledge, but wanted to know more.

::If CP continues a focus on "concise", it will never be a place where I would look up information on the above topics, as I already have a level of knowledge of them that CP would provide. I want depth. Number of topics is very much related to the "critical mass" idea that JasonAQuest mentioned above, but depth of topic requires a change in focus. Until then, CP will remain a YEC/Homeschool/Christian Conservative blog, with a desk encyclopedia attached. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 09:54, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== No ==
Of course not! Anyone who thinks it will is either a paranoid naive liberal or one of the kooky creationists writeing the handful of articles posted in this project. -- [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 10:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Because it is quite frankly turning out to be just as liberal as Wikipedia. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 14:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
: I will agree with this because it appears the editing process seems to be slanted towards removing anything that could be considered part of the conservative ideology. Perhaps this could be an effort by liberal subjugators to undermine the integrity of what is supposed to be a conservative knowledge base. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]]
: No it is not as liberal as Wiki yet. ALL Wiki articals are up for editing while Conservapedia has blocked some of the most highly debated ones --[[Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:32 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

::And as we all know, the best way to promote accuracy of information is to completely block all alternate thinking on any given subject. Conservapedia has already failed because in many cases it has allowed ideology to trump all other considerations. Apparantly to be a Conservapedia conservative you must be ethnocentric, Christian, and a YEC. Those of us who don't fit this mold are suspect. Wikipedia may have its own issues, but it has a far more effective dispute resolution system than Conservapedia, and the existence of many voices does tend to move towards an NPOV in many cases. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 14:10, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
---------------
No. Not until you reject NeoCon Republicanism and adopt the ideals of Pat Buchanan. He is the real Conservative. Not a group of men packaged and delivered by Carl Rove.

Hopefully not. Wouldn't it be better if there was a source of information that didn't have any bias? Instead of putting together conservative biased information, how about putting together FACTUAL information?{{Unsigned|Gasmonkey}}

No.

== ????? ==
What is Conservapedia's goal exactly? I think it will fail as a replacement to Wikipedia, but it is a nice place to hang out communicate to other people, and have debates like this one.

Double Edge

:I'm unsure of Conservapedia's mission. I don't think the person/people who govern it have actually focussed on one.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by downplaying its identity as "Conservative alternative to Wikipedia" and by seriously trying to become a useful information resource for a teenaged audience and for Christian homeschoolers.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by trying to become a serious, factual encyclopedia whose policies and governance are tweaked just enough to give it a somewhat different emphasis from Wikipedia. My model for this is the Christian Science Monitor in the days when it was a serious, first-rate daily newspaper. It was respected by everyone as serious journalism, was widely read by people who were not Christian Scientists, and was aligned with the Christian Science church without pushing in-your-face, over-the-top Christian Science spin in every article one every page. I think this ''might'' be what Aschlafly wants. I don't give it much chance of getting there. It took Wikipedia about three years to become credible, and I think it pretty much dominates the ecological niche for volunteer-created encyclopedias.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by become a repository for articles that do not even pretend to be serious information resources, but self-celebratory exercises in anti-liberal rhetoric. Not the George WIll of encyclopedias, but the Ann Coulter of encyclopedias. Conservatives would come to it, not for information, but to experience the reassurance of being in among their own mob. It can probably exist indefinitely as a web forum billing itself an encyclopedia, but which nobody takes seriously as an encyclopedia. And there is of course endless fascination to be had trying to figure out of the edits presenting the most extreme points of view are mocking pranks, and which are sincere.

:I do ask Conservapedians to entertain the following question: would they allow teenaged children to use Conservapedia as a schoolwork resource? Now? Ever? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::To add to this, and I surely hope someone checks this page because I'm not getting a response elsewhere, I see this particular phrase or a variation of it repeated fairly often:

<blockquote>Ah, but there's a key flaw in your comparison, isn't there? '''We disclose our point-of-view, while Wikipedia denies it.''' We're not trying to fool anyone. We give the reader the information, and we let the reader decide. Wikipedia, while pretending to be neutral, is actually far more liberal than the American public and its bias results in censorship of vast amounts of information that readers would like to evaluate for themselves, such as biblical authorities.--Aschlafly 23:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Pro-Christian.3F] (emphasis added)</blockquote>

::But Conservapedia doesn't disclose its POV. It is called "Conservapedia" and it says on the main page that we "we give full credit to Christianity and America" but that surely does not adequately describe our POV. I see lots of logos on the main page with a cross as a significant focus... is this a Christian encyclopedia? Is this an American encyclopedia? What, exactly, is the POV of Conservapedia? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

"What is Conservapedia's goal exactly?" It's clearly and openly an attempt to supplant Wikipedia with an encyclopedia more palatable to American conservatives, and its bias reflects this. Wikipedia is more suitable for people who - irrespective of their personal politics - understand that the world does not end at the US border. Imitation is, of course, still the sincerest form of flattery. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 14:59, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Yes: ==
Yes, it can succeed, and it will. Ironically, the (ahem) user who fired the opening shot (see "No" below) suggested the obvious thing: Disable automatic registration and have people register by invitation and application.

[[CreationWiki]] does the same thing. They've set up a special "informational" e-mail account and published its address on their Main Page. Anyone wishing to register as an editor must ''apply'' for the job either to info@creationwiki.org or directly to its founder, Christopher W. Ashcraft of the Northwest Creation Network. The results have been very good, if I do say so myself (as an editor of CreationWiki as well as an editor here).

Much of BPearl's opening statement is a rant against conservatism generally, and also a contradiction: he maintains that conservatives argue with reality, and then proposes that reality is arrived at by consensus. Sorry, but that's a [[non sequitur]]. Of course, liberals always want to deny absolute truth (which is not a trademark, by the way) because their reality is only what feels like a good idea at any given time.

The rest of it is, frankly, a threat: that vandalism will continue unless we--what--shut down? Trust a liberal to write a claim-of-responsibility and an ultimatum that tries to pretend that it's neither. Your average front-liner in [[Al-Qa'ida]] would guffaw.

I make two recommendations to the Bureaucrats and the Sysops:
# Make registration by invitation and application. Disable automatic registration entirely, and publish contact e-mails on the Main Page, or a page that links directly to it, so that people can apply.
# Recruit in more home-school groups, Christian schools, and other private schools.

This place needs a lot of expansion--and also a firm editorial policy that recognizes that certain (ahem) people are never going to appreciate what we have to offer, because they can't even agree with us on what is real and what is unreal. Why, some of them wouldn't even agree that grass was green until they put it to a vote--and then they'd want a stipulation about whether the word ''grass'' properly referred only to fescue. St. Augustine, and other traditional lawn grasses, or whether it could refer also to ''Cannabis sativa''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:CreationWiki isn't a serious source of information beyond case studies in logical fallacies and it's peculiar brand of paganism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Has CreationWiki "succeeded?" At what? In terms of press mentions and Alexa rank, it could be argued that Conservapedia is, at the moment, more successful than CreationWiki. (Incidentally, do people have any theories about the apparent spike in activity that Alexa shows for CreationWiki around the beginning of March?[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=www.creationwiki.org&url=www.creationwiki.org]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:45, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== No: ==

Why Conservapedia is Doomed

Ok, first off, full disclosure: I'm a self-declared Liberal. And I have to say that this site manages to some of my worst stereotypes about Conservatives: A bunch of paranoid control-freaks desperately afraid of (in no particular order) Communists, Satan, Terrorists, Liberals, and their own genitals. And this site is exactly what I expected when I first heard about it: a poorly done effort to create an entire alternate reality out of HTML in an attempt to escape the utter hash you (and the clowns you've elected) have made of the REAL world.

Now, assuming any of you made it this far without hitting the 'delete' button, let me explain why.

The central problem with this site is that it wants to be Wikipedia without any of the things that make Wikipedia WORK: most notably, tolerance for dissenting opinions, allowing half-baked articles to sit around until someone comes along and elaborates on them, and a willingness to let people post on topics that may seem irrelevant to The Cause (because Wikipedia doesn't have a Cause--you do). The syspos here are far too trigger-happy, with the obvious chilling effect this has on posters--who wants to spend a half-hour writing an article if there's a good chance a sysop will revert it or delete it for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct"?

To me, this looks like a textbook example of the difference between the "Liberal" view, which tries to include as many conflicting viewpoints as possible, as opposed to your apparent desire to find the Truth(tm) ONCE, and then crush any False Opinions that might contaminate it.

As long as you keep thinking like that, this site can't possibly survive. You are going to be flooded by people:

* Bored teenagers, pranksters and other vandals
* Well-meaning Liberals (and Moderates, and Reality-Based Conservatives, and Off-the-Mappers) trying to clear a few spoonfuls of what looks to them like a vast ocean of misinformation
* Irritated Liberals intentionally making you look bad
* Scary beady-eyed fanatical True Believers unintentionally making you look bad

These problems are not going to go away, unless you give up on letting new people register altogether, which will make this site stagnate and rot.

The other big problem is that you perceive "Liberal Bias" where the problem is that as of late, the Conservative Movement in the USA seems to have a marked anti-Reality bias.
[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html I miss Republicans]

Well, I hope whichever sysop deletes this at least reads through it, and gets SOMETHING out of it and gets something out of it besides "Blah blah blah I hate Jesus and America". If you can manage that much, I'll call it a win for both of us. (Forgive me for so drastically underestimating your intelligence, but I accidentally glanced at Ann Coulter's column recently.) --[[User:BPearl|BPearl]] 06:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Spot on, this could not have been said any more clearly. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 07:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is quite a strange concept. The truth is not something that can be saved by ruling out opinions that don't fit into ones concept of reality. It's rather the other way 'round: by ruling out other opinions you can be quite sure you rule out quite a lot of truth. History has shown that many concepts, such as the shape of the earth or the existence of wiches, promoted by religious leaders, had to be revised after being proven false. It took a lot of couragious men and women to challenge widely accepted delusions and replace them with theories based upon facts rather than belief. These challenges are the hart that pumps the blood of truth and wisdom. Ruling out such challenges will keep this project ignorant. It therefore can never be an instrument of exploiting free will, it will be - or at least appear to be - an instrument of intellectual repression. Now, apart from those who wish to remain ignorant, who wants to put his beliefs into such an institute? Mankind will never know the full truth about everything, we will only be able to find little pieces of the Big Puzzle and put them together into a forever changing concept of what truth really is. It's that proces that keep our brains from getting knumb. I don't believe in god, and it is amazing how many people fall from belief when they exploit their natural curiosity. I wish the world will one day be free of religion. Where god begins, thinking ends. An encyclopedia based on the contibutions of those who trade their mental skills for religious ignorance can never be of any value, other than to those who contribute themselves. So maybe Conservapedia cán succeed after all, but only as a database of delusions. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 00:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[Logical fallacy#Conflation|Conflation]], must we? Are you, in short, comparing [[creationism]] to the sad misapprehensions about [[witchcraft]] in [[Salem, Massachusetts]]? Or perhaps you are trying to suggest that [[John T. Scopes]] was a man of courage. He was not, sir. That trial was rigged. [[William Jennings Bryan]] simply did not know what kind of wily confidence trickster he faced in [[Clarence Darrow]]. Then again, I am not an attorney; I'll let [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] talk about lawyers, and what sort of lawyer Clarence Darrow was.

::::Likewise, I'll let Andrew speak for himself. For my part, I want to this project to be ''correct,'' and by that I do not mean [[political correctness|politically correct]]. Beyond a certain point, you have to accept the plain fact that two plus two make four--not five!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am not going to look up all the persons and events you mentioned. No need to since you don't reply to the argument that someone who creates his own truth can't be taken serious. I have made the equasion, and when you add it all up, there simply is no god. And the historical lies promoted on this project serve no other purpose than to hide logical fallacies of religion. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 20:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Behold! When I provide references, the determined, inveterate [[Atheism|atheist]] refuses to consider them. Furthermore, you exaggerate greatly my own importance, when you imply that I have somehow created the [[Bible]]. You force me to disclaim that honor, and to remind one and all that only One Person has ever created truth--and that is God, because God ''is'' Truth.

::::::If what you have written is how you believe, then may I ask exactly what, in the name of Clarence Darrow, are you doing here?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You don't provide references, you create a lot of smoke to conceal the fact that you don't (want to?) react on the thesis. I think you are the author of lies within this project and call them truth. I don't think you are the author of the Bible. That book itself was written by many contributors, it was not created by god. I am here to asses the importance of this project. I am satisfied. It is quite harmless. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 06:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Again you exaggerate my particular importance. I am merely one of many editors here. I am not an administrator. But while we're on the subject, I answer ''only'' to administrators. If you have a complaint against me, then I suggest that you address yourself to one of them. You can take it to [[User talk:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]] himself, if you so desire. He will, of course, ask ''you'' to cite ''your'' references that say, or imply, that any contribution of mine has been a lie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
=== The Annals of the World ===
You wrote: ''It (The Annals of the World). would make a valuable addition to any school or home-schooler's library, for its comprehensive treatment of ancient history alone''. Now this is clearly a lie, since it can't be of value as it's treatment of ancient history obviously is a fraud. But don't worry, I will not complain about you. This site doesn't need me and I don't need this site. Cheer up TerryH, I don't hold you personally responsible for accidently ruining lives, just your kind. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 05:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nice to see that you keep up with the [[Special:Recent changes|recent changes]]. So you saw my article on [[The Annals of the World]]. Too bad no one invented an emoticon for taking a bow (and I don't think MediaWiki software has any emoticon routines, anyway).
:Now I have a few nits to pick with Ussher on the length of the Sojourn in [[Egypt]], and the birthday of [[Abraham]], and certainly his treatment of [[Egyptian chronology]] must fall to more recent research by someone who knows what to look for. But in all fairness to Ussher, if he were alive today, then he wouldn't make that mistake with Egyptian chronology.
:For his treatment of very ancient (pre-Olympiad) Greek history, he relies on others who have attempted the same thing.
:But where has he ''invented'' history that did not occur? Where is the "fraud" of which you accuse him?
:If you want to talk about fraud, then we can talk about [[Piltdown Man]], [[Peking Man]], [[Archaeoraptor]], and the [[Ernst Haeckel]] embryo drawings--all of which are frauds, and everybody except the authors of biology textbooks has always known this. Now why, you ask, is this relevant to a discussion of ''The Annals''? Simply because I know your real claim against ''The Annals'': that it posits a history of the earth that is not much longer than six thousand years, and [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] requires a time frame that is far greater.
:And if you want to talk about the ruination of lives, you have that backwards. [[Atheism]] and [[Theory of evolution|evolutionism]] have been the chief ruiners of lives here, not [[Christianity]] and [[creationism]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, let's talk about the Piltsown Man. Now that was a case of serious fraud. Mr. Dawson really tried to convince the world that the bones he found were 500 thousand years old. It was quite a shock when it came out they were only 50 thousand years old.
::I've never seen an emoticon for taking a bow. And I can't see why you would want to take a bow for me, all I did was looking up a relevant reference, just like I always do. How could I make a statement so pronounced without checking whether there is scientific evidence supporting it? I can't ask you to take notice of something I only believe.
::I fail to see how Atheism and evolutionism ruin lives whereas I only have to take a look in the newspaper to read how the first man of the catholic church helps spreading AIDS. How the first man of the United States of America continues a bloody war in the name of (his) god. Anyone, Anyone who puts his faith in a god fails to take proper responsability for his own live and acts at some point.
::On the other hand I know that many believers live a healthier live when it concerns their body. There are less smokers and heavy drinkers among believers, most likely they feel that their life is ''borrowed'' in a way, they take good care of what they believe is not theirs. (For arguments sake I don't consider the many soldiers who don't hesitate to take someone elses life in name of god).
::Haeckel was a crook too. A nice bunch of cons you have dug up. Though Haeckel was a crook only for exaggerating rather then forging.
::Well, time's up. Nice talking with you again. Cheerio. [[User:TrueBeliever|TrueBeliever]] 13:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

No. Conservapedia will not succeed. Why? Not only are the 'commandments' biased (which you might expect, given the name of the site), but the sysops sometimes bias that even more by breaking those commandments, or not enforcing them, to bias pages even more towards the conservative point of view. As such, I fail to see how this place can possibly succeed when it breaks even it's own rules, when not doing so doesn't fit into it's own little blinkered world view.
[[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Are you serious? Wikipedia breaks its own rules all the time. Self-inconsistency is not damning, it's an inseparable part of humans. This site speaks to a very specific audience, and if you don't agree with the views here, then go, because you're not going to help anything by pushing an agenda. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::My 'agenda' that I am 'pushing' is that, if Conservapedia sees fit to make rules, and go so far as to call them 'commandments', then it should abide by those rules - even when doing so does not agree with the sysops' preconceived notions and ideas. If it fails do so, especally when this happens so flagrantly, it cannot call itself an 'encyclopedia', of any kind, far less 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia'. If Wikipedia has also broken it's own rules (which it may have, but I would have to see this for myself), so what? Never heard the expression, 'two wrongs don't make a right'? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::The statement was made not to state that "two wrongs make a right", but rather that no organization, no group of people, no ''anyone'' will ever not break their own rules. (Except God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they're all infallable perfection.) The idea here is ''not'' to make up rules, and then hit people over the head with it. The idea is to make an encyclopedia with a conservative bias (Conservapedia's undeniably stated goal). Wikipedia breaks its own rules anytime it would make Wikipedia "better", see their article "WP:Ignore all rules" for an example of it being policy. In the same way, if rules need to be broken by the admins and sysops in order to keep Conservapedia conservative, then GOOD! Go do it! The goal is to make the encyclopedia conservative, not to pander to some liberal agenda that Conservapedia needs to be perfect (which it can't be because only God is perfect.) So, seriously. If you're not on the boat then go use Wikipedia, they'll allow you to advance your agenda there. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::Note how I put 'agenda' and 'pushing' in quotes? That's because I have no agenda to push. Only you seem to think I do. You seem to suggest they only break the rules to make this place 'more conservative'. Well, I'll take an example. The page on Jesus. At one point, the page began by stating that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God. It has been changed, more than once, to 'Jesus Christ is the only Son of God' by sysops. That is in clear breach of commandment 5 - 'do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry', as they are deleting the FACT that Christians believe this to be true and replacing it with the OPINION that it is definitely true. This has nothing whatsoever to do with making it more conservative, and everything to do with making it more Christian fundamentalist. Whilst many conservatives are Christian, not all are, and, indeed, most Christians can tell the difference between verifiable fact and something that is opinion - even if it happens to be an opinion they share, and have an unshakeable belief they're right to believe. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Dude, there's a book called "The Bible", and around these parts it's undeniably true. You don't have to say "Christians believe..." because this site has the Bible as an authoritative source. If you can't accept the Bible as a given truth, then you're not going to do well here at all. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::Unless you can provide absolute, conclusive proof that the Bible is true, then stating anything as fact that only has the Bible as a source is opinion, not fact. The Bible MAY be true, it may not be, I don't know - and neither do you. You may fervently believe it's true, but, unless you have verifiable evidence of this, that is only your belief and opinion, not fact. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::Also, you're pushing an agenda. That science trumps the truth in the Bible. And you're attempting to push that believe on the viewers and contributors of this site. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:20, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::::No, this site is pushing an agenda - that the Bible is true and unquestionable, and dressing that up as 'conservatism'. It's not. It's fundamentalist Christianity. I'm merely pointing out that this is the case. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::So what is conservativism? Most conservatives have a respect for God and religious traditions and acknowledge the role of church in the lives of our founding fathers and through the history of our nation. Remove that from conservativism and it is unclear what is remaining or how unifying it is. Cutting taxes? Generally speaking historically there is a bit more. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Read the page on 'Conservative' on this very site, and you get your answer - 'a conservative is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue.' Incidentally, I note that you say 'most conservatives', not 'all conservatives', so even you must agree that not all conservatives are Christian. Even if they were, not all Christians agree that the Bible is LITERALLY true, like this site seems to think it is - some think some of the things in the Bible are God speaking in simile or metaphor. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 09:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Actually, come to think of it - it is also perfectly possible to have respect for religious traditions and acknowledge the role of the church in the lives of our founding fathers without necessarily following those same traditions for religious reasons or the same religion yourself. Therefore it is perfectly possible to even follow that part of this particular brand of 'conservatism' without being Christian. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 09:31, 19 December 2007 (EST)

The fact that you reject the Bible as truth, shows that you have no meaningful comment to give on this site... now, if only I could block. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Well, unless this site changes to 'christianfundamentalopedia.com', then the fact I do not accept the Bible as absolute proof without evidence is completely irrelevant, quite frankly. Or should be, anyway. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:49, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::The name of the site is irrelevant. Unless wikipedia changes it's name to "ifyoudontlikesciencegoawayapedia" then Conservapedia would consider changing their name. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you equated my belief or lack of belief in the Bible to my ability to give meaningful comment on this site - which, by it's name, is a 'conservative wikipedia'. For your point to be relevant, this site would need to be a 'Christian fundamentalist wikipedia' instead, and thus should change it's name. So which is it - is it relevant, or not? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 00:01, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:I can block, but we don't do it for debate discussions. It's expected not everyone is going to embrace the overall Conservapedia value structure, and we understand that. We just hope that people can respect our right to exist and present opinions that are generally shunned or not allowed on other sites and we welcome anyone who wants to make constructive contributions. Interestingly, if we were as bad as some claim, we wouldn't have these debate pages to begin with. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

==When liberals spend time refuting an idea ... it's already a success==
I remember when FOX News was mocked because it wouldn't make it. I doubt anyone at CNN or MSNBC is laughing now. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You are exactly right.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I've changed my mind. In it's present incarnation, this idea is doomed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

When there are twenty topics in the Scientific Debates section, and eight of them mention God or the Bible in the title, that is not a sign that this place will be any kind of success except for people who imagine the truth is whatever they want it to be. Truth is a double-edged sword for conservatives and liberals alike, and even scientists who are believers should know the difference between a laboratory and a church. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:35, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

:Religion is the most important thing in many people's lives. To some, it trumps everything else, even science. You're taking the wrong approach by trying to push your liberal agenda. Trying to prove your point by liberal "science" won't ever work here, because the audience does not want to hear it at all. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::I don't know if you intended it, but that actually sounded sort of sarcastic... Anyway, I agree with you in respect to your last point. I don't think this site will move beyond its target audience (American Conservative Christians, primarily YEC), but that audience is plenty large for it to gain a considerable following. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Nope no sarcasm at all, honest and earnest belief. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:07, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== ''"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."'' - Oscar Wilde ==

From a glance at (the admittedly-liberally-biased) GoogleNews, it would appear that for the past week, nobody has had anything whatsoever to say about Conservapedia. There is precisely '''one''' minor and sarcastic reference to Conservapedia in all of the last weeks news, ''worldwide''.

I can only deduce from this that Conservapedia has ''already'' failed. This site could hardly be more dead if God had struck it down himself. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 20:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Oh come on, it's at least a very active de-vandalization exercise. And a great place to practice technical writing, since WP is a bit, well, full of already-written articles. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Who cares what agenda the liberal news people are putting out there. Of course it's not covered by liberal news, because this place is what liberals fear. They will not talk about it, because they do not want to give it any credibility. The point you were trying to make it fundamentally flawed in that Conservapedia doesn't care what the liberally agendaed media say. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Actually, I think you'll find, after a good look around this place, it actually does a fairly good job of 'not giving it any credibility' all by itself. There are quite a few parts that fit the worst stereotypes of conservatism. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 22:25, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::I have taken a good look around. And it gives itself credibility to the audience that it targets, conservatives. The wackiness that you're using "conservatism" as if it were immediately a bad thing is completely stupid. I though liberals were supposed to be smarter than conservatives? Apparently, you're not because you refuse to believe any evidence presented by this site. You start immediately with a bias that this place is bad, simply because it's "conservative". God give me strength... you need some help. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::Actually, I did not come here with a view that this place is bad because it's conservative. Having a look round this place gave me that view. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::You obviously cannot accept that Conservapedia considers the Bible as infallably true. If you cannot take accept that in any way, then leave, you're not welcome here. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::::I would have no problem accepting that Conservapedia accepted the Bible as infallibly true - if it stated, clearly, that it was a fundamentalist Christian encyclopedia, not a conservative one. Currently, it seems to be trying to dress up fundamentalist Christian ideals and beliefs as 'conservatism', and presenting them as facts in an encyclopedic form, which I have an objection to because of it's deceitfulness. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 00:08, 19 December 2007 (EST)

You have the most unusual way of showing that you didn't believe that this place is bad right off the start. You reject the conservative, christian ideals, and because of that, you reject the authorities, and sources used on this site. It is not my problem, nor is it anyone's problem here that you cannot accept it. Wikipedia doesn't accept the Bible as truth for anything but articles specifically about the Bible, and Christianity. They reject the truth presented by the Bible, and that's where they fail for the contributors of this site. By ignoring the Bible, they ignore truth. Just like you claim conservatives ignore science. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I reject the sources used on this site because...well...they're not very good. From what I've seen, it's not uncommon for the 'source' to be a single quote taken from a larger passage that diametrically opposes the editor's claims, or a 'source' that is actually giving second or third-hand information, or a 'source' that successfully manages to actually prove itself wrong, or a 'source' that simply makes claims that are not true, and fairly easily proven as such. Wikipedia does not accept the Bible as truth for anything because, to date, there isn't verifiable evidence that the more fantastical things in it are true. Oh, and I do not claim conservatives ignore science - just some of them, including, it seems, many of the ones here. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:35, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::I don't need to debate this any longer. Obviously reject the Bible as truth, because you're so closed-minded that you can't accept that as an axiom, a Christian should believe that the Bible is true. That means, I don't have to prove that it's true, because it just is. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 23:42, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Which is more closed-minded? That it is possible that the Bible is true, but there is no verifiable proof it is, or that it is utterly impossible for the Bible not to be true? [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 23:46, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Domino Theory

2007-12-19T13:44:02Z

Boomcoach: Delete duplicated content, redirecting to "Domino theory"

#REDIRECT [[Domino_theory]]

Saladin

2007-12-18T20:07:26Z

Boomcoach: Spellcheck, breakup paragraph

[[Image:Saladin.jpg|right|thumb|Saladin]]
'''Saladin''' or '''Salah al-Din''' ([[Arabic]]: صلاح الدين الأيوبي) was a [[Kurdish]] [[Muslim]] Sultan who died March 4, 1193. He fought against the [[Crusaders]] in the [[Crusades]]. He was famous for defeating the Christian forces and retaking [[Jerusalem]], and his encounters with Richard I of England is recounted throughout the ages as one of the most romantic military rivalries of all time.

Regularly regarded as a fine example of chivalry, both Richard and Saldin treated each other with enormous respect during the conflict, and Saladin sent Richard fruit and other goods when he was suffering from severe [[dysentery]] during the campaign. Similarly, Richard sent Saladin fine English woolens when he heard that Saladin was suffering from flu. Nevertheless, Richard executed thousands of prisoners outside the walls of [[Acre]] during the siege, an act Saladin did not resemble by his actions throughout the campaign whatsoever.

Saladin was generally a successful general, but he was defeated by [[Richard I]] (who was the King of [[England]] at the time) at the battle of Arsuf in 1191. He also suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Montgisard in 1177 against King [[Baldwin IV]] of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

He first overthrew the [[Fatimid]] dynasty of Egypt, abandoning its [[Shiite]] religion in the process, and then conquered [[Syria]].

[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Crusades]]

Board games

2007-12-18T19:34:56Z

Boomcoach: Add external link

'''Board games''' are a form or recreation. Usually played indoors, they use movable "pieces" and may be two player or multiplayer.

In two-player games goal is either to defeat an opponent so that he loses all of his pieces, or to command the greatest area of the board (e.g. [[chess]], chequers or draughts, go etc.).

In multiplayer games (two or more players) the object is either a race of some kind (snakes & ladders, ''Trivial Pursuit'', ludo etc), to achieve a certain target of "points", or to eliminate all of the other players (''Monopoly'', ''Risk'' etc.). Where the elimination of all other players is the goal the game may take many days to complete and shortened versions are often played with a time limit where the player with the greatest score is declared the winner.

== External Links ==
[http://www.boardgamegeek.com Board Game Geek] - A database of board games, with reviews, ratings, variants and commentary.

[[Category:Board games]]