Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-05-21T06:05:49Z

Capolavoro046: /* To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" */

[[/archive 1|Archive 1]] (20th March 2008)

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: PeterS, you may be an expert in history, but your logic does not follow. The entry does not care ''why'' someone was homeschooled in listing who was homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I think PeterS has a valid point, at least in his first line. As he points out, the article describes homeschooling as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". So for starters, how many on the list were homeschooled ''in the United States''? Clearly, however, homeschooling is not confined to the U.S., so it's the definition rather than the list that should be changed (as far as my argument goes so far).
:: I don't agree with him that it's not a movement; I think that's probably an apt term. But that raises the next problem with the list. Homeschooling ''as a movement'' is a relatively recent phenomenon, over the last forty years, I would guess. So anybody on that list who was educated at home more than around forty years ago does not fit the definition.
:: There's more that I could say, along the lines of PeterS' second paragraph, but perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Similar to my comment below, this criticism is overly literal. But to play that game, "homeschooling" is the movement, while those who were "homeschooled" is a broader category that can go beyond the movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: My immediate response to that, without thinking through it, is that that might make sense, but if it does, at the very least that distinction should be made clear in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Perhaps the opening part of the article could refer to a general, specific definition of homeschooling. That would clear up some of the conceptual difficulties that become more evident later in the article. '''Then''' you could branch out after that and comment on the "homeschooling movement" in the United States. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: An addendum to my previous post: I still think my dispute with the Dickens example stands. Just because someone does not receive a formal education at a school, it does not mean they were homeschooled. The facts are these: Dickens was educated as long as was financially possible. When his father was jailed, he was sent to work in a factory, like many financially disadvantaged young people at the time. To my knowledge (and the minutiae of the personal histories of English authors are not my strongest point), there is no evidence that his mother actively homeschooled him. Indeed, all the evidence points to his mother being firmly in favour of him working at a boot-blacking factory ''instead of'' getting an education. If you have evidential proof that this was not the case, feel free to cite it. Once again, if you think my argumentation over this is not valid, then you've got to sort out the definitional problem ASAP. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded the introduction to:
* Remove the United States as part of the definition.
* To define homeschooling as being educated "primarily at home", rather than "outside the traditional school system", as the latter could include non-traditional schools. The existing text later in the article expands on "primarily at home", to explain the parts that are not at home.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also changed references to homeschooling in the prominent people list to "educated at home" or "taught at home" (as some entries already were) for all persons whose education preceded the formation of the homeschooling movement. By the way, the entry for Leonardo doesn't actually say that he was taught at home. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nobody uses the phrase "educated at home," Philip. Have you ever heard anyone use it? An encyclopedia should use common and easily understood terminology, first and foremost. "Homeschooled" is the term that is used. Also, I'm not aware of a category that is "outside the traditional school system" but not homeschooled. Homeschooling is not dependent on the ''physical location'', but on the approach. Again, I object to the overly literal and [[materialistic]] approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "educated at home"...
::* I'm not in the habit of noting down every phrase I hear, so in one sense I couldn't say whether I've ever heard it, but I would think that I ''have'' heard it.
::* That's apart from this article, which as I said, already used it, the phrase having been included by Dpbsmith ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=16849]), Hsmom ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151194], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151212], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=155576], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=165607],[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=167430]), and NonXtianConservative ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=219041]).
::* Google returns 106,000 hits for "educated at home", so it's fairly common.
::* And even if none of that was the case, isn't Conservapedia proud of inventing [[Conservapedia terms|new terms]]?
:: "Homeschooled" is one of a number of terms that are used. Another is "taught at home", which was used by none other than one Aschlafly ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=218738])! I've used both those terms to avoid too much repetition.
:: And of course there is the ''reason'' I made those changes, that if homeschooling is defined (correctly, I believe) to be a movement that started in the 1960s, then anybody educated/taught/tutored at home prior to then cannot be said to be "homeschooled". That's not to say that their situation is necessarily quite different, but it does mean that the term itself should not be used of them.
:: "outside the traditional school system" depends on what is meant by "traditional". It could mean schools that allow the students to decide what they learn, for example, or other schools that take a non-traditional approach in any number of ways. It could include parent-controlled Christian schools, as ''traditionally'' schools have been controlled by governments or religious denominations. Yes, those examples are all schools, but they're not necessarily ''traditional'' schools.
:: If "homeschooling" is not dependent (to a fair extent) on the physical location, then why is it called "''home''schooling"? And if it's dependent on the approach, why is it not defined in terms of the approach? In any case, the previous definition was based on physical location, that being "outside ... schools".
:: How is my definition "overly literal"?
:: And how is is "materialistic"?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, you say that "Google returns 106,000 hits for 'educated at home,' so it's fairly common." But that is only about 5% of the frequency of use of "homeschooled", which generates nearly 2 million hits on Google. So "educated at home" is not "fairly common" relative to its counterpart. It is also meaningless to define ''where'' someone is taught rather than focusing on the approach.

::: It is overly literal and materialistic to define homeschooling in terms of the physical location (e.g., at home) rather than the approach (e.g., parental control). Shall we next define [[Christian]]s based on where they pray? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Googling "homeschooled" without the quotes I get 1.6 million hits (which includes variations such as ''homeschooling'' and ''homeschool''). Googling "homeschooled ''with'' the quotes, I get 1.49 million hits. So the percentage is actually about 7. But I wasn't trying to claim that it's the most common use of the term. I was pointing out that your claim that "Nobody uses the phrase" is incorrect. If 7% is "nobody", then I guess nobody gets homeschooled, as the figure there is "only" 2%. But clearly 2% still amounts to a large figure, and 7% is also quite sufficient to say that the term is commonly used, even if "homeschooled" is considerably more common.
:::: As I said, the previous definition focused on "where" and "the physical location", except for it being a positive "at home" it was a negative "not at school". So my change did not change that the definition was location-based. However, the new definition that you've now provided is a good one, and I'm reasonably happy with that (it could be tweaked a bit. For example, it links to the American definition of 'public school' rather than the broader 'school').
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some thoughts - I use the term "educated at home" quite frequently, as it can include quite a number of educational approaches, only some of which I'd call "homeschooling". In some states in the USA, various terms have very specific meaning. As an example, in Pennsylvania, students can be "privately tutored", "receiving homebound instruction", "enrolled in a cyber-charter school", or "enrolled in a home education program". All four of these kinds of students are educated at home - that is, they get much of their education in their own home. Some folks call all four kinds "homeschooled". However, in two of these cases the students are public school students (educated at taxpayer expense, with school-provided curriculum). Many people would not consider this "homeschooling", at least in the traditional sense, especially as the parents have little say in the curriculum content, which has to meet state standards. Students can be "privately tutored" by their parent or a hired tutor - for various reasons, some would consider only the former to be "homeschooling". "Home education programs" create a broad umbrella which can encompas a variety of approaches. For example, home educated students can enroll in homeschool co-ops - essentially "schools for homeschoolers", and may actually do little if any of their learning in their own home. In some other states, no one is, legally speaking, homeschooling - they are all enrolled in private schools, some of which are so small as to have only students from a single family. With the rise of publicly-run and publicly-funded internet-based schools, people are being more careful about how they use the term "homeschooling". We do not want the general public to assume that anyone who is homeschooling is doing so at significant taxpayer expense, as that could result in an unacceptable level of government oversight and control, so we must be careful with our terminology. It's tricky stuff.
:::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that the list of arguably homeschooled people stretches the definition of homeschooling beyond my recognition (as a homeschooling mom). [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] makes a good case that Dickens was not homeschooled (lack of education does not IMHO equal homeschooling, as discussed previously with George Washington Carver). I also think Joan of Arc was not homeschooled - her mother taught her prayers and household skills, as most mothers have taught their daughters for centuries, but there is no evidence she gave any academic instruction. But [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it's your sandbox, so your say goes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto ban on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The government of California has said they will not enforce it, but to have it on the books begs a time when the government may not be as friendly and could decide to crack down. They didn't allow homeschooling per se, but did it's equivalent by saying a special license was necessary to teach. Since homeschoolers score higher on standardized tests than their public school counterparts, it is especially troubling to see efforts made to curtail it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, Learn Together! I didn't read it from a primary source, I read it from someone who regurgitated it for me. They said that that they would require extensive training/licencing to be a homeschool teacher, which would essentially kill the movement. The article I read didn't say that CA wasn't going to enforce the ruling (because that would make for a significantly less interesting article for a libertarian newsletter!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, let's look at your examples, several of whom would not be described as "great mathematicians"; others in your list who were [[homeschooled]]; and still more who were schooled but achieved despite it. Spell out the schooling of each of your examples and you'll find that nearly all of them fall in one of the categories I just identified, and hence my reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That last category ("were schooled but achieved despite it") is of people who were ''not'' homeschooled. Correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, you are literally correct, but figuratively that category reinforces the thesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: How does "people who were educated in a regular shool and did well" (to rephrase it) support the thesis? (The phrase "despite it" presumes what the thesis is trying to demonstrate, so is a circular argument.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::Right, so let's have a look at the first criterion. In other words, "several of whom would not be described as great mathematicians". Actually, I don't think that's my job. I think if you want to make a statement claiming that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled, you need to prove it. '''You''' need to identify exactly who you would classify as a "great mathematician" and name them all: or have you already done that? What are your criteria for great mathematicians? Then '''you''' need to identify what percentage of those were homeschooled. '''Then''' you can assert that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. Now: "others in your list who were homeschooled". Again, it's a meaningless statement because you have never defined exactly what constitutes a homeschooled person - how many years they need to have been homeschooled - and when people have asked on this talk page, you haven't answered. Next: "still more who were schooled but achieved despite it". Hmmm... so you're making the assumption that because they were high achievers but attended school, they must have achieved '''despite''' their education? And you're using that justify the contention that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Which means that those who achieved highly did so despite their education? Which means that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Where does the circular nature of that argument end? Can I reiterate: I think that homeschooling is great if people are prepared to do it, and I think that you personally have done a lot of good things in terms of homeschooling. But I don't think it helps our conservative cause if we make silly hyperbolic statements all over the place in a futile gesture to stick it up to the liberals/atheists. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: PeterS, our list of homeschoolers includes many of the greatest mathematicians. Please read it. Your list does not disprove the statement that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. I invited you to spell out the schooling of those in your list (as I have done for those homeschooled), but so far you've declined to do so. So your objection does not persuade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Andrew, I have read the list. But "many of the greatest mathematicians" is a different statement from "nearly every great mathematician". "Many" is completely different from "nearly every". "Many" is fairly uncontroversial, because it doesn't directly imply proportionality - it could mean a majority, or it could mean a sizeable minority, or it could mean some arbitrary proportion that you specify. "Nearly every" implies a sizeable majority, probably somewhere in the region of 90-95% - I'm being arbitrary here, but "nearly every" would, in the English language, be somewhere close to 100%. Now, until you can tell us what a "great mathematician" is, and list all those that you classify as great mathematicians, you cannot say that almost 100% of great mathematicians were homeschooled. If a student came to me with an essay saying something like "nearly every person killed in the Reign of Terror was an aristocrat", I would underline the statement, ask in the page margin for a citation of the number of people killed in the Terror, ask for a citation of the number of aristocrats killed in the Terror, and ask them to justify why that may have been the case (based on a historical interpretation). Your statement does not match any of these rather non-exhaustive criteria, and it'd be interesting if you could address this. On to the second part of your question: citations for my names. It should not be my job to find citations to help to prove or disprove your unproven statement. And I ask that before you try to pick apart my examples and set arbitrary criteria, you address what I've just said in this paragraph and my previous statements. But I'll do this anyway.
:::* '''Isaac Newton''' - accounts vary, but all acknowledge that he received a formal education in at least one school. According to this source, [http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm], he was educated at King's School, Grantham. According to this source, [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] he was educated at Free Grammar School, Grantham. Despite the inconsistency in the name, we can conclude that whichever school(s) he attended, he did attend school for most of his childhood. This source [http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html] tells us that while he spent years out of school, he was not homeschooled during that time: indeed, it was felt that "he did not need an education". Without even requiring criteria, I think we can conclude that the development of Calculus is enough to make him a "great mathematician", not to mention these things called the laws of motion...
:::* '''Leonhard Euler''' - this source [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Leonhard%20Euler] tells us that he went to a low quality school, but the fact stands: he attended school during that time, even if he self-taught and received tutoring at the same time. But even if you choose to disagree with my contention, it doesn't change my objections, noted in all my above comments. Anyway, Euler = great mathematician, no contest, even without criteria.
:::* '''George Pólya''' - [http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/polya/biography.htm] says it all. Again, criteria are a problem, because you have never specified any, but Pólya is one of the world's foremost modern contributors to mathematical logic and combinatorics through elements such as the Pólya enumeration theorem and his four principles of mathematical proofs/problem solving.
:::* '''Carl Friedrich Gauss''' - this source [http://www.mathsong.com/cfgauss/Dunnington/1927/] tells us that he was educated from the age of seven. Case closed. That page also details his mathematical achievements very well in areas such as number theory in particular.
:::* '''John Venn''' - [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Venn.html]: went straight through Cholmley's and Islington. End of story. As for being a great mathematician... ever used a Venn diagram?
:::* '''Bernoulli family''' - it is much more difficult to find evidence for the Bernoulli family - it is a pattern that people would either be taught at home or sent to a local school before moving onto more prestigious pursuits in secondary school or university. Obviously it's difficult to be consistent in researching across a cross-generational family. I'll gladly ignore this one.
:::* '''Pierre de Fermat''' - he self-taught mathematics [http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Fermat-e.htm], but that came once he had already studied jurisprudence at university and become a councillor. This source [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html] tells us that he did indeed receive a primary and secondary education. This source confirms that he was probably schooled at a Franciscan monastery [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html]. And he was great; no matter what criteria you set.
:::* '''Johannes Kepler''' - this source [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kepler.html] tells us that although he helped in his grandfather's inn, he attended a local school and then a seminary. Kepler did of course achieve extraordinary things in astronomy, physics and mathematics including things such as positing the Kepler conjecture (which will probably become a theorem).
:::{{unsigned|PeterS}}

:: OK, your list of great mathematicians who were not homeschooled is dwindling fast. Working backwards, Kepler evidently was educated while helped at his relative's inn, and he isn't considered a great mathematician anyway. Fermat was self-taught in mathematics. The Bernouilli family almost certainly handed down their expertise through homeschooling, and you've conceded dropping them. Venn was not a great mathematician.

:: We're left with only four: Newton, Euler, Polya, and Gauss. I'll check them out now. It may be that a few of them were not homeschooled, which is why the claim is not that every great mathematician was homeschooled, but that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. But I'm curious to investigate the education of these four.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Newton apparently did not attend school until age 10, making him another homeschooler. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::The fact that Newton did not attend school until the age of 10 does not make him a homeschooler. Indeed the source you cited says nothing about what his education was before Free Grammar School, if he had one. A homeschooling education seems unlikely, as the source says that Newton's grandfather, whom he was living with, practically ignored Newton, and that Newton hated his mother and step-father. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 23:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Andrew Schlafly, you claim to be an expert in everything yet you are totally incapable of answering a simple request of another person is only trying to improve your encyclopaedia. I have spent several screenfuls of this discussion page trying to ask you two '''very simple questions''', which shouldn't be too difficult whether the answerer is homeschooled or not. (1) '''What is your definition of a great mathematician?''' and (2) '''What exactly constitutes homeschooling?''' Your page does neither. Under your (highly elusive) criteria, spending a couple of years at home while of primary school age is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, receiving private tutoring while simultaneously attending school daily is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, a mathematician is great only if you say so, because under your criteria, Johannes Kepler and John Venn cease to become a great mathematician. Schlafly, this encyclopaedia will only live up to its name - Conservapedia - when it becomes an accurate reflection of a conservative viewpoint. At the moment, its Schlaflipedia: if you don't want to answer a reasonable question, you block your ears. That's also why you lock Conservapedia from editing when there aren't sysops around to jump on people who are trying to improve articles. You are driving away conservatives who want to make a difference but can't because Sleep-ly (grab a German dictionary if you don't get the pun) doesn't want his personal authority challenged. I am a conservative on every issue - foreign policy, economic policy, social policy et al - but that won't keep me at Conservapedia. You are harming the good work of real conservatives who deal in facts and proofs. I should note that I don't expect this comment to be here tomorrow; I expect that it will be "archived" in the rubbish bin, along with my user account. "Godspeed" to anyone who ever tries to object to Schlafly's perverse logic and warped ideas. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: PeterS, your comments are becoming increasingly long-winded, incoherent and insulting. Get to the point succinctly and politely, and I'll respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time. By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician," nor is one necessary for such a term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you've just conceded his point. If you don't define what constitutes a "great mathematician" then you can not define the set of "great mathematicians" therefore you can not legitimately claim that "nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled" be cause it is completely unquantifiable. Like-wise, you refuse to define what constitutes "homeschooled". For you, it appears to mean anyone who ever learned anything outside of a traditional public school system education from K-12 and college... but this ignores the fact that such traditional structure has not been commonplace since the dawn of history. Many of the examples you give are from several hundred years ago when this structure was not in plaace in the manner it is to day, yet you conflate any kind of home learning in that time period with homescholling as it is today... the two are not necessarily equivalent. You want them to be, in order to push your ideology. Also, discounting any example given as either "not a great mathematician" or labelling them "homeschooled" because they have some minor period of time that they were not traditionally schooled seems a prime example of either conservative deceit or deliberate ignorance. And, in case you are actually interested in true facts, and a quantifiable definition of great mathematicians... here's at least one list of the 100 greatest per Mathematics Teacher magazine from 1962: afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~flora/100.html You might note that Kepler is among the names listed. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Taking a look at the first 10 names on the list:
*Newton - not homeschooled
*Leibnitz - not homeschooled
*Lagrange - self taught
*Euler - attended schooler and studied under Bernoulli
*Laplace - not homeschooled
*Euclid - unkown, though he did probably attend Plato's Academy
*Gauss - not homeschooled
*Archimedes - his schooling is also unknown
*Descartes - not homeschooled
*Cardano - homeschooled
:So 5 of the top 10 were definitely not homeschooled. One (Cardano) definitely was, one's (Lagrange's) status depends on how you define homeschooling, one (Euler) had both simultaneously, and two are unknown. Do you really want to continue the claim that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You don't say, but perhaps your "list" is from the 1962 ranking by "Mathematics Teacher." Nearly all the entries are (oddly) prior to the 19th century, and it's likely that most of the referenced individuals were homeschooled. I've already checked Newton, as explained above, and he did not enter a school under after age 10. So I don't find anything credible about your statements. If you want to provide details about the schooling of those to support a claim they were not homeschooled, then we can look at your detail. Otherwise, your objection is not persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::If you really count ''being schooled at home until only about fourth or fifth grade and then speding the rest of his schooling years being taught in formal schools'' as homeschooling (which seems to be a poor definition), then yes, Newton was homeschooled. However, even in modern times, alegbra isn't even taught that young, so how much math schooling Newton could have received before the age of 10 is questionable. As for the others:
::*Leibnitz: "At the age of seven, Leibniz entered the Nicolai School in Leipzig"[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html]
::*Laplace: "Laplace attended a Benedictine priory school in Beaumont-en-Auge, as a day pupil, between the ages of 7 and 16." [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Laplace.html]
::*Gauss: "At the age of seven, Carl Friedrich Gauss started elementary school" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Gauss.html]
::*Descartes: "Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Descartes.html]
:::And while we have been providing sources, you have yet to provide a source showing that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 15:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Our entry has numerous examples of great mathematicians who were homeschooled. Have you even read it yet???

:::: For all the bluster by critics, we are down to only four great mathematicians who may not have been homeschooled: Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes. But even your description of those four are not persuasive, and raise more questions than they answer. By age 7 or 8, great mathematicians are often quite a bit along already in their skills. And what did these four mathematicians do after they entered school? Laplace, for example, was apparently taught mathematics in a special way by his uncle in connection with the school. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-5572(194902)2%3A33%3A303%3C1%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::First of all, I highly resent the use of the word bluster. Second of all, you've forgotten Euler, Polya, Kepler, and Venn, mentioned above. Third, here are more of from the list of the top 100:
::::*Legendre: Went to college in Paris, before that schooling unstated [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Legendre.html]
::::*Monge: attended Oragion college before going to Lyons at 16 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Monge.html]
::::*D'Alembert: attended private school, then attended Collège des Quatre Nations [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/D'Alembert.html]
::::*Fourier: first studied at Pallais's school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier.html]
::::*Napier: homeschooled until age of 13 after (interestingly enough) his uncle sent his father a letter: "I pray you, sir, to send your son John to school; over to France or Flanders; for he cannot learn well at home" [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Napier.html]
::::*Viete: attended school in Fontenay-le-Comte [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Viete.html]
::::*Maclaurin: his family moved to Dumbarton specifically for the attendence of school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Maclaurin.html]
::::*Cavalieri: studied at a Jesuit monestary and the University of Pisa [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cavalieri.html]
::::*Wallis: attended school in Ashford and Tenterden [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wallis.html]
::::*Tartaglia: attended school from the age of four [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia.html]
::::*Poncet: attended Lycee Imperial [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Victor_Poncelet]
::::*Chasles: attended Lycee Imperial [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Chasles.html]
::::*Cremona: educated at Ginnasio in Pavia [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cremona.html]
::::*Boscovich: attended Ragusinum starting at age 9 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boscovich.html]
::::*Lambert: attended school in Mulhouse [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lambert.html]
::::*Barrow: attended Charterhouse and Felstead [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Barrow.html]
:::::These are just ones whose non-homeschooled education can be confirmed. This is also only from the top 50 of this one list. Many of the top 50 not mentioned weren't necessarily homeschooled either. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking back, others and I have listed 24 mathematicians not homeschooled (Barrow, Boscovich, Cavalieri, Chasles, Cremona, D'Alembert, Descartes, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Kepler, Lambert, Laplace, Legrende, Leibnitz, Maclaurin, Monge, Napier, Polya, Poncet, Tartaglia, Venn, Viete, Wallis). Your article lists 11 who were homeschooled (Cauchy, Chebyshev, Erdos, Fermat, Galois, Hamilton, Jacobi, Mandelbrot, Pascal, Poincare, Riemann) (though I might have missed one or two) [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 20:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Were you unable to provide details about your four mathematicians (Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes) as discussed above? It seems you're now resorting to quantity rather than quality. I've already debunked several claims among your new list of 24, and at least half of them fail to qualify as "great" mathematicians. Unless you can back up your claim with respect to the four mentioned above, I'm going to move on confident that the great mathematicians were almost all homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::"By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician,"" are your own words. So why can't I call them great mathematicians? I don't have a definition either, but I think all of them are great, and I certainly think a publication entitled "Mathematics Teacher" is more qualified than you to determine who qualifies as great. Of Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss, and Descartes, only for Laplace did you provide any evidence against formal education being their primary source of education, while I have sources that outright state that they attended a formal school of some kind. Also, I looked at your source for Laplace and I can't see beyond the first page, which states merely that Laplace's uncle was on the staff of his school and kindled his interest in mathematics, not that his uncle actually taught him in a special form. My previous citations for their education still stand. If you have any real proof that their education was still homeschooling of some sort after they entered a formal school, please enlighten me. Also, if you have debunked some of my claims, would you be so kind as to show some proof for those as well? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, ZTak, I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't provided a single mathematician with evidence that he was never homeschooled. I've provided in this entry countless examples of great mathematicians who were. I'll take a look at your other three examples, but am confident that nearly all of them were homeschooled also. A mathematician is unlikely to develop to greatness without the head start, independence, encouragement and flexibility that homeschooling uniquely provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Now you're moving the goalposts. I have to prove they were '''never''' homeschooled? That's a universal negative. I can't ever prove that. That would be like asking me to prove that none of them were ever abducted by aliens who fed knowledge directly into their brain. I can't prove that such abudctions never happened. I can prove, which I did, that their main education was at some sort of formal school. I proved that for Legendre, Monge, D'Alembert, Fourier, Napier, Viete, Maclaurin, Cavalieri, Wallis, Tartaglia, Poncet, Chasles, Cremona, Boscovich, Lambert, and Barrow. Finally, you still have yet to prove your statement that Laplace was specially educated by his uncle. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I can qualify too, eh? I wrote a theorem for [[Synthetic Division]]--which had many, many corollaries--and I was "fake schooled" up to 2nd grade mathematics to substitute for missing the preschool deadline. ("fake school" is what I called homeschooling at that age). -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFK]] 22:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Opinions ==

This article voices personal opinions more so than fact with a conservative point of view, directly in line with the Conservapedia Commandments. Opinions? I can find examples in the text if you would like. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sufiah Yusof ==

Homeschooled prodigy Sufiah Yusof, who went to Oxford at 13, has been found working as a prostitute ten years later. Will this mentioned in the article? Doubt it. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-human-cost-of-trying-to-make-geniuses/2008/04/04/1207249453810.html] [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Parents who send a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college should have their heads examined. Your link supports that decision as the cause of this tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[University of Oxford]] is a "liberal college"? I see that it is also "One of the most influential universities in history...". At least that's what the Conservapedia article says. Fancy that! Pretty good going for a mere liberal college. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:38, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes on both points, and there's no contradiction there. Hello, Oxford is [[liberal]] today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Hello. On what basis do you say that? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:07, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, time for [[liberal denial]], I see. If you can identify a half-dozen [[conservative]] professors at Oxford, then I'd be astonished. I'm confident you can't. Meanwhile, observe all the [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] there, and how students like Christopher Hitchens became Trotskyists while at Oxford. [http://www.experiencefestival.com/political_views].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Schlafly, when you become a qualified psychologist, then perhaps you will be in a position to make your insensitive and blasé judgements about this case. I challenge you to find a single reputable psychologist who will tell you that Sufiah Yusof's present condition is caused not by pushy parenting, "hot house" homeschooling, or excessive media exposure (or a combination of the three) but instead caused by attending an institution which you claim is a hotbed for "liberal deceit". Or perhaps you'd instead like to play a game of Schlafly word bingo and throw in mentions of [[homosexuality]], [[intelligent design]], [[liberal hypocrisy]], [[liberal hysteria]] and [[liberal myths]] in your next post. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Peter, you're clueless about the dangers of sending a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college. If you think it takes a credentialed psychologist to explain that, then you have a lot to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, I can't think what came over me: for a moment, I thought that facts and evidence were actually valued in this place. The issue here isn't that she was sent to a ''liberal'' college at age 13. It is that she was sent to a college '''at all''' at age 13. It is that she was hot-housed (a form of extremely rigorous homeschooling) and driven mercilessly by a pushy and overambitious father. It is that her father also did everything he could to overwhelm her with media attention. You boast on the Homeschooling page about people who went to university at age 13 or 14 and then became great mathematicians or philosophers or whatever. But the simple fact is that large numbers of homeschooled prodigies do '''not''' reach such pinnacles and instead have their lives ruined by the reckless practices of their parents. You're right. It doesn't take a credentialed psychologist to explain this scenario: Sufiah Yusof herself describes her experience at the hands of '''her parents''' (that's right, '''not''' Oxford's oppressive liberal regime) as a living hell and says that she has "enough of 15 years of physical and emotional abuse".[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/child-prodigy-working-as-a-prostitute/2008/04/04/1207249460601.html?page=2] Happy now? (I doubt it.) [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:09, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Difficulties ==

This article looks pretty strange to me, since it includes people who lived centuries ago, such as Leonardo Da Vinci. But my understanding of the homeschooling movement indicates that it exists only in contrast to public schooling... and widespread public schooling is a much more recent innovation. In the United States, for example, public schooling began shortly before the twentieth century.
Certainly many of these individuals belong on the page, but it seems disingenuous to claim that Benjamin Franklin was "homeschooled," for example, since at that time such was still mostly the norm. This makes it quite distinct from the modern era, wherein homeschooling is very unusual (speaking statistically, not as a value judgment).
By the same token, I wouldn't call him "public schooled," either, naturally. But this article blurs the line between modern homeschooling (a distinct "movement" in opposition to national institutionalized public schools) and the simple sparcity of formal schooling in the centuries before government public schools. Given the fact that the owner of this site, Andy Schlafly, is a well-known homeschooling advocate, indeed even teaching homeschooling classes on the site, and his personal view is endorsed by most of the sysops on the site, I think this gives the appearance (if not the fact) of trying to deliberately smudge the dividing line between the two eras. Such an appearance or fact should be corrected.

Another criticism might be made in that the list of "homeschooled" individuals is very liberal with that assignation. I would suggest a clarifying sentence at the fore of the list, mentioning what the requirements for the list are... currently they are simply described as being "educated at home," which is a very broad statement. It should be clarified that these are individuals who have spent any portion of their youth or young adulthood being educated at home, since many of them spent years in formal education.
Please consider each of the above points separately on their own merit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments, though thoughtful, seem to reject the definition of homeschooling:

::Homeschooling is a movement in which students receive education from a parent or guardian, or instructors acting under the direction of a parent or guardian, rather than from certified teachers in a formal school setting like a public school.

:Though you implicitly seem to reject this definition, you don't propose an alternative. Note that this definition applies whenever a formal school setting existed, which goes back at least to [[ancient Greece]], before Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::As I note, there exists a generally understood distinction in most people's minds between the modern homeschooling "movement," as it is described on the page, and the previous lack of public schools. If you request a different definition, then I would suggest something such as "Homeschooling is the modern movement in which students... etc.", and then the examples of individuals "homeschooled" previous to a certain date (1850 or so would seem reasonable, as that was about when public schooling came into being in America to the best of my knowledge) could be moved to a different section. This new section could have the heading connecting the modern homeschooling movement with the tradition of home schooling which existed prior to the alternative of public schooling. This would allow all of the names and such to remain on the page, and keep that connection which reflects positively on homeschooling (the clear intent) without being quite so absurd. Would those changes satisfy you?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree with TomMoore, and am very disappointed that Andy has ignored the previous discussion on this page and reverted to terminology that was changed because of these very concerns, and after discussion. The article also says that "homeschooling began in the 1960s", and whilst I don't know the exact date, or even the exact decade, I would think that the 1960s would be about right. So people educated outside schools centuries or even millennia ago cannot properly be called "homeschooled".
::: (Actually, since writing that, I've been done a little research. "Dr. Raymond S Moore, the inspiration to many homeschoolers of recent generations" started homeschooling in the 1940s. The book "No More Public School", published in 1972, is described as a "Pioneering how-to book about homeschooling, from the days when homeschooling had a tenuous legal status and the term "homeschooling" hadn't been coined".)
::: If the article is meant to be about the modern movement, then those older examples don't belong here. If the page is meant to be about people educated outside the school system, then the title and content should be altered to reflect that, and the term "homeschooling" should be dropped for those older examples.
::: It is true that schools have existed as far back as ancient Greece (at least), but that doesn't mean that they have always existed since then, nor in all societies. For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich. In other words, for much of history, being educated at home (or etc.) was the normal way that people got educated, and was not the exception, and was certainly not called "homeschooling".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it not the case that homeschooling in the contemporary sense exists in opposition to, or any rate as distinct from, 'compulsory' state education? One can only 'opt out' of a system if that system exists in the first place; and therefore one could say homeschooling o0nly became a valid concept once education of children was made compulsory by the state. Thus in the UK 'homeschooling' would only be a realistic concept after the Education Act of 1871 which decreed that all children should receive elementary education. That is not to say, of course, that children were not educated at home before then; but the notion of 'homeschooling' as a 'political' act or act of resistance against the perceived shortcomings (educational, moral, religious) of the official education system can only date from that point. [[User:Mediaevalist|Mediaevalist]] 07:14, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.

::::: Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "Modern" schooling was begun, I believe, by Christian churches. "Sunday School" was not religious education for children while the adults listened to the sermon, but "secular" education on the only day that the children were not at work in the mines, fields, or factories. Eventually, this church-sponsored education was taken over by governments, but prior to the churches doing this, there was little if anything in the way of formal education. Ancient Greece may have been different; I don't know, but I wasn't trying to suggest that schooling started off only for the rich; I actually meant that this likely came ''later'' than Greece, although even in Greece I ''suspect'' that it was not for everyone.
:::::: But more to the point is what Mediaevalist said above, that homeschooling is an 'opting out' of the official education system, and as such ''can't'' exist until there is an official education system.
:::::: Your change to the homeschooling ''movement'' starting in the 1960s doesn't help: The first line of the article defines homeschooling ''as the movement''. Previously the article said (in effect), "Homeschooling is a movement... Homeschooling began in the 1960s" Now, it says (in effect) "Homeschooling is a movement...that began in the 1960s". So pre-1960s examples are still not "homeschooling".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Good point about the flaw in the definition. Homeschooling should not be defined as a movement, and I've deleted that reference. There is a "homeschooling movement." Just as a pacifist does not have to belong to an antiwar movement, a homeschooler need not belong to any movement.

::::::: Homeschooling does not require "opting out" and to limit the definition to that is to relegate it perpetually to the fringe. Homeschooling does typically entail rejecting a formalized and popularized schooling system, but as already noted such systems have existed at least since [[ancient Greece]]. Surely the ancient [[Hebrews]] and [[Christians]] also had church-based schooling systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I don't particularly agree with modern homeschooling and all those older examples being lumped in together, but I have to admit that the article is probably more consistent and less objectionable now.
:::::::: I guess that the answer to whether or not the ancient Hebrews and Christians had church-based schooling systems depends on what you mean by "schooling", but I think the answer is essentially "no", they didn't. That is, there might well have been ''some'' things that children learnt in church, but as far as I know, there were no formalised schools run by anyone for the most part, for thousands of years. Almost all education was done directly by parents, and even this was pretty limited, with the result that most could not even read and write. Sure, no doubt they learnt various life skills, but even this would not have been in any sort of formalised schooling in the home, let along in schools. It was probably more in the form akin to apprenticeships, that is, children learnt their parent's trade by helping their parents in their work.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I appreciate your first paragraph, but must disagree with your second. I'm sure the ancient [[Hebrews]] had schooling just as the [[ancient Greeks]] did, and probably many other ancient civilizations did also. How else could Pharisees and other members of the priestly class be trained?

::::::::: There is a modern (and [[liberal]]) tendency to look down on our ancient ancestors. All indications, however, are that they were ''smarter'' than people today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindented)
This is a minor improvement, Mr. Schlafly, but I still think the problem exists. Let me address your replies.

''Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.''

That is not necessarily true. I would argue that homeschooling as a concept, as it is understood by the vast majority of people, would be construed as the deliberate choice to teach a child at home as specifically opposed to public schooling. This latter part of the definition is the one missing from this article's approach to the matter, since most people (as indicated here) disagree with the idea that anyone in history taught at home was "homeschooled" in the sense in which the idea is understood today. I think this is the real substantive point, in fact, behind this disagreement. You should take note, I think, of that fact that both I (as liberal as they come) and PJR (as conservative as they come, and your most intelligent sysop) are neither of us opposed to homeschooling, and yet we feel that this article is misleadingly favorable to the practice, whereas you (a strong advocate) feel it is not. Perhaps you might want to step back from this one, and a few other outside opinions on the matter?

: Tom, you overrely on your perceptions of what others think (see point 11 in [[liberal style]]). Homeschooling is not defined in terms of [[public school]]. The view of homeschoolers towards public school is varied, and public schools themselves have changed throughout history and are different in different locations today. Homeschooling is a parental approach to child-rearing that would exist regardless of the form taken by public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I assume from your aspersion that you are declining to take a step back from this, despite the fact that you are extraordinarily partisan to one side in this discussion? That is somewhat disappointing.

::It seems to me that it is only reasonable to rely on "perceptions of what others think" when it comes to interpreting the meaning of words. Words mean only what they are agreed-upon to mean; this is why meanings shift over time in a sometimes-dramatic manner (such as "geek"). "Homeschooling" to you seems to mean "any alternative schooling by non-certified individuals at home." That is a very reasonable interpretation, and I am not saying it is ''wrong.'' I am just saying that the vast majority of people specifically identify homeschooling with the more modern "movement" (as it was put previously), not with your broader definition, and that should be taken into account. Or, if you want to change the way people think about it, you should specifically contradict the colloquial definition and state more explicitly the difference between the customary understanding and your usage.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Tom, you're not even quoting me correctly and still don't seem to understand the essence of homeschooling. Please expand your horizons and get to know some homeschooling families, and read about those who have homeschooled in history. Then we can chat again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I thought I was quoting you adequately, and apologize if there was some error in the above quote ("perceptions of what others think"). It was copy-and-pasted from your own words, though.

::::If the definition of homeschooling I give above is also inaccurate, that is possible, but it is not a quote, it was an attempt to sum up for use in our dialog. Please substitute your whole definition above, if that helps.

::::I am not sure what you mean about "expanding my horizons;" I was good friends with an enormous family that homeschooled all their children and then sent them to the University of Stuebenville. They were about as devout a set of devotees to homeschooling as can be imagined. I know them and their views, as well as your own, quite well. That's why I opened this conversation, to address a gross shortcoming in the article.

::::The "homeschooled in history" item is the crux of the issue here, and so I strongly urge you not to dismiss me as you have. My concerns are stated clearly and substantively several times: I feel that the article blurs the divide between the commonly-held perspective of what "homeschooling" is, and a historical although perhaps technically accurate analogue, and that this blurring is encyclopedic. It is easy to brush me aside with personal remarks about how I need to "expand my horizons," but clearly less easy to address my concerns.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:03, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Tom, I'm not going to spend all night discussing this with you, and your account will be blocked if you just talk here. You misquoted the definition of homeschooling and seem blinded by your contact with an unusual single homeschooling family. If you continue to think that people today are very different from people hundreds of years ago, and homeschool for very different reasons, you're wrong. Meet more homeschoolers and read more history; you can do both on this site. Then let's chat further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I have made substantive edits tonight, such as to [[Alice and Wonderland]], [[Beowulf]], and [[Mind/body]], so I am not worried about being blocked for "just talk[ing] here," since I am not doing so.

::::::I am sorry if it appears as though I misquoted the definition. As I said scrupulously above, you may substitute the whole of your definition if you would like, since I was simply quoting it as I referred to it, rather than suggesting it as some sort of change.

::::::Please, do not continue to speculate as to my personal knowledge of homeschooling. That is not the ''only'' homeschooling family I know, I was mentioning them only to let you know that your assertion that I was not familiar with any was entirely wrong. I am an Eagle Scout, and many of those in my troop were homeschooled. I assure you, I am fully familiar with the concepts and people involved, and it doesn't change my considered opinion of the article at all. How would it, after all?

::::::I really am only trying to get a firm conclusion on the matter to which I have referred you: the discrepancy between your definition of homeschooling, which includes all such schooling throughout history, and the common understanding which generally is understood as referring to the modern movement. Please do not block me by way of avoiding this matter, I am quite serious and think I have presented a very compelling case. If you personally do not have time (since you say you don't want to spend all night on it), you have numerous other sysops. Ordinarily, of course, I would just make the edits myself, but it is pretty clear that on topics like this no one is allowed to edit anything that might be disagreed with, without checking with an authority figure first. Perhaps one of the other active sysops - Conservative, Croicite, Ed Poor, or the like - might also weigh in, since Phillip J Rayment concurred with me earlier along with another user?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

''Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.''

But that type of decision is not being described in the article. If you want to broaden it to include that, I think it would be appropriate to do so. The key would be specificity, then; the article should be changed to reflect that this is a list of people who have "eschew[ed] common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning", very different from what most people think when they read the article currently (which presents the matter as synonymous with modern homeschooling).

: Modern homeschoolers are no different from ancient ones in rejecting formal schools. We define the term homeschooling and I doubt many would argue with it. The people listed satisfy that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::The people do satisfy the definition, but I disagree that many would not argue with the blurring between modern homeschooling and historical "homeschooling" that is engaged in. At the very least, your change in the customary usage should be acknowledged.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Consider, for example, the fact that a large proportion of wealthy children were "homeschooled" in Europe for centuries, in the sense that they were tutored in their home by professionals. This was the norm for the wealthy, yet your definition includes such as being "homeschooled," contradictory to the common perception of the matter.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 15:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: No, the definition is clear that homeschooling rejects the approach of "certified" teachers (or its equivalent). Wealthy children in Europe who were schooled in a formal setting by certified teachers (or its equivalent) should not be included; those taught by their parents, relatives, or non-certified teachers (or its equivalent) should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree, the definition is clear, but it is only natural to assume that when one is speaking of "homeschooling" that one is speaking of what most people know of with the concept, as explained above. At the very least, explicate further. Otherwise at least the appearance of an attempt to deceive exists, even if that is not the case.

::And again, I would urge you to step back from this and let other sysops handle it; it's only appropriate.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pornography ==

I'm deleting the reference to homeschooling being remedy for pornogrpahy addiction. I read a study earlier this month which showed that there was actually a higher chance of a child becoming involved in pornography and other unsavoury internet based activities if home schooled. Of course the study applied to equally supervised children, which is, of course, rarely the case in homeschooling. Still rather than promote complacancy and information which is empirically wrong I felt the need to delete the reference. I can find the name of the study if anyone needs it, but as far as I know there is no digital reference. {{unsigned|ObamaSharma}}

== To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" ==

I think one of the major disadvantages that is not mentioned in the article (though it is generally touched on) involves a certain kind of social interaction. The article, as it is right now, implies that the social development that homeschooling can stunt is more or less limited to making friends, having conversations, etc. (on top of peer pressure, bullying, intimidation, etc. as mentioned). I feel it is important to include '''Tolerance''', '''Working together in spite of differences''', and '''Compromise to accomplish like goals'''. I think it goes without saying that we all have had to work very closely with people we've disagreed with on almost everything, and elitism (which I never thought to be a characteristic of homeschooling until I came to Conservapedia) can stall progress. I think mentioning parents enrolling their kids in social organizations can satisfy compromise to accomplish like goals, but I question how much the kids would be exposed to other cultures and races, that would develop tolerance, since these organizations often have many class and moral characteristics in common. I know many of the conservative sysops on this page "Don't believe in tolerance when it compromises truth" but I think we can still agree that different races, classes, and faiths can still produce good people that certainly don't deserve being inferior to the stereotypical american WASP. Please keep in mind that I'm not talking about anything other than the physical world, so please take any arguments of what Jesus said or what will happen to their souls if they don't accept Him elsewhere. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

:If public schools were about these things, then I would agree. Unfortunately what you have is positions being forced upon children in the name of 'tolerance'. As long as you agree with them then you're fine. If you don't -- look out. Homeschooling is about allowing children to avoid having a value system pushed upon them from a "community" that has decided it already knows what is right and will tell you to accept the same -- even against your own family. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::That's a good point, and I can concede to it. Could not the argument be made that the value system that the family lives by (which could include racist, elitism, exclusivity, among other things) be more aggressively pushed onto the subordinate child? I find that I'm a little uncomfortable with people who were raised with limited exposure to different ideas and cultures, but I am no expert on the subject, as I'm sure is apparent, which is why I'm speaking here instead of trying to edit the page. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::: Anything can be misused, and certainly homeschooling ''can'' have these problems if it is not done properly, but you seem to be seeing government schools through rose-coloured glasses. When I was in primary school, there was some racism there (although I didn't understand what it was at the time), but I remember none of that from Sunday School and church. Many homeschooling families are Christians, and my point is that they can get many of these social interactions via church and church-related activities, and that's likely to be a better environment for them than a government school environment that often has undesirable values. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:11, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Perhaps I'm simply recalling my own experiences, which were better than most since I attended one of the better elementary schools in my county before finishing elementary and middle school in the fundamental system, and my high school was one of the better schools in the county as well. I suppose it all should be taken on a case by case basis, and my problem then is with the elitism (and in some cases blatant discrimination against public schools) exhibited around Conservapedia instead of having any problems with homeschooling. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 11:46, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Capolavoro046, I read as far as your absurd accusation of "elitism" above. There is nothing about homeschooling or this site that is "elitist" and I suspect that ideology is clouding your opinions here. Maybe you did have a good experience in [[public school]] at some time in the past, but without more information it is impossible to assess that. No one is claiming that every student is ruined by public school, but public school does deprive its students of classroom prayer. As a teacher, I can assure you that such deprivation does have an adverse effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Considering that one of this site's very strong focal points is trying to influence homeschooling, I would say that my "accusations" (though I would describe them as observations) of some people having an elitist view are not absurd at all. For example, the entire list of [[professor values]] demonstrates the elitist view, as its sole purpose is propaganda against teachers. Do not be so quick to apply a label to everyone that falls into a classification. I think they have a word for that... what is it? Oh yes, stereotyping. To address the depravity of prayer, I disagree passionately with you. Every year in school, we as students were offered a "moment of silence" following the pledge of allegiance (which did not ignore "Under [[God]]") for prayer, among other things. I feel that you have a very closed-minded view of things, and coming from a SysOp from a site that works so fervently against the media, I feel you use media coverage of incidences in public schools as a crutch, and choose not to look at things on a case by case basis because it could possibly hurt your arguments. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 23:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, and as far as a direct example of elitism on this site: The caption under the photo about the fight that went up on YouTube reads, "A fight typical of [[public school]] students." I wish I knew you, Ashclafay, so I could ask you to look me in the eye and say that isn't an elitist statement. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 15:26, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: Capolavoro046, I'll look you in the eye and ask you to be concise. I didn't read all your comments above. Surely you can make your point well in a few short sentences. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ashclafly, it takes less than a minute to read my last two posts combined. You want concise? Fine, here's concise: I'm done responding to someone who has yet to read all of what I posted for anything to which he's responded. It looks like once again (read the Mildred Loving issue on the main talk page) you hide from the topic at hand using under-handed devices. I clearly paid you far more respect than you deserve. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 01:55, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jordin Sparks ==

Jordin Sparks won the American Idol contest one year, which is good and fun for her. I wish her the best. But does that media award place her as a "prominent American" in the league of the others on the list? I don't think so, and think she should remain a footnote on the music issue and not in the main list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-05-21T05:55:57Z

Capolavoro046: /* To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" */

[[/archive 1|Archive 1]] (20th March 2008)

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: PeterS, you may be an expert in history, but your logic does not follow. The entry does not care ''why'' someone was homeschooled in listing who was homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I think PeterS has a valid point, at least in his first line. As he points out, the article describes homeschooling as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". So for starters, how many on the list were homeschooled ''in the United States''? Clearly, however, homeschooling is not confined to the U.S., so it's the definition rather than the list that should be changed (as far as my argument goes so far).
:: I don't agree with him that it's not a movement; I think that's probably an apt term. But that raises the next problem with the list. Homeschooling ''as a movement'' is a relatively recent phenomenon, over the last forty years, I would guess. So anybody on that list who was educated at home more than around forty years ago does not fit the definition.
:: There's more that I could say, along the lines of PeterS' second paragraph, but perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Similar to my comment below, this criticism is overly literal. But to play that game, "homeschooling" is the movement, while those who were "homeschooled" is a broader category that can go beyond the movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: My immediate response to that, without thinking through it, is that that might make sense, but if it does, at the very least that distinction should be made clear in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Perhaps the opening part of the article could refer to a general, specific definition of homeschooling. That would clear up some of the conceptual difficulties that become more evident later in the article. '''Then''' you could branch out after that and comment on the "homeschooling movement" in the United States. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: An addendum to my previous post: I still think my dispute with the Dickens example stands. Just because someone does not receive a formal education at a school, it does not mean they were homeschooled. The facts are these: Dickens was educated as long as was financially possible. When his father was jailed, he was sent to work in a factory, like many financially disadvantaged young people at the time. To my knowledge (and the minutiae of the personal histories of English authors are not my strongest point), there is no evidence that his mother actively homeschooled him. Indeed, all the evidence points to his mother being firmly in favour of him working at a boot-blacking factory ''instead of'' getting an education. If you have evidential proof that this was not the case, feel free to cite it. Once again, if you think my argumentation over this is not valid, then you've got to sort out the definitional problem ASAP. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded the introduction to:
* Remove the United States as part of the definition.
* To define homeschooling as being educated "primarily at home", rather than "outside the traditional school system", as the latter could include non-traditional schools. The existing text later in the article expands on "primarily at home", to explain the parts that are not at home.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also changed references to homeschooling in the prominent people list to "educated at home" or "taught at home" (as some entries already were) for all persons whose education preceded the formation of the homeschooling movement. By the way, the entry for Leonardo doesn't actually say that he was taught at home. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nobody uses the phrase "educated at home," Philip. Have you ever heard anyone use it? An encyclopedia should use common and easily understood terminology, first and foremost. "Homeschooled" is the term that is used. Also, I'm not aware of a category that is "outside the traditional school system" but not homeschooled. Homeschooling is not dependent on the ''physical location'', but on the approach. Again, I object to the overly literal and [[materialistic]] approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "educated at home"...
::* I'm not in the habit of noting down every phrase I hear, so in one sense I couldn't say whether I've ever heard it, but I would think that I ''have'' heard it.
::* That's apart from this article, which as I said, already used it, the phrase having been included by Dpbsmith ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=16849]), Hsmom ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151194], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151212], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=155576], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=165607],[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=167430]), and NonXtianConservative ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=219041]).
::* Google returns 106,000 hits for "educated at home", so it's fairly common.
::* And even if none of that was the case, isn't Conservapedia proud of inventing [[Conservapedia terms|new terms]]?
:: "Homeschooled" is one of a number of terms that are used. Another is "taught at home", which was used by none other than one Aschlafly ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=218738])! I've used both those terms to avoid too much repetition.
:: And of course there is the ''reason'' I made those changes, that if homeschooling is defined (correctly, I believe) to be a movement that started in the 1960s, then anybody educated/taught/tutored at home prior to then cannot be said to be "homeschooled". That's not to say that their situation is necessarily quite different, but it does mean that the term itself should not be used of them.
:: "outside the traditional school system" depends on what is meant by "traditional". It could mean schools that allow the students to decide what they learn, for example, or other schools that take a non-traditional approach in any number of ways. It could include parent-controlled Christian schools, as ''traditionally'' schools have been controlled by governments or religious denominations. Yes, those examples are all schools, but they're not necessarily ''traditional'' schools.
:: If "homeschooling" is not dependent (to a fair extent) on the physical location, then why is it called "''home''schooling"? And if it's dependent on the approach, why is it not defined in terms of the approach? In any case, the previous definition was based on physical location, that being "outside ... schools".
:: How is my definition "overly literal"?
:: And how is is "materialistic"?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, you say that "Google returns 106,000 hits for 'educated at home,' so it's fairly common." But that is only about 5% of the frequency of use of "homeschooled", which generates nearly 2 million hits on Google. So "educated at home" is not "fairly common" relative to its counterpart. It is also meaningless to define ''where'' someone is taught rather than focusing on the approach.

::: It is overly literal and materialistic to define homeschooling in terms of the physical location (e.g., at home) rather than the approach (e.g., parental control). Shall we next define [[Christian]]s based on where they pray? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Googling "homeschooled" without the quotes I get 1.6 million hits (which includes variations such as ''homeschooling'' and ''homeschool''). Googling "homeschooled ''with'' the quotes, I get 1.49 million hits. So the percentage is actually about 7. But I wasn't trying to claim that it's the most common use of the term. I was pointing out that your claim that "Nobody uses the phrase" is incorrect. If 7% is "nobody", then I guess nobody gets homeschooled, as the figure there is "only" 2%. But clearly 2% still amounts to a large figure, and 7% is also quite sufficient to say that the term is commonly used, even if "homeschooled" is considerably more common.
:::: As I said, the previous definition focused on "where" and "the physical location", except for it being a positive "at home" it was a negative "not at school". So my change did not change that the definition was location-based. However, the new definition that you've now provided is a good one, and I'm reasonably happy with that (it could be tweaked a bit. For example, it links to the American definition of 'public school' rather than the broader 'school').
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some thoughts - I use the term "educated at home" quite frequently, as it can include quite a number of educational approaches, only some of which I'd call "homeschooling". In some states in the USA, various terms have very specific meaning. As an example, in Pennsylvania, students can be "privately tutored", "receiving homebound instruction", "enrolled in a cyber-charter school", or "enrolled in a home education program". All four of these kinds of students are educated at home - that is, they get much of their education in their own home. Some folks call all four kinds "homeschooled". However, in two of these cases the students are public school students (educated at taxpayer expense, with school-provided curriculum). Many people would not consider this "homeschooling", at least in the traditional sense, especially as the parents have little say in the curriculum content, which has to meet state standards. Students can be "privately tutored" by their parent or a hired tutor - for various reasons, some would consider only the former to be "homeschooling". "Home education programs" create a broad umbrella which can encompas a variety of approaches. For example, home educated students can enroll in homeschool co-ops - essentially "schools for homeschoolers", and may actually do little if any of their learning in their own home. In some other states, no one is, legally speaking, homeschooling - they are all enrolled in private schools, some of which are so small as to have only students from a single family. With the rise of publicly-run and publicly-funded internet-based schools, people are being more careful about how they use the term "homeschooling". We do not want the general public to assume that anyone who is homeschooling is doing so at significant taxpayer expense, as that could result in an unacceptable level of government oversight and control, so we must be careful with our terminology. It's tricky stuff.
:::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that the list of arguably homeschooled people stretches the definition of homeschooling beyond my recognition (as a homeschooling mom). [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] makes a good case that Dickens was not homeschooled (lack of education does not IMHO equal homeschooling, as discussed previously with George Washington Carver). I also think Joan of Arc was not homeschooled - her mother taught her prayers and household skills, as most mothers have taught their daughters for centuries, but there is no evidence she gave any academic instruction. But [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it's your sandbox, so your say goes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto ban on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The government of California has said they will not enforce it, but to have it on the books begs a time when the government may not be as friendly and could decide to crack down. They didn't allow homeschooling per se, but did it's equivalent by saying a special license was necessary to teach. Since homeschoolers score higher on standardized tests than their public school counterparts, it is especially troubling to see efforts made to curtail it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, Learn Together! I didn't read it from a primary source, I read it from someone who regurgitated it for me. They said that that they would require extensive training/licencing to be a homeschool teacher, which would essentially kill the movement. The article I read didn't say that CA wasn't going to enforce the ruling (because that would make for a significantly less interesting article for a libertarian newsletter!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, let's look at your examples, several of whom would not be described as "great mathematicians"; others in your list who were [[homeschooled]]; and still more who were schooled but achieved despite it. Spell out the schooling of each of your examples and you'll find that nearly all of them fall in one of the categories I just identified, and hence my reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That last category ("were schooled but achieved despite it") is of people who were ''not'' homeschooled. Correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, you are literally correct, but figuratively that category reinforces the thesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: How does "people who were educated in a regular shool and did well" (to rephrase it) support the thesis? (The phrase "despite it" presumes what the thesis is trying to demonstrate, so is a circular argument.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::Right, so let's have a look at the first criterion. In other words, "several of whom would not be described as great mathematicians". Actually, I don't think that's my job. I think if you want to make a statement claiming that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled, you need to prove it. '''You''' need to identify exactly who you would classify as a "great mathematician" and name them all: or have you already done that? What are your criteria for great mathematicians? Then '''you''' need to identify what percentage of those were homeschooled. '''Then''' you can assert that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. Now: "others in your list who were homeschooled". Again, it's a meaningless statement because you have never defined exactly what constitutes a homeschooled person - how many years they need to have been homeschooled - and when people have asked on this talk page, you haven't answered. Next: "still more who were schooled but achieved despite it". Hmmm... so you're making the assumption that because they were high achievers but attended school, they must have achieved '''despite''' their education? And you're using that justify the contention that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Which means that those who achieved highly did so despite their education? Which means that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Where does the circular nature of that argument end? Can I reiterate: I think that homeschooling is great if people are prepared to do it, and I think that you personally have done a lot of good things in terms of homeschooling. But I don't think it helps our conservative cause if we make silly hyperbolic statements all over the place in a futile gesture to stick it up to the liberals/atheists. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: PeterS, our list of homeschoolers includes many of the greatest mathematicians. Please read it. Your list does not disprove the statement that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. I invited you to spell out the schooling of those in your list (as I have done for those homeschooled), but so far you've declined to do so. So your objection does not persuade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Andrew, I have read the list. But "many of the greatest mathematicians" is a different statement from "nearly every great mathematician". "Many" is completely different from "nearly every". "Many" is fairly uncontroversial, because it doesn't directly imply proportionality - it could mean a majority, or it could mean a sizeable minority, or it could mean some arbitrary proportion that you specify. "Nearly every" implies a sizeable majority, probably somewhere in the region of 90-95% - I'm being arbitrary here, but "nearly every" would, in the English language, be somewhere close to 100%. Now, until you can tell us what a "great mathematician" is, and list all those that you classify as great mathematicians, you cannot say that almost 100% of great mathematicians were homeschooled. If a student came to me with an essay saying something like "nearly every person killed in the Reign of Terror was an aristocrat", I would underline the statement, ask in the page margin for a citation of the number of people killed in the Terror, ask for a citation of the number of aristocrats killed in the Terror, and ask them to justify why that may have been the case (based on a historical interpretation). Your statement does not match any of these rather non-exhaustive criteria, and it'd be interesting if you could address this. On to the second part of your question: citations for my names. It should not be my job to find citations to help to prove or disprove your unproven statement. And I ask that before you try to pick apart my examples and set arbitrary criteria, you address what I've just said in this paragraph and my previous statements. But I'll do this anyway.
:::* '''Isaac Newton''' - accounts vary, but all acknowledge that he received a formal education in at least one school. According to this source, [http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm], he was educated at King's School, Grantham. According to this source, [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] he was educated at Free Grammar School, Grantham. Despite the inconsistency in the name, we can conclude that whichever school(s) he attended, he did attend school for most of his childhood. This source [http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html] tells us that while he spent years out of school, he was not homeschooled during that time: indeed, it was felt that "he did not need an education". Without even requiring criteria, I think we can conclude that the development of Calculus is enough to make him a "great mathematician", not to mention these things called the laws of motion...
:::* '''Leonhard Euler''' - this source [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Leonhard%20Euler] tells us that he went to a low quality school, but the fact stands: he attended school during that time, even if he self-taught and received tutoring at the same time. But even if you choose to disagree with my contention, it doesn't change my objections, noted in all my above comments. Anyway, Euler = great mathematician, no contest, even without criteria.
:::* '''George Pólya''' - [http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/polya/biography.htm] says it all. Again, criteria are a problem, because you have never specified any, but Pólya is one of the world's foremost modern contributors to mathematical logic and combinatorics through elements such as the Pólya enumeration theorem and his four principles of mathematical proofs/problem solving.
:::* '''Carl Friedrich Gauss''' - this source [http://www.mathsong.com/cfgauss/Dunnington/1927/] tells us that he was educated from the age of seven. Case closed. That page also details his mathematical achievements very well in areas such as number theory in particular.
:::* '''John Venn''' - [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Venn.html]: went straight through Cholmley's and Islington. End of story. As for being a great mathematician... ever used a Venn diagram?
:::* '''Bernoulli family''' - it is much more difficult to find evidence for the Bernoulli family - it is a pattern that people would either be taught at home or sent to a local school before moving onto more prestigious pursuits in secondary school or university. Obviously it's difficult to be consistent in researching across a cross-generational family. I'll gladly ignore this one.
:::* '''Pierre de Fermat''' - he self-taught mathematics [http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Fermat-e.htm], but that came once he had already studied jurisprudence at university and become a councillor. This source [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html] tells us that he did indeed receive a primary and secondary education. This source confirms that he was probably schooled at a Franciscan monastery [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html]. And he was great; no matter what criteria you set.
:::* '''Johannes Kepler''' - this source [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kepler.html] tells us that although he helped in his grandfather's inn, he attended a local school and then a seminary. Kepler did of course achieve extraordinary things in astronomy, physics and mathematics including things such as positing the Kepler conjecture (which will probably become a theorem).
:::{{unsigned|PeterS}}

:: OK, your list of great mathematicians who were not homeschooled is dwindling fast. Working backwards, Kepler evidently was educated while helped at his relative's inn, and he isn't considered a great mathematician anyway. Fermat was self-taught in mathematics. The Bernouilli family almost certainly handed down their expertise through homeschooling, and you've conceded dropping them. Venn was not a great mathematician.

:: We're left with only four: Newton, Euler, Polya, and Gauss. I'll check them out now. It may be that a few of them were not homeschooled, which is why the claim is not that every great mathematician was homeschooled, but that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. But I'm curious to investigate the education of these four.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Newton apparently did not attend school until age 10, making him another homeschooler. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::The fact that Newton did not attend school until the age of 10 does not make him a homeschooler. Indeed the source you cited says nothing about what his education was before Free Grammar School, if he had one. A homeschooling education seems unlikely, as the source says that Newton's grandfather, whom he was living with, practically ignored Newton, and that Newton hated his mother and step-father. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 23:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Andrew Schlafly, you claim to be an expert in everything yet you are totally incapable of answering a simple request of another person is only trying to improve your encyclopaedia. I have spent several screenfuls of this discussion page trying to ask you two '''very simple questions''', which shouldn't be too difficult whether the answerer is homeschooled or not. (1) '''What is your definition of a great mathematician?''' and (2) '''What exactly constitutes homeschooling?''' Your page does neither. Under your (highly elusive) criteria, spending a couple of years at home while of primary school age is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, receiving private tutoring while simultaneously attending school daily is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, a mathematician is great only if you say so, because under your criteria, Johannes Kepler and John Venn cease to become a great mathematician. Schlafly, this encyclopaedia will only live up to its name - Conservapedia - when it becomes an accurate reflection of a conservative viewpoint. At the moment, its Schlaflipedia: if you don't want to answer a reasonable question, you block your ears. That's also why you lock Conservapedia from editing when there aren't sysops around to jump on people who are trying to improve articles. You are driving away conservatives who want to make a difference but can't because Sleep-ly (grab a German dictionary if you don't get the pun) doesn't want his personal authority challenged. I am a conservative on every issue - foreign policy, economic policy, social policy et al - but that won't keep me at Conservapedia. You are harming the good work of real conservatives who deal in facts and proofs. I should note that I don't expect this comment to be here tomorrow; I expect that it will be "archived" in the rubbish bin, along with my user account. "Godspeed" to anyone who ever tries to object to Schlafly's perverse logic and warped ideas. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: PeterS, your comments are becoming increasingly long-winded, incoherent and insulting. Get to the point succinctly and politely, and I'll respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time. By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician," nor is one necessary for such a term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you've just conceded his point. If you don't define what constitutes a "great mathematician" then you can not define the set of "great mathematicians" therefore you can not legitimately claim that "nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled" be cause it is completely unquantifiable. Like-wise, you refuse to define what constitutes "homeschooled". For you, it appears to mean anyone who ever learned anything outside of a traditional public school system education from K-12 and college... but this ignores the fact that such traditional structure has not been commonplace since the dawn of history. Many of the examples you give are from several hundred years ago when this structure was not in plaace in the manner it is to day, yet you conflate any kind of home learning in that time period with homescholling as it is today... the two are not necessarily equivalent. You want them to be, in order to push your ideology. Also, discounting any example given as either "not a great mathematician" or labelling them "homeschooled" because they have some minor period of time that they were not traditionally schooled seems a prime example of either conservative deceit or deliberate ignorance. And, in case you are actually interested in true facts, and a quantifiable definition of great mathematicians... here's at least one list of the 100 greatest per Mathematics Teacher magazine from 1962: afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~flora/100.html You might note that Kepler is among the names listed. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Taking a look at the first 10 names on the list:
*Newton - not homeschooled
*Leibnitz - not homeschooled
*Lagrange - self taught
*Euler - attended schooler and studied under Bernoulli
*Laplace - not homeschooled
*Euclid - unkown, though he did probably attend Plato's Academy
*Gauss - not homeschooled
*Archimedes - his schooling is also unknown
*Descartes - not homeschooled
*Cardano - homeschooled
:So 5 of the top 10 were definitely not homeschooled. One (Cardano) definitely was, one's (Lagrange's) status depends on how you define homeschooling, one (Euler) had both simultaneously, and two are unknown. Do you really want to continue the claim that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You don't say, but perhaps your "list" is from the 1962 ranking by "Mathematics Teacher." Nearly all the entries are (oddly) prior to the 19th century, and it's likely that most of the referenced individuals were homeschooled. I've already checked Newton, as explained above, and he did not enter a school under after age 10. So I don't find anything credible about your statements. If you want to provide details about the schooling of those to support a claim they were not homeschooled, then we can look at your detail. Otherwise, your objection is not persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::If you really count ''being schooled at home until only about fourth or fifth grade and then speding the rest of his schooling years being taught in formal schools'' as homeschooling (which seems to be a poor definition), then yes, Newton was homeschooled. However, even in modern times, alegbra isn't even taught that young, so how much math schooling Newton could have received before the age of 10 is questionable. As for the others:
::*Leibnitz: "At the age of seven, Leibniz entered the Nicolai School in Leipzig"[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html]
::*Laplace: "Laplace attended a Benedictine priory school in Beaumont-en-Auge, as a day pupil, between the ages of 7 and 16." [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Laplace.html]
::*Gauss: "At the age of seven, Carl Friedrich Gauss started elementary school" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Gauss.html]
::*Descartes: "Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Descartes.html]
:::And while we have been providing sources, you have yet to provide a source showing that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 15:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Our entry has numerous examples of great mathematicians who were homeschooled. Have you even read it yet???

:::: For all the bluster by critics, we are down to only four great mathematicians who may not have been homeschooled: Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes. But even your description of those four are not persuasive, and raise more questions than they answer. By age 7 or 8, great mathematicians are often quite a bit along already in their skills. And what did these four mathematicians do after they entered school? Laplace, for example, was apparently taught mathematics in a special way by his uncle in connection with the school. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-5572(194902)2%3A33%3A303%3C1%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::First of all, I highly resent the use of the word bluster. Second of all, you've forgotten Euler, Polya, Kepler, and Venn, mentioned above. Third, here are more of from the list of the top 100:
::::*Legendre: Went to college in Paris, before that schooling unstated [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Legendre.html]
::::*Monge: attended Oragion college before going to Lyons at 16 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Monge.html]
::::*D'Alembert: attended private school, then attended Collège des Quatre Nations [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/D'Alembert.html]
::::*Fourier: first studied at Pallais's school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier.html]
::::*Napier: homeschooled until age of 13 after (interestingly enough) his uncle sent his father a letter: "I pray you, sir, to send your son John to school; over to France or Flanders; for he cannot learn well at home" [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Napier.html]
::::*Viete: attended school in Fontenay-le-Comte [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Viete.html]
::::*Maclaurin: his family moved to Dumbarton specifically for the attendence of school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Maclaurin.html]
::::*Cavalieri: studied at a Jesuit monestary and the University of Pisa [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cavalieri.html]
::::*Wallis: attended school in Ashford and Tenterden [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wallis.html]
::::*Tartaglia: attended school from the age of four [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia.html]
::::*Poncet: attended Lycee Imperial [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Victor_Poncelet]
::::*Chasles: attended Lycee Imperial [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Chasles.html]
::::*Cremona: educated at Ginnasio in Pavia [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cremona.html]
::::*Boscovich: attended Ragusinum starting at age 9 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boscovich.html]
::::*Lambert: attended school in Mulhouse [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lambert.html]
::::*Barrow: attended Charterhouse and Felstead [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Barrow.html]
:::::These are just ones whose non-homeschooled education can be confirmed. This is also only from the top 50 of this one list. Many of the top 50 not mentioned weren't necessarily homeschooled either. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking back, others and I have listed 24 mathematicians not homeschooled (Barrow, Boscovich, Cavalieri, Chasles, Cremona, D'Alembert, Descartes, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Kepler, Lambert, Laplace, Legrende, Leibnitz, Maclaurin, Monge, Napier, Polya, Poncet, Tartaglia, Venn, Viete, Wallis). Your article lists 11 who were homeschooled (Cauchy, Chebyshev, Erdos, Fermat, Galois, Hamilton, Jacobi, Mandelbrot, Pascal, Poincare, Riemann) (though I might have missed one or two) [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 20:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Were you unable to provide details about your four mathematicians (Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes) as discussed above? It seems you're now resorting to quantity rather than quality. I've already debunked several claims among your new list of 24, and at least half of them fail to qualify as "great" mathematicians. Unless you can back up your claim with respect to the four mentioned above, I'm going to move on confident that the great mathematicians were almost all homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::"By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician,"" are your own words. So why can't I call them great mathematicians? I don't have a definition either, but I think all of them are great, and I certainly think a publication entitled "Mathematics Teacher" is more qualified than you to determine who qualifies as great. Of Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss, and Descartes, only for Laplace did you provide any evidence against formal education being their primary source of education, while I have sources that outright state that they attended a formal school of some kind. Also, I looked at your source for Laplace and I can't see beyond the first page, which states merely that Laplace's uncle was on the staff of his school and kindled his interest in mathematics, not that his uncle actually taught him in a special form. My previous citations for their education still stand. If you have any real proof that their education was still homeschooling of some sort after they entered a formal school, please enlighten me. Also, if you have debunked some of my claims, would you be so kind as to show some proof for those as well? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, ZTak, I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't provided a single mathematician with evidence that he was never homeschooled. I've provided in this entry countless examples of great mathematicians who were. I'll take a look at your other three examples, but am confident that nearly all of them were homeschooled also. A mathematician is unlikely to develop to greatness without the head start, independence, encouragement and flexibility that homeschooling uniquely provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Now you're moving the goalposts. I have to prove they were '''never''' homeschooled? That's a universal negative. I can't ever prove that. That would be like asking me to prove that none of them were ever abducted by aliens who fed knowledge directly into their brain. I can't prove that such abudctions never happened. I can prove, which I did, that their main education was at some sort of formal school. I proved that for Legendre, Monge, D'Alembert, Fourier, Napier, Viete, Maclaurin, Cavalieri, Wallis, Tartaglia, Poncet, Chasles, Cremona, Boscovich, Lambert, and Barrow. Finally, you still have yet to prove your statement that Laplace was specially educated by his uncle. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I can qualify too, eh? I wrote a theorem for [[Synthetic Division]]--which had many, many corollaries--and I was "fake schooled" up to 2nd grade mathematics to substitute for missing the preschool deadline. ("fake school" is what I called homeschooling at that age). -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFK]] 22:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Opinions ==

This article voices personal opinions more so than fact with a conservative point of view, directly in line with the Conservapedia Commandments. Opinions? I can find examples in the text if you would like. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sufiah Yusof ==

Homeschooled prodigy Sufiah Yusof, who went to Oxford at 13, has been found working as a prostitute ten years later. Will this mentioned in the article? Doubt it. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-human-cost-of-trying-to-make-geniuses/2008/04/04/1207249453810.html] [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Parents who send a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college should have their heads examined. Your link supports that decision as the cause of this tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[University of Oxford]] is a "liberal college"? I see that it is also "One of the most influential universities in history...". At least that's what the Conservapedia article says. Fancy that! Pretty good going for a mere liberal college. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:38, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes on both points, and there's no contradiction there. Hello, Oxford is [[liberal]] today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Hello. On what basis do you say that? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:07, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, time for [[liberal denial]], I see. If you can identify a half-dozen [[conservative]] professors at Oxford, then I'd be astonished. I'm confident you can't. Meanwhile, observe all the [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] there, and how students like Christopher Hitchens became Trotskyists while at Oxford. [http://www.experiencefestival.com/political_views].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Schlafly, when you become a qualified psychologist, then perhaps you will be in a position to make your insensitive and blasé judgements about this case. I challenge you to find a single reputable psychologist who will tell you that Sufiah Yusof's present condition is caused not by pushy parenting, "hot house" homeschooling, or excessive media exposure (or a combination of the three) but instead caused by attending an institution which you claim is a hotbed for "liberal deceit". Or perhaps you'd instead like to play a game of Schlafly word bingo and throw in mentions of [[homosexuality]], [[intelligent design]], [[liberal hypocrisy]], [[liberal hysteria]] and [[liberal myths]] in your next post. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Peter, you're clueless about the dangers of sending a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college. If you think it takes a credentialed psychologist to explain that, then you have a lot to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, I can't think what came over me: for a moment, I thought that facts and evidence were actually valued in this place. The issue here isn't that she was sent to a ''liberal'' college at age 13. It is that she was sent to a college '''at all''' at age 13. It is that she was hot-housed (a form of extremely rigorous homeschooling) and driven mercilessly by a pushy and overambitious father. It is that her father also did everything he could to overwhelm her with media attention. You boast on the Homeschooling page about people who went to university at age 13 or 14 and then became great mathematicians or philosophers or whatever. But the simple fact is that large numbers of homeschooled prodigies do '''not''' reach such pinnacles and instead have their lives ruined by the reckless practices of their parents. You're right. It doesn't take a credentialed psychologist to explain this scenario: Sufiah Yusof herself describes her experience at the hands of '''her parents''' (that's right, '''not''' Oxford's oppressive liberal regime) as a living hell and says that she has "enough of 15 years of physical and emotional abuse".[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/child-prodigy-working-as-a-prostitute/2008/04/04/1207249460601.html?page=2] Happy now? (I doubt it.) [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:09, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Difficulties ==

This article looks pretty strange to me, since it includes people who lived centuries ago, such as Leonardo Da Vinci. But my understanding of the homeschooling movement indicates that it exists only in contrast to public schooling... and widespread public schooling is a much more recent innovation. In the United States, for example, public schooling began shortly before the twentieth century.
Certainly many of these individuals belong on the page, but it seems disingenuous to claim that Benjamin Franklin was "homeschooled," for example, since at that time such was still mostly the norm. This makes it quite distinct from the modern era, wherein homeschooling is very unusual (speaking statistically, not as a value judgment).
By the same token, I wouldn't call him "public schooled," either, naturally. But this article blurs the line between modern homeschooling (a distinct "movement" in opposition to national institutionalized public schools) and the simple sparcity of formal schooling in the centuries before government public schools. Given the fact that the owner of this site, Andy Schlafly, is a well-known homeschooling advocate, indeed even teaching homeschooling classes on the site, and his personal view is endorsed by most of the sysops on the site, I think this gives the appearance (if not the fact) of trying to deliberately smudge the dividing line between the two eras. Such an appearance or fact should be corrected.

Another criticism might be made in that the list of "homeschooled" individuals is very liberal with that assignation. I would suggest a clarifying sentence at the fore of the list, mentioning what the requirements for the list are... currently they are simply described as being "educated at home," which is a very broad statement. It should be clarified that these are individuals who have spent any portion of their youth or young adulthood being educated at home, since many of them spent years in formal education.
Please consider each of the above points separately on their own merit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments, though thoughtful, seem to reject the definition of homeschooling:

::Homeschooling is a movement in which students receive education from a parent or guardian, or instructors acting under the direction of a parent or guardian, rather than from certified teachers in a formal school setting like a public school.

:Though you implicitly seem to reject this definition, you don't propose an alternative. Note that this definition applies whenever a formal school setting existed, which goes back at least to [[ancient Greece]], before Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::As I note, there exists a generally understood distinction in most people's minds between the modern homeschooling "movement," as it is described on the page, and the previous lack of public schools. If you request a different definition, then I would suggest something such as "Homeschooling is the modern movement in which students... etc.", and then the examples of individuals "homeschooled" previous to a certain date (1850 or so would seem reasonable, as that was about when public schooling came into being in America to the best of my knowledge) could be moved to a different section. This new section could have the heading connecting the modern homeschooling movement with the tradition of home schooling which existed prior to the alternative of public schooling. This would allow all of the names and such to remain on the page, and keep that connection which reflects positively on homeschooling (the clear intent) without being quite so absurd. Would those changes satisfy you?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree with TomMoore, and am very disappointed that Andy has ignored the previous discussion on this page and reverted to terminology that was changed because of these very concerns, and after discussion. The article also says that "homeschooling began in the 1960s", and whilst I don't know the exact date, or even the exact decade, I would think that the 1960s would be about right. So people educated outside schools centuries or even millennia ago cannot properly be called "homeschooled".
::: (Actually, since writing that, I've been done a little research. "Dr. Raymond S Moore, the inspiration to many homeschoolers of recent generations" started homeschooling in the 1940s. The book "No More Public School", published in 1972, is described as a "Pioneering how-to book about homeschooling, from the days when homeschooling had a tenuous legal status and the term "homeschooling" hadn't been coined".)
::: If the article is meant to be about the modern movement, then those older examples don't belong here. If the page is meant to be about people educated outside the school system, then the title and content should be altered to reflect that, and the term "homeschooling" should be dropped for those older examples.
::: It is true that schools have existed as far back as ancient Greece (at least), but that doesn't mean that they have always existed since then, nor in all societies. For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich. In other words, for much of history, being educated at home (or etc.) was the normal way that people got educated, and was not the exception, and was certainly not called "homeschooling".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it not the case that homeschooling in the contemporary sense exists in opposition to, or any rate as distinct from, 'compulsory' state education? One can only 'opt out' of a system if that system exists in the first place; and therefore one could say homeschooling o0nly became a valid concept once education of children was made compulsory by the state. Thus in the UK 'homeschooling' would only be a realistic concept after the Education Act of 1871 which decreed that all children should receive elementary education. That is not to say, of course, that children were not educated at home before then; but the notion of 'homeschooling' as a 'political' act or act of resistance against the perceived shortcomings (educational, moral, religious) of the official education system can only date from that point. [[User:Mediaevalist|Mediaevalist]] 07:14, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.

::::: Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "Modern" schooling was begun, I believe, by Christian churches. "Sunday School" was not religious education for children while the adults listened to the sermon, but "secular" education on the only day that the children were not at work in the mines, fields, or factories. Eventually, this church-sponsored education was taken over by governments, but prior to the churches doing this, there was little if anything in the way of formal education. Ancient Greece may have been different; I don't know, but I wasn't trying to suggest that schooling started off only for the rich; I actually meant that this likely came ''later'' than Greece, although even in Greece I ''suspect'' that it was not for everyone.
:::::: But more to the point is what Mediaevalist said above, that homeschooling is an 'opting out' of the official education system, and as such ''can't'' exist until there is an official education system.
:::::: Your change to the homeschooling ''movement'' starting in the 1960s doesn't help: The first line of the article defines homeschooling ''as the movement''. Previously the article said (in effect), "Homeschooling is a movement... Homeschooling began in the 1960s" Now, it says (in effect) "Homeschooling is a movement...that began in the 1960s". So pre-1960s examples are still not "homeschooling".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Good point about the flaw in the definition. Homeschooling should not be defined as a movement, and I've deleted that reference. There is a "homeschooling movement." Just as a pacifist does not have to belong to an antiwar movement, a homeschooler need not belong to any movement.

::::::: Homeschooling does not require "opting out" and to limit the definition to that is to relegate it perpetually to the fringe. Homeschooling does typically entail rejecting a formalized and popularized schooling system, but as already noted such systems have existed at least since [[ancient Greece]]. Surely the ancient [[Hebrews]] and [[Christians]] also had church-based schooling systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I don't particularly agree with modern homeschooling and all those older examples being lumped in together, but I have to admit that the article is probably more consistent and less objectionable now.
:::::::: I guess that the answer to whether or not the ancient Hebrews and Christians had church-based schooling systems depends on what you mean by "schooling", but I think the answer is essentially "no", they didn't. That is, there might well have been ''some'' things that children learnt in church, but as far as I know, there were no formalised schools run by anyone for the most part, for thousands of years. Almost all education was done directly by parents, and even this was pretty limited, with the result that most could not even read and write. Sure, no doubt they learnt various life skills, but even this would not have been in any sort of formalised schooling in the home, let along in schools. It was probably more in the form akin to apprenticeships, that is, children learnt their parent's trade by helping their parents in their work.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I appreciate your first paragraph, but must disagree with your second. I'm sure the ancient [[Hebrews]] had schooling just as the [[ancient Greeks]] did, and probably many other ancient civilizations did also. How else could Pharisees and other members of the priestly class be trained?

::::::::: There is a modern (and [[liberal]]) tendency to look down on our ancient ancestors. All indications, however, are that they were ''smarter'' than people today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindented)
This is a minor improvement, Mr. Schlafly, but I still think the problem exists. Let me address your replies.

''Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.''

That is not necessarily true. I would argue that homeschooling as a concept, as it is understood by the vast majority of people, would be construed as the deliberate choice to teach a child at home as specifically opposed to public schooling. This latter part of the definition is the one missing from this article's approach to the matter, since most people (as indicated here) disagree with the idea that anyone in history taught at home was "homeschooled" in the sense in which the idea is understood today. I think this is the real substantive point, in fact, behind this disagreement. You should take note, I think, of that fact that both I (as liberal as they come) and PJR (as conservative as they come, and your most intelligent sysop) are neither of us opposed to homeschooling, and yet we feel that this article is misleadingly favorable to the practice, whereas you (a strong advocate) feel it is not. Perhaps you might want to step back from this one, and a few other outside opinions on the matter?

: Tom, you overrely on your perceptions of what others think (see point 11 in [[liberal style]]). Homeschooling is not defined in terms of [[public school]]. The view of homeschoolers towards public school is varied, and public schools themselves have changed throughout history and are different in different locations today. Homeschooling is a parental approach to child-rearing that would exist regardless of the form taken by public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I assume from your aspersion that you are declining to take a step back from this, despite the fact that you are extraordinarily partisan to one side in this discussion? That is somewhat disappointing.

::It seems to me that it is only reasonable to rely on "perceptions of what others think" when it comes to interpreting the meaning of words. Words mean only what they are agreed-upon to mean; this is why meanings shift over time in a sometimes-dramatic manner (such as "geek"). "Homeschooling" to you seems to mean "any alternative schooling by non-certified individuals at home." That is a very reasonable interpretation, and I am not saying it is ''wrong.'' I am just saying that the vast majority of people specifically identify homeschooling with the more modern "movement" (as it was put previously), not with your broader definition, and that should be taken into account. Or, if you want to change the way people think about it, you should specifically contradict the colloquial definition and state more explicitly the difference between the customary understanding and your usage.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Tom, you're not even quoting me correctly and still don't seem to understand the essence of homeschooling. Please expand your horizons and get to know some homeschooling families, and read about those who have homeschooled in history. Then we can chat again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I thought I was quoting you adequately, and apologize if there was some error in the above quote ("perceptions of what others think"). It was copy-and-pasted from your own words, though.

::::If the definition of homeschooling I give above is also inaccurate, that is possible, but it is not a quote, it was an attempt to sum up for use in our dialog. Please substitute your whole definition above, if that helps.

::::I am not sure what you mean about "expanding my horizons;" I was good friends with an enormous family that homeschooled all their children and then sent them to the University of Stuebenville. They were about as devout a set of devotees to homeschooling as can be imagined. I know them and their views, as well as your own, quite well. That's why I opened this conversation, to address a gross shortcoming in the article.

::::The "homeschooled in history" item is the crux of the issue here, and so I strongly urge you not to dismiss me as you have. My concerns are stated clearly and substantively several times: I feel that the article blurs the divide between the commonly-held perspective of what "homeschooling" is, and a historical although perhaps technically accurate analogue, and that this blurring is encyclopedic. It is easy to brush me aside with personal remarks about how I need to "expand my horizons," but clearly less easy to address my concerns.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:03, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Tom, I'm not going to spend all night discussing this with you, and your account will be blocked if you just talk here. You misquoted the definition of homeschooling and seem blinded by your contact with an unusual single homeschooling family. If you continue to think that people today are very different from people hundreds of years ago, and homeschool for very different reasons, you're wrong. Meet more homeschoolers and read more history; you can do both on this site. Then let's chat further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I have made substantive edits tonight, such as to [[Alice and Wonderland]], [[Beowulf]], and [[Mind/body]], so I am not worried about being blocked for "just talk[ing] here," since I am not doing so.

::::::I am sorry if it appears as though I misquoted the definition. As I said scrupulously above, you may substitute the whole of your definition if you would like, since I was simply quoting it as I referred to it, rather than suggesting it as some sort of change.

::::::Please, do not continue to speculate as to my personal knowledge of homeschooling. That is not the ''only'' homeschooling family I know, I was mentioning them only to let you know that your assertion that I was not familiar with any was entirely wrong. I am an Eagle Scout, and many of those in my troop were homeschooled. I assure you, I am fully familiar with the concepts and people involved, and it doesn't change my considered opinion of the article at all. How would it, after all?

::::::I really am only trying to get a firm conclusion on the matter to which I have referred you: the discrepancy between your definition of homeschooling, which includes all such schooling throughout history, and the common understanding which generally is understood as referring to the modern movement. Please do not block me by way of avoiding this matter, I am quite serious and think I have presented a very compelling case. If you personally do not have time (since you say you don't want to spend all night on it), you have numerous other sysops. Ordinarily, of course, I would just make the edits myself, but it is pretty clear that on topics like this no one is allowed to edit anything that might be disagreed with, without checking with an authority figure first. Perhaps one of the other active sysops - Conservative, Croicite, Ed Poor, or the like - might also weigh in, since Phillip J Rayment concurred with me earlier along with another user?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

''Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.''

But that type of decision is not being described in the article. If you want to broaden it to include that, I think it would be appropriate to do so. The key would be specificity, then; the article should be changed to reflect that this is a list of people who have "eschew[ed] common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning", very different from what most people think when they read the article currently (which presents the matter as synonymous with modern homeschooling).

: Modern homeschoolers are no different from ancient ones in rejecting formal schools. We define the term homeschooling and I doubt many would argue with it. The people listed satisfy that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::The people do satisfy the definition, but I disagree that many would not argue with the blurring between modern homeschooling and historical "homeschooling" that is engaged in. At the very least, your change in the customary usage should be acknowledged.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Consider, for example, the fact that a large proportion of wealthy children were "homeschooled" in Europe for centuries, in the sense that they were tutored in their home by professionals. This was the norm for the wealthy, yet your definition includes such as being "homeschooled," contradictory to the common perception of the matter.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 15:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: No, the definition is clear that homeschooling rejects the approach of "certified" teachers (or its equivalent). Wealthy children in Europe who were schooled in a formal setting by certified teachers (or its equivalent) should not be included; those taught by their parents, relatives, or non-certified teachers (or its equivalent) should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree, the definition is clear, but it is only natural to assume that when one is speaking of "homeschooling" that one is speaking of what most people know of with the concept, as explained above. At the very least, explicate further. Otherwise at least the appearance of an attempt to deceive exists, even if that is not the case.

::And again, I would urge you to step back from this and let other sysops handle it; it's only appropriate.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pornography ==

I'm deleting the reference to homeschooling being remedy for pornogrpahy addiction. I read a study earlier this month which showed that there was actually a higher chance of a child becoming involved in pornography and other unsavoury internet based activities if home schooled. Of course the study applied to equally supervised children, which is, of course, rarely the case in homeschooling. Still rather than promote complacancy and information which is empirically wrong I felt the need to delete the reference. I can find the name of the study if anyone needs it, but as far as I know there is no digital reference. {{unsigned|ObamaSharma}}

== To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" ==

I think one of the major disadvantages that is not mentioned in the article (though it is generally touched on) involves a certain kind of social interaction. The article, as it is right now, implies that the social development that homeschooling can stunt is more or less limited to making friends, having conversations, etc. (on top of peer pressure, bullying, intimidation, etc. as mentioned). I feel it is important to include '''Tolerance''', '''Working together in spite of differences''', and '''Compromise to accomplish like goals'''. I think it goes without saying that we all have had to work very closely with people we've disagreed with on almost everything, and elitism (which I never thought to be a characteristic of homeschooling until I came to Conservapedia) can stall progress. I think mentioning parents enrolling their kids in social organizations can satisfy compromise to accomplish like goals, but I question how much the kids would be exposed to other cultures and races, that would develop tolerance, since these organizations often have many class and moral characteristics in common. I know many of the conservative sysops on this page "Don't believe in tolerance when it compromises truth" but I think we can still agree that different races, classes, and faiths can still produce good people that certainly don't deserve being inferior to the stereotypical american WASP. Please keep in mind that I'm not talking about anything other than the physical world, so please take any arguments of what Jesus said or what will happen to their souls if they don't accept Him elsewhere. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

:If public schools were about these things, then I would agree. Unfortunately what you have is positions being forced upon children in the name of 'tolerance'. As long as you agree with them then you're fine. If you don't -- look out. Homeschooling is about allowing children to avoid having a value system pushed upon them from a "community" that has decided it already knows what is right and will tell you to accept the same -- even against your own family. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::That's a good point, and I can concede to it. Could not the argument be made that the value system that the family lives by (which could include racist, elitism, exclusivity, among other things) be more aggressively pushed onto the subordinate child? I find that I'm a little uncomfortable with people who were raised with limited exposure to different ideas and cultures, but I am no expert on the subject, as I'm sure is apparent, which is why I'm speaking here instead of trying to edit the page. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::: Anything can be misused, and certainly homeschooling ''can'' have these problems if it is not done properly, but you seem to be seeing government schools through rose-coloured glasses. When I was in primary school, there was some racism there (although I didn't understand what it was at the time), but I remember none of that from Sunday School and church. Many homeschooling families are Christians, and my point is that they can get many of these social interactions via church and church-related activities, and that's likely to be a better environment for them than a government school environment that often has undesirable values. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:11, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Perhaps I'm simply recalling my own experiences, which were better than most since I attended one of the better elementary schools in my county before finishing elementary and middle school in the fundamental system, and my high school was one of the better schools in the county as well. I suppose it all should be taken on a case by case basis, and my problem then is with the elitism (and in some cases blatant discrimination against public schools) exhibited around Conservapedia instead of having any problems with homeschooling. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 11:46, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Capolavoro046, I read as far as your absurd accusation of "elitism" above. There is nothing about homeschooling or this site that is "elitist" and I suspect that ideology is clouding your opinions here. Maybe you did have a good experience in [[public school]] at some time in the past, but without more information it is impossible to assess that. No one is claiming that every student is ruined by public school, but public school does deprive its students of classroom prayer. As a teacher, I can assure you that such deprivation does have an adverse effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Considering that one of this site's very strong focal points is trying to influence homeschooling, I would say that my "accusations" (though I would describe them as observations) of some people having an elitist view are not absurd at all. For example, the entire list of [[professor values]] demonstrates the elitist view, as its sole purpose is propaganda against teachers. Do not be so quick to apply a label to everyone that falls into a classification. I think they have a word for that... what is it? Oh yes, stereotyping. To address the depravity of prayer, I disagree passionately with you. Every year in school, we as students were offered a "moment of silence" following the pledge of allegiance (which did not ignore "Under [[God]]") for prayer, among other things. I feel that you have a very closed-minded view of things, and coming from a SysOp from a site that works so fervently against the media, I feel you use media coverage of incidences in public schools as a crutch, and choose not to look at things on a case by case basis because it could possibly hurt your arguments. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 23:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, and as far as a direct example of elitism on this site: The caption under the photo about the fight that went up on YouTube reads, "A fight typical of [[public school]] students." I wish I knew you, Ashclafay, so I could ask you to look me in the eye and say that isn't an elitist statement. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 15:26, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

: Capolavoro046, I'll look you in the eye and ask you to be concise. I didn't read all your comments above. Surely you can make your point well in a few short sentences. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ashclafly, it takes less than a minute to read my last two posts combined. You want concise? Fine, here's concise: I'm done responding to someone who has yet to read all of what I posted for anything to which he's responded. It looks like once again (read the Mildred Loving issue on the main talk page) you hide from the topic at hand using under-handed devices. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 01:55, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Jordin Sparks ==

Jordin Sparks won the American Idol contest one year, which is good and fun for her. I wish her the best. But does that media award place her as a "prominent American" in the league of the others on the list? I don't think so, and think she should remain a footnote on the music issue and not in the main list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-05-19T19:26:45Z

Capolavoro046: /* To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" */

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-05-19T19:26:09Z

Capolavoro046: /* To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-05-19T18:13:30Z

Capolavoro046: /* Pro-"Abortion" needs changing */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]

==Second Picture's caption==
The caption on the second picture should read "...during the national anthem." Also, I believe the picture was taken from here: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html. [[User:Shiritai|Shiritai]] 08:21, 7 November 2007 (EST)

People should also be aware that placing one's hand over their heart is required only for the pledge of allegiance, it is not required when one hears the star spangled banner (the national anthem).

The part of the caption "His refusal to follow simple tradition and respect for the Anthem is the result of twenty-plus years of listening to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American sermons." is pure malicious speculation that has no place in an encyclopedia of any kind.

== Who here would mind Obama as president?==
I'll admit it, i am a moderate on the conservative slanted site. Be as my politcal views span both sides, i am hoping for Obama to win the election. I'm sure that some people here have criticisms of him, some of which may even be valid. So have at it people: Why not Obama, the man sent to lead America to greatness?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 20:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I must remind you, this is a conservative encyclopedia. most conservatives can't handle the idea of a black man as superior to them! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ahhh, so we have a self-admitted Godless Liberal, accusing conservatives, all of them apparently, of being racists. Nice and intellectual! Once again a "mobocracy" trait shining through, ignoring all logic and putting idealogical hatred first! Nice. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::No right-thinking people could possible support having a black as President, let alone in their neighborhood. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:27, 21 March 2007 (PST).

:::I think it would be great if he won, I can't stand Hilary...--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 21:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm one of the most liberal people I know... and I cannot stand the woman. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, get to those primaries and vote (especially if you live in Iowa or NH). I believe that there are worthy candidates on the Republicans as well, but i want to ensure the best man for the job gets the democratic nomination.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:To be honest... He would be better than that anti-video gaming [[fascist]]. No offense to anybody. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Personally, I feel Obama may be too inexperienced for the job. However, I still would like to see him elected. In reality, the president doesn't need to be very smart or experienced to BE president. He has a Cabinet of advisors and a whole staff to make decisions for him. Ergo, Obama doesn't really NEED the experience. He's plenty smart enough, and he come off as highly educated and eloquent. Really though, what makes him a good candidate is that he is well liked. What we need right now is a president who is willing to go around to all the European countries we have angered and make kissy-face with them, thus patching up our foreign policy. Hillary isn't going to do that, and I doubt a Republican president would. If we don't get our foreign policy out of the toilet, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble soon.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That reminds me of Bush Jr... --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree completely! No person with the name hussein will become president[[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I understand why American terrorists would want Hussein Obama to be President. How obtuse can you be not to understand he is the Al-Qaeda candidate? I will not surrender willingly to Barack Hussein Obama. [[User:GettingItRight|GettingItRight]] 22:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:Exactly, because obviously an American sounding name makes a great president. Look at George Walker Bush. [[User:Kip|Kip]] 07:26, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::He's not a Muslim. He became a very religious Christian in his early 20's and then he met Rev. Wright who's a racist, Afro-centrist Christian, and he's still a member of that church. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

In response to the original question, Obama would not be a good candidate because the only thing he has going for him is his charisma. Example: when asked, he said if elected, he would immediately pull all American troops out of Iraq. Wether you agree with the war or not doesn't matter - that would be irrisponsible. It is not a matter of race by any means - I would love to see a black president, but one who is actually qualified for the job.--[[User:Justintree|Justintree]] 14:51, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Can't we get a better source for his voting record than an opinion piece? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse dude......he doesn't have much of one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not saying how to judge his voting record, I'm saying that an opinion piece doesn't merit a good source. A good rule of thumb is that if there's a little picture next to an article, it's a column or an opinion piece, not an article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that flew right over my head...I even heard the air noise! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

# I asked for people who were going to discuss his voting record to use an actual source, not an opinion piece as it is now
# You made a joke about his lack of a voting record
# I said that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about sources. Columns, op-eds, editorials are not sources. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, so my cracking a joke meant I didn't understand what you meant, and might have distracted the readers, so they wouldn't know either? Got it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::From the ass' butt to it's mouth, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm for last session. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Breaking News!!!!==

Barack has just raised 25 million dollars for his campaign making his in competiton with Hiliary Clinton!! [http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/25 million!!!!]

== Controversial ? ==

Why is Barack Obama's biographical entry a "controversial" topic for Conservapedia, and locked out from editing?
:Because people who don't feel like contributing useful information see fit to compare his name to those of terrorists. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::It was vandalized twice in 48 hours. I asked for it to be unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. It look presentable. I left in the material about how liberal he is, though I doubt its value. At least it looks nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*The political leanings of any politician are the most important of all. Their stated goals mean nothing, their idealogy everything. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't disagree, but I doubt the veracity of saying X is Y more liberal than Z. Liberalness is not a quanitfiable value. There are better ways to describe his political agenda than by saying "look who he is more liberal than." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, Myk, it's your MSM who does it, the Liberal news organizations, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know if I'd call the National Journal, a publication with an almost $2000 per year subscription rate, mainstream. I tend to avoid it when I hear it, just as I tend to avoid editorial commentary. A far better judge of whether or not a candidate fits your bill is to look issue by issue. And it may be the "Main Stream Media" that started it, but it was the Rocky Mountain News which reported it (in a column) and Conservapedia who repeated it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is this locked? I can still edit this. Maybe that's because i have proven myself in being able to see Obama for the wonderous person he really is. Or not (since i may get banned for a comment like that, him being a non-conservative)--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 01:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Things change on a wiki, dude. It got unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Goofy Article ==

I understand that B.O. hits a lot of people's hot buttons, but this article is a mess. "half-African, half-Caucasian"? What's up with that? Why not use the generally-accepted and perfectly accurate term "African-American"? Or ditch it altogether, unless we're going to start classifying all politicos by race/ethnicity ("Irish-Caucasoid Ted Kennedy", or "Texan-American George Bush"). Better still, ignore the race issue until it is relevant to the article ("Obama is the the first African-American to...").

Too, do we really need three sentences establishing Obama's exact degree of liberlosity? Can't we just say "liberal Democrat", or just describe his positions ("show, don't tell").--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*I took all that away once, have been overruled by another Sysop, evidently. I changed it back once, to African-American, but some felt it important to note he was Mulatto. An archaic term, if ever there was one. Mixed-race would be acceptable today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==

Why are we discussing Michael Richards (not Kramer by the way) and Jimmy the Greek (real name Jimmy Snyder) on Barack Obama's page? The Boston Globe criticized him, black leaders criticized him... that's relevant. Imus' career and the issues surround Richards and Snyder are not. I would change this myself but it was protected again. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:And while it's still off topic here, it might be pertinent for the [[Don Imus]] article to note that CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, not a few affiliates. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK, please tell me where Obama's intellect vs. the intellect of civil rights leaders is mentioned in the source. And please tell me why refering to the old civil rights era is not redundant as the civil rights era is generally considered to be the era of MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks. That's already old, TK. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps to you, perhaps to me, but not necessarily to readers. Our "job" is to make things clear for them, not us. I think my change to old-guard makes it much clearer. Your additions were borderline denigration, to Hill's advantage, I would say. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So this is a wiki. We create a link for Civil Rights Era and then we make the article. His disconnection from Civil Rights figures is well publicized, just google Sharpton AND Obama. Or Obama AND black AND enough. Never is his intellect brought up. That's your opinion and is not sourced. I have no reason to want to support Hillary Clinton. Never been a fan. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Someone reading his curriculum vitae cannot escape his intellect, no? Since we currently have in place a "Civil Rights" leadership, it isn't necessairly old, is it? Jackson and Sharpton (both bigots, IMO) are from the old-guard civil rights era, and that is germain, is it not, since Obama's age was brought into the argument? Are you really incensed at that one word addition, which is sourced by the rest of the page, or that it was me adding to it? I will be happy to add a cite for what you consider an assumption, later today. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I just think it's redundant. His disconnect is with the era. He was too young to participate in it and as he is not a descendant of slaves, he is considered to not be a part of the CRE culture. As for the intellect thing, that has no part of his disconnection. You are either saying Obama is smarter or stupider than Civil Rights Leaders, something of which you have no proof. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Myk, the "proof" that Obama is "smarter" is in the public record, IMO. Disconnect is a pejorative word, used by reporter and political scum to smear people without appearing to overtly do so. Did you not know that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**I read the article to say Obama wants to be known as a "national leader", not a "Black leader", to paraphrase moreless. Hence a sort of parting of the ways with traditional well known "Black civil rights leaders", so to speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. He views things, seemingly, unlike the older leaders, as not just black and white issues. Obviously due to his age, upbringing in a multi-cultural society, and his education....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Still, by referring to leadership in quotes, and comparing their intellect unfavorably to Obama's you are painting a whole bunch of folks with a wide pejorative brush. Jackson and Sharpton are not representative of the whole of the CRE activists. And, of course, the Obama entry is not the appropriate place for a broadside against JJ, AS, and so forth.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed, WJT, however they are allowed/painted/claimed to be "the leaders" both in the press and educational circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**This is indeed an important point, Obama's greatest fear is being marginalized as just another "Black leader"; he's counting on what Republicans call the 'color blind society" to elevate him as an equal, respected national figure and leader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well he certainly has my attention and support in doing that, and ridding us at long last of the hobgoblins of the past, and wresting the power away from the merchants of fear and hate. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Off Page Discussion ==

Regarding the published criticism of Barack Obama, don't you think the majority of that link would be better served in an article about Don Imus or about Racism in Broadcasting? It seems to me that the relevant bit is that the Boston Globe and some prominent black leaders question Obama's handling of the situation, not the digression towards Michael Richard and Jimmy the Greek. Myk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You convinced me. You wanna do it? RobS 15:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
It was locked last time I checked. Myk 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll unprotect you so you can fix it; but i may have to reprotect quickly cause actually I don;t know what's going on on that page. RobS 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That you'd have to take up with TK. He thinks the candidate pages are being excessively vandalized. I have been unable to persuade him otherwise. Myk 16:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. Check it out to make sure it still fits with what you wanted to say. I am an Obama supporter so I tried to keep it to the source as much as possible. Searching for Obama AND Imus actually comes up with a lot of comments about Imus and McGuirk (sp?) making derogatory comments about Obama himself. Those weren't helpful. Myk 16:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Real good. Couldn't have done better myself. Say, while I got you here, would you mind discussing why you support Obama just to answer some personal curiousity. I got two questions off the top (a) what age group do you fall into (18-24, 25-30, 30-45, 45+),and (b) when and/or where did you first hear of Obama? Thanks. RobS 16:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm narrowly into the 30-45 category. And I first heard Obama at the 04 convention. Went out and got his first book and then Audacity when it came out. Myk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Question 3: Do you think he can (a) defeat Hillary in the primaries and go on to win the General election, and/or (b) is just running for the VP spot? RobS 16:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
(Undent) I don't think people on the right fully appreciate how disenchanted a lot of Democrats are with Hillary. I think when the two of them are on the same stage in a debate the differences will become overwhelming. Obama is both charismatic and smart. As for the general... well, obviously he's going to be a polarizing figure just because of his race and his name... but far less polarizing than Clinton. I think Hillary is much more beatable in a general than Obama. Myk 16:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good observations, and I agree with all of it. Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party--42% will come out to vote for her, and 42% will come out to vote for whoever can beat her.
So as to the question of electability, Richardson & Obama got her beat. I just quickly reread Obama & Kerry's convention speeches, cause I recall at the time much of what Obama said was directly contradicted on successive nights by a host of successive speakers. Let's look at these two excisions:
Obama:tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America. [23]
Kerry:after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. [24]
Now, is this just meaningless election rhetoric on the part of both speakers, or is there some way to reconcile these divergent passages? RobS 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot comes down to genuineness (I think I just made up a word). When Obama uses rhetoric, I believe it. At least in a way that I never do from Kerry or Clinton. The position of president entails a mix of issues, ability and inspiration. Issues are always going to be split based on ideology. Ability is where Obama's going to take a hit due to his lack of national / executive experience but he clearly has the intellect. If he can handle that question, which I think he can, then his ability to inspire will make him a daunting force. Think Bill Clinton without the smarm. And hopefully without the personal problems. As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only GOP candidates I see capable of taking on Obama and then only if they don't prompt a more conservative third party candidate.
The fact that Obama chose to give a unifying speech at a historically polarizing venue took a lot of courage. Compare his keynote address to Zell Miller's. Regardless of your thoughts on the issues, Miller's speech was a heckuva lot more abrasive. Myk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Guilani doesn't have a prayer. GOP will not nominate an East Coast liberal in favor of abortion. The question is who can beat McCain? Richardson may, Hillary can't, and Obama probably can't either. (Incidentally, new item this morning says Fred Thompson has lymphoma, so that leaves Huckabee as the only other Bible-belt GOP candidate, and Bible-belt candidates, GOP or Dem, are the only ones who can win nowadays).
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on Americans entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
This is how the game of politics is played. RobS 17:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is how it is played, usually, like this, away from the article talk page, to the exclusion of those not specifically "watching" the page. :p --~ TK MyTalk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll cut and paste it over there. RobS 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
McCain has alienated both the left and the right. I don't think he has a shot for the nomination and the only thing that can save him in the general would be an abrupt upturn in the war. Myk 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS"

==Another take==
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:

Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on America's entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.

This is how the game of politics is played. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think he's running for VP. I think even being elected for VP would marginalize the accomplishment. And he's certainly not fundraising like a VP. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*One doesn't ever "run" for Vice President. However when Hillary is nominated, her asking him to take the job is pretty much a mandatory yes from him. Especially if he ever wants to run for President again. Refusing would term him out as a Senator, and strip him of any future party leadership. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Libby Dole did 2000.

:::*See, now we need to understand how the fundraising law operates (which can't be briefly explained right here). He's got $20+ million; as an Illinois Senator, he's not up for another 5 years, and needs maybe 6-10 million by then. So this is one way he's being rewarded, he's basically got enough cash to hold that Senate seat for the next 24 years right now, in addition to being able to contribute to other candidates, i.e. build a politcal machine. This is how the game of politics really operates, and if you look beneath the surface, follow events, and see where Obama ends up in the next 18 to 24 months (and several decades after), you really can get some insight on the inner workings that are often hazy and mysterious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Obama isn't Senator Dole, with her political pedigree, it is indeed apples and oranges. I do have friends who are managing Obama, since its a very small world at that level of handling, and he has a decent shot. But in my opinon, and that of Dick Morris (albeit a Hillary hater, but most certainly a FOB.) he will possibly be offered the VP shot. If not too throughly destroyed by the Clintons long before the convention. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**The name of the game is beat McCain. Right now McCain beats all hands down (as he has for two years now). McCain controls big donors, party apparatcheks, old Perot & Colin Powell middle of the roaders, and a few Democrats. But the dirty little secret is GOP rank and file core constituents, the tax cutters and the religious right, are not that enthusiastic about McCain. His biggest problem is in his own party. If Hillary is the nominee, then the core rank & file will come out to vote for McCain to stop Hillary. And a VP candidate such as Obama, as the record shows, adds nothing to the ticket. This however, is where Bill Richardson can win. If it’s McCain vs Richardson, and GOP rank & file stay home, Richardson could actually pull off the win, cause he doesn’t have the “high negatives”, as they are called, that candidates like Hillary & Gingrich have. High negatives motive people to go out and vote against a candidate. This is were the polling on McCain is deceptive, if it’s McCain vs Hillary, the Republicans will come out in force to stop Hillary; if it’s McCain vs Richardson, many Republicans will stay home rather than soil their conscience by voting for someone or something they detest. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I look forward to beating the pants off of McCain! Newt has the hearts and minds of the GOP, and many, many Democratic voters, with his commmon-sense, almost Reagan-like approach. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**Right now, 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the only thing that could screw it up is--Hillary Clinton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, again. However, have you looked at newt.org and some of the bipartisan initiatives he has launched? BTW I added some backgound on that scum reporter, some other interviews she gave and her own posts, discrediting her being bipartisan, or even fair, where Obama is concerned. I smell one of Bill's cigars at work. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd have Newt's baby if I were a women, but he's not going anywhere. And I recently read somewhere he's not serious anyway. The mold of modern Presidents is a Southern Governor, or at least a Southerner. This has been true since Lyndon Johnson. Nixon & Reagan were from California, but the demographics of California since the Dust Bowl era have been Southern (remember, Grapes of Wrath, the Okies headed west, etc). So California is really much more like the South than it is the Midwest or the East. Southerners do not vote by party, they vote for "one of their own", i.e. one who talks and sounds like them. Easterners & Midwesterners don;t vote like this, they are more ideological of party driven the by the common culture and history that Southerners share. Ironic, even thought the South lost the Civil War, they have come to dominate the Presidency since the 60s. Bill Richardson fits this mold. So do Huckabee & McCain. Fred Thompson & the guy from Kansas also. I suspect Hillary, cosmopolitan New Yorker that she has become, along with Pennsyvlania & Chicago roots, will really resurrect her Southern drawl she gave up nearly 15 years ago now in the next coming months. This will be comical to watch, listening to her Eastern & Midwest accent when she's DC or NY, but pouring on the the good 'ol drawl when she's out on the trail, cause she smart enough to know how Presidential elections are won. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, Newt is from Georgia. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Gingrich and Hillary have the identical problem: "high negatives". Both enjoy 42% over all support; both have 42% "unfavorable" ratings. In other words, it's a wash. +42% - 42% = 0 net positive. Neither can win.

:::What "high negatives" do is motivate voters to get out an ''vote against'' a candidate. Typically, voters a motivated by a candidates ''charisma'' so to speak, like Clinton or Reagan, where voters are motivated to ''vote for'' the candidate; when candidates fail to inspire, like Dole, Dukakis, ''et al'', voters stay home. But a candidate like Gingrich or Hillary with high negatives motivates voters to get out and defeat them by voting for whatever uninspiring, uncharismatic candidate stands the best chance to beat them. This is why uninspired Rebublicans ''will'' vote for McCain to defeat Hillary, with a high turnout, whereas in a McCain/Richardson contest, Republicans voters will stay home and a Democrat then can win. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Blog or an encyclopedia? ==

Would like to know if this is now officially an political blog, or are we still trying to make an encyclopedia? If the goal of the site hasn't changed, why are there entryes like: "Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States." ? Are we next going to collect President Bushes slips in his speeches and post them here under his article? Tell me if this is the new trend and ill go collect some. Would lenghten the article nicely. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

*Someone so obviously discontent with Conservapedia, makes one wonder why they are here at all. I mean, I am not wanting you to leave, if you think you can do productive work, most certainly. However I can only judge from my own feelings, which would mean if I was that unhappy, I wouldn't waste my breath on it. You are an extraordinary man, being able to do productive editing and be so displeased. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::nevermind --'''''[[User:Andersmusician|Andersmusician]]''''' 23:13, 22 July 2007 (EDT)~

*Gosh, you waited all this time to respond, and had to make a sock to do it? :O --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== GSmiley ==

Great additions here today! Thanks for your effort. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

"Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a “Marxist leftist.”"

I thought Conservapedia reached its recent page view goal without indulging in the gossip common on wikipedia? This is something I have seen on a number of political biographies here, but mainly on Democrats. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:40, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Drug Use ==

I was shocked that Obama's admitted cocaine use [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html] isn't mentioned in this article. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 14:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Our [[rules]] prohibit [[gossip]]. [[Gossip]] has zero educational value, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:: How does one define gossip? He wrote about it himself - making it not private, no? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:19, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Rankings Reference ==

I would like to see the reference for Obama being the 10th most liberal senator changed to this
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc
because this is what the other reference refers to and because this site is very informative as it lists other senators scores and votes. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Unprotected, so do it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Done! Reprotect again if you like. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Rumours ==
This article is somewhat sloppy in its attributions and quotes. The part about the allegations about Obama's childhood are a good case in point. Surely it should be made clear that the allegations that he attended a madrassa are lies? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggest Protection ==

There's a vandal who was blocked once today for targeting presidential candidate entries. Since the primary is tonight (fingers crossed for Huck!) I expect vandalism to go up on these articles, before it goes down! I would recommend protecting articles like this for a week, maybe?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

: No need for protection. We'll be watching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Affirmative action in summary ==

I'm sorry about not discussing the recent change I made- I didn't see how it was major, as MexMax suggests, or even arguable. Here's why I did it:

The summary contains an anti-Obama statement claiming he is nothing more than a black man, who gained his status due to affirmative action. I removed the section because this very article states that he not only graduated Harvard Law, but did so magna cum laude ("with highest honors"). I can understand someone having issue with the possibility of his getting accepted due to his race, but graduating at the top of his class is far from proven to be race-based.

Regarding the paper he wrote, it's just fluff. His lack of a background in physics is unrelated since he was not authoring a paper in physics. He was writing about law, using physics as an analogy of legal matters. If the editor who put this text here actually bothered to read the reference, they would have seen that the context of the quote was actually a compliment Tribe: "...he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades." Again, where is affirmative action in this?

Conservapedia is about truth, not spreading propaganda (correct me if my impression is mistaken). I understand that Obama does not share conservative values but lying is morally wrong as well and we should not tolerate it here.

-- [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 12:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Obama's record and support is full of puffery, preferences, and advantages based on his race. Your comments above only reinforce some of them, rather than rebut them. He was credited with analyzing a paper on physics, without any background in the topic. In fact, he apparently had no formal background in constitutional law at the time either! We're going to tell the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: You should be a bit careful, though, Andy. You don't want to get hung out to dry like you did over Dawkins. A word to the wise! [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:13, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:Removed the personal opinion on Tribe's remarks regarding Obama. Tribe can state whatever he wants regarding Obama, and if it's going to be referenced, do so straight up. CP isn't the place to debate Tribe's remark as he can't respond. If we include his remark (or the reference) we shouldn't be expounding on it. I didn't think an encyclopedia should contain personal opinion. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:17, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: Accounts will be blocked if they remove facts or quotes here, or in the Dawkins entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::How is "absurdly insisted" a fact and not an opinion? If it just said insisted, that's a fact because it was a direct quote. But to add the adverb "absurdly", that makes it opinion.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You deleted the Tribe quotes also, which is unacceptable. If you want to remove "absurdly" then insert "liberal" next to Tribe's name so that readers can see for themselves how ridiculous the quotes are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::Jdellaro's right, you know. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: "MatthewHopkins", you seem to love to talk, talk, talk. I'm going to check your edits now to see if there is any substance there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: That's rich. Check away, old horse. You'll find good stuff there, and most of the talk is attempting to argue sense into [[Liberals]]. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 16:05, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Aschalfly- First, we can't change things without talking, now Matt gets slammed because he tried to discuss the issue. You claim this is a meritocracy, but you push people around just because you don't know them. Your action here is that of a tyrant- threatening someone who is only trying to help the encyclopedia. I know you are concerned about liberals defacing the encyclopedia, but I don't think you've found one in this case. I've checked his edits without malice, and he seems to deserve good standing. You should be ashamed when you finish your witch hunt and apologize. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 07:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Mr. S, this is really weird. I mean, Obama might be just left of Lenin, but I don't get the affirmative action thing. Do we know his SATs, LSATs, etc? Do we have any evidence that his "achievements" are based on AA? If not, then this will look to any sane person like a racist piece of poo article. I mean, c'mon, let's get this guy on the facts, not on bizarre assumptions. Just cuz he's black doesn't mean he benefited from AA. He may have, and if he did, where's the citation? Otherwise, it's racist gossip.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 16:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Agreed- this nonsense makes the article looks more like a smear campaign that a fact-based biography. Due to the absence of any evidence, I will be removing much of the AA material later this week. I am halfway through reading the law review article, and there's nothing wrong with it. You may have a different opinion, but the essay is solid- liberal in its views perhaps, but certainly not absurd. There is none of this alleged analysis of physics, only a well cited collection of the physics issues described so that a layman can understand the importance of their discovery and their effects on modern scientific thought. Note that these effects are the key point and they have more to do with the history of science than science itself, and do not require the absurd call for a background in physics. The credits cite Barack for being the last of five persons providing "analytic and research assistance", but do not specify his contribution, which could have been anywhere from analytic to gofering to the law library to make photocopies. It also mentions a Harvard physics professor as a source of technical comments, so the physics are probably sound. If Obama was a major contributor to this essay, he should be commended for a job well done, but the current evidence doesn't allow for either congratulations or condemnation. Please provide comments and present supporting evidence. If you want to comment on the article, try reading it first: Harvard Law Review- Volume 103 November 1989, Number 1. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 13:28, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Some childish heavy-handed coward anonymously and secretly blocked my account instead of using discussion to come to a conclusion on this matter. Whoever you are, you can't shut me up by clicking a check box. Give me a fair trial for violating site policy or prove me wrong. Keep blocking new accounts only proves your contempt for truth and free speech. [[User:NepotisMonachusB|NepotisMonachusB]] 08:46, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Im sorry but that AA thing is complete bigotry, you can be black and still achieve. This is very offencive , only a racist would be happy with it, no wonder only moderates and liberals will stand a chance of winning the election, be it McCain, clinton or obama, the conservative voice will never again take prominance in politics. Maybe after seeing this im quite releaved. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 12:02, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The total number of votes cast by Obama is meaningless, since the vast majority of them would be on non-controversial issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:Not a problem; I was just trying to add a bit of perspective to the point. However, you might want to reconsider or reformulate the second part of the paragraph (which you also reverted). It's unclear who exactly "opponent" refers to--I understand it means Jack Ryan, but Obama's main Dem primary rival came to a similar end (dropped out of the race when details of his divorce became public). Further, readers might recall that Obama defeated Alan Keyes in the general election and wrongly believe the sexual allegations refer to him. Hence, my phrasology of "initial Republican" and "dropped out". Also, thanks for (re)clarifying the research citation.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

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

Seems a little harsh (and uncited). Could it maybe be reworded slightly? His race is perhaps one factor, but ''surely'' it's not implied that Obama's entire life has consisted of coasting on a combination of his ethnicity and [[liberal]] [[affirmative action]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:That's extremely harsh, I agree, and veering towards the biased. Of all the thousands of people who have voted for him, surely what he has to say, what he has written and what he has done have all had a bigger impact than affirmative action? If affirmative action was in place, then why isn't Alan Keyes the Republican front-runner? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Republican voters do not support [[affirmative action]], and do care about military and other experience in choosing a Commander in Chief. Many (not all) Democratic voters care more about promoting [[racial quotas]]. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Aschlafly- you've avoided the point with more anti-liberal statements. While I'm happy to sling those around with you, bias is the question here. I'll try to make Feebasfactor's point a little clearer for you: Is there bias in the affirmative action statement, or is the accusation verifiable? If proof cannot be provided, how are we better are than the liberals on Wikipedia, who we bash daily on their bias? Do we even care anymore or have we abandoned Conservapedia's founding principles? [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 16:46, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Aschafly - If Republicans care about military experience, then why choose Reagan or G. W Bush, whose experience of warfare was minimal? And if I can point out something with my tongue firmly in my cheek, why are the current Republican candidates for the Oval Office all themselves from minorities - a Mormon, an Old Age Pensioner, an Evangelical, an African-American and a... a whatever the heck Ron Paul is? Isn't that affirmative action too? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::Aschafly - Let's say all the Democratic candidates for President are black. (Bear with me here.) These are all people who graduated from a prestigious school with high honors, worked as a lawyer, and served as a Congressman, governor, or mayor. Would you then say that all of them got to where they were as a result of affirmative action and nothing else? That none of the things they accomplished came as a result of their talent, or perhaps their intelligence? That successful minorities must be viewed upon with suspicion?

:::Kinda stupid hypothetical situation, I know, but I hope it gets my point across, however stupid you think that point may be. [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 20:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::Let's say there's a young white guy, not bad-looking, but not all that original a thinker. His parent is a famous theocrat and a founder of the new Religious Right in the late 70s/early 80s. Despite his lack of original thinking and intelligence, he manages to get into an ivy league school, and despite that, his greatest accomplishment is a bizarre blogwiki hybrid on which he spreads hate and fear to children. Isn't that affirmative action?
::::Never mind, it's too weird to contemplate.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Peggy Noonan, that well-known leftist, in the well-known leftist publication The Wall Street Journal:

"He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you.
(I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)"

Possibly she means you guys. I merely suggest. "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" is at least good enough to have been written by David Duke.
Archer070

I'm removing that line until a citation of some kind is given. If there was an affirmative action program for congress in place I am sure that its Conservapedia entry would be even more popular than the one on Homosexuality. [[User:NoraReed|NoraReed]] 23:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== African american ==

In this article is says that:"He is, as of 2007, the only African American serving in the United States Senate"
but
"Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii"
He is most certainly not african american.

He is not African American because he was born in Hawaii? You MUST be joking. O__O I mean, I have heard "He is not the descendant of African slaves, so he isn't really African American." and I have heard "Living all over the world, he surely isn't in touch with African American life." but I think you have taken the petty distinctions to a new low.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 12:31, 1 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==

Found a great article while searching for W's foreign policy experience before the war. The full article is here:
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/</ref>

Here's the relevant portions:

<blockquote>
Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?

Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II. But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union; the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United Nations; and so on.

He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded, successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the Suez Canal. Successes.

John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called "While England Slept."

As president, he had one big failure: the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.

Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his presidency.

Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after decades of silence.
Carter
Former President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success: negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's presidency.

Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you look at Truman or Reagan.
</blockquote>

Seems that Reagan and W had about as much experience as Obama.

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

== removed false information ==

While Obama is left of Stalin on some matters, the Affirmative Action statement is blatant racism without some example given. Further, the Harvard law Review is hardly "liberal', as it counts among it's alum Supreme Court Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. And IT DOES NOT HAVE A QUOTA!

We can disagree with his policies, but we are not going to lie about him.

Having the same issues as reported above this is the second time I've had to remove the affirmative action statement, which is completely unquantifiable. I've also made edits removing language which is somewhat misleading and gives the article a very bias anti-Obama slant. If this site is dedicated to eliminating bias, it should not turn a blind-eye to conservative bias or in this case blatant racial discrimination. I have also expanded upon the issue surrounding his voting "present" so often. As stated in the article, voting "present" is commonplace in the Illinois Senate on both sides of the aisle. I kindly ask that [[Aschlafly]] stops reverting the article back to its previous biased and misleading state. If you disagree with the edits I've made write on my talk page or respond on the article's talk page instead of simply eliminating my changes, all of which seek to further expand the information in the article and maintain neutrality as best as possible.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 11:39, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: The Harvard Law review is extremely liberal, and it does have racial quotas in its admission. Your false accusation of lying are not appreciated and will not be allowed.

: The statement about [[affirmative action]] is accurate and will remain in the entry. Repeated attempts to remove it without justification will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Justified how? Saying that Obama's life amounts to nothing more than lucking out with affirmative action isn't a quantifiable statement...at all. It is nothing more than a completely biased statement and does in fact convey a sense of bigotry. The edits I've made to the article have not introduced some virile liberal bias, I've simply elaborated on contentious issues and removed language and phrasing which is decidedly opinionated. Just because someone disagrees with you [[Aschlafly]] does not make that person wrong. Stop using the power which you have been granted out of good faith by the rest of this site to act like the NKVD, censoring whatever you feel like, and threatening those who disagree with you through bans or some other reprimands when they have only sought to maintain neutrality and expand factuality.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 15:45, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Your racial bullying is not going to work here. [[Affirmative action]] is a big part of Obama's career and his support. Don't delete it from the entry and don't deny that the Harvard Law Review is a very liberal institution that uses [[racial quotas]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Racial bullying? I'm sorry my defective leftist brain must not be able to comprehend your superior Divine logic. But I'm not the one throwing baseless affirmative action rants into what should be a neutral and factual article. Even Clarence Thomas would tell you just how bigoted and perposturous such a claim is.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly: Enforcer of <s>Truth</s> ==

So, after having edited the Obama article for the third time to remove some of the more opinionated wording, removing the baseless affirmative action claim, and expanding on the procedures of the Illinois Senate to give people a better understanding of why Obama voted "present" 129 times, Conservapedia Fuhrer [[Aschlafly]] has threatened to ban me if I edit the article again, despite the neutrality and factuality of my edits. Does anybody else think this is somewhat of an abuse of power as well as an attempt to enforce his own opinion on the rest of the site, and, is there someway that we could replace him with someone who is not a fanatical reactionary.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)
:It's Andy's site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:49, 17 February 2008 (EST)
: :Agree it's Andy's site. Of course Andy should be ashamed of himself; but it's still his site. Andy has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of his mom's clout. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]
::: It's Andy's site?!?!?! I was under the opinion it was an encyclopedia![[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 09:57, 20 February 2008 (EST)

This is the reason liberals will win the whitehouse , people are tired of these attitudes , people need to move into the 21st century .... quickly. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:46, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== It's ASTOUNDING! . . . Why? Don't you people know how Congress works? ==

"For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times."

Why is that astounding? That is an incredibly SMALL number. Congresspersons vote on thousands of issues each TERM. And for Barack Obama to have been a Senator for EIGHT YEARS and to only not vote 130 times... lol.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

:"As for his voting performance, Obama liked sitting on the fence. He is recalled for taking full advantage of an Illinois rule that lets you vote "present" if you don't want to commit yourself. Illinois State Senator Bill Brady recalled: "I learned very quickly that the 'present' vote, where the button you press is very appropriately coloured yellow, is the chicken's way out." ([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''])[[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:14, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: Voting "present" 130 times is NOT a small number. It is an astounding large number of times to duck important issues, so large that even [[Hillary Clinton]] has ridiculed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:02, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::It's a fair point, but I'd suggest that the article should nonetheless give some concept of scale. 130 "present" votes translates to about 3% of the votes cast, which quite frankly isn't a lot. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:06, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: It is enormous. A politician is serving only himself, and not his constituents, by ducking so many important issues. You won't find any earnest politician voting "present" so many times and ducking so many important issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:10, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: But those statements that you make, Andrew, are all opinions that aren't sourced from cited sources. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, merely trying to ensure that we have the most accurately cited article we can have; all I'm saying is that in order to support the claim that voting present 3% of the time - which purely quantitatively doesn't '''seem''' like much to the average obsever - you'd actually need to give '''a solid, cited example''' of an "earnest politician" who hasn't voted present on a comparable proportion of issues. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:34, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The reversion removed a silly, self-serving quote that only filled the entry with junk. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 23 February 2008 (EST)

The reversion this morning reinserted a liberal deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Introduction to article ==

I don't disagree with the subject matter, but I think there's a problem with the introduction. Most of the information seems to relate to his ideological/political stances, and so would be better placed in the body of the article rather than posted up front. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: We put the important stuff first here. But thanks for your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Some things need altering like the affirmative action thing. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 15:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: What's the problem? No [[liberals]] have any problems in complaining about alleged special preferences for [[conservatives]]. When someone gets special treatment and then seeks to become president on that basis, it's fair game to criticize the special treatment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Maybe he DID get SOME special treatment , but the article suggests that everything he`s achieved in life is a result of AA. Maybe it needs a little tinkering with, it comes across too strongly , there is no problem saying that AA helped him but to say thats the only reason he got anywhere in life is a big jump. If he becomes president (trust me there is a good chance of it) are you going to say he only became president as a result of AA? Thats just not possible, people voted for him because they liked him and his ideas not because they felt sorry for him for past racism towards black people.--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 06:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:: To be fair, "no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained ... [by] affirmative action" is a much stronger statement than, say, "he could not have achieved the heights he has in the absence of affirmative action." The former claims he has _no_ achievements of his own, which seems so exaggerated that I'd believe it was written by a troll if you weren't defending it yourself. I would never consider entering politics, and even I have what might reasonably called "personal achievements." I'm sure Obama has some too. The latter statement merely (rightly!) observes that his achievements would never have elevated him to the status he's achieved, if it were not for liberal affirmative action; isn't that more like what you mean? [[User:Coas|Coas]] 16:31, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Needs a major overhaul... ==

On the whole, this article, I believe, needs a major overhaul. Firstly, too much of this, while true, is written in so many ways like gossip. A glaring error that any serious writer would immediatly reject is the phrase: "Obama is SO pro-abortion..." It sounds like some high-school kid exaggerating to a friend. While it may be true, to phrase it in such a way is very unprofessional, and degrades the credibility of the article.

Also, while I understand that many see this article as an outlet to vent frustration at an inexperienced, unproven candidate, to write the entire article in a highly critical light errodes the circumstantiated tone that I assume Conservapedia strives for. Those not well informed might see this article as bigoted and hateful, whith spurious and unsubstantiated claims. My advice is to write these facts in a neutral, detatched style, as is the case with most encyclopedias. To do otherwise detracts from Conservapedia as a whole.

A few suggestions just from the very beginning:

1. "Obama is so pro-abortion..." should be changed to something like: "Obama has a well-noted stance of pro-abortion, demostrated in cases such as his blocking of the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants protection act, which was unanimously supported by the U.S. Senate."

2. "Obama has absolutely no military..." needs to be reworked into something more or less as follows: "Obama has a distinct lack of military, executive, and foreign policy experience as evidenced by..." and include some example of how he simply has not been in a position where he could gain any of this experience.

3. "Throughout his career, he has repeatedly ducked..." has too much opinion attached to it, and the "...in an apparent attempt..." part reeks of unprofessionalism. A good alternative would be "Obama has many times abstained from taking a controversial stand on certain issues, voting 'present' instead of 'aye' or 'nay' a substantial 130 times during his career as an Illinois state senator."

Much, much more needs to be done for this to sound like an authoritative encyclopedic article instead of an opinionated rant.
--[[User:Churro|Churro]] 01:18, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==
I'd like to add a few paragraphs about Obama's foreign policy experience. Any chance the article can be unprotected? --Jimmy 21:29, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: The article was unprotected for a long time, and endured repeated attempts at liberal bias. How about suggesting your edits here first?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::== Foreign Policy Experience ==
::Sen. Obama has been a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations since his election to the Senate. <ref>http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/about.html </ref>

::He has visited many countries in his capacity as a Senator.

::Russia and former Soviet republics: Met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. Also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN).
::United Kingdom: Met with Prime Minister Tony Blair during visit with Sen. Lugar. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit </ref>

::Visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad: Discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/ </ref>

::Ten day tour of the Middle East: Talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/ </ref>--Jimmy 22:14, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Completely incorrect information in Foreign Policy==

The information provided is completely incorrect. Senator Obama has indeed visited Continental Europe on official business - he visited Eastern Europe in August 2005, taking in Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and the UK[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]. Please correct the article.

Not only is the article factually incorrect, but the suggestion is made that this 'lack of travel experience' would make him unsuitable for the Presidency. To which I would point out that the current President George W. Bush, had NEVER visited Europe until a year '''after''' taking the Presidency. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 13:32, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Political Views section ==

I don't know whether this is a valid criticism to make, but it occurred to me while reading the article that the "Political Views" seection is rather short and vague. Although it's great to make concise comments on issues such as illegal immigration etc., it doesn't really give us a good picture of exactly what he stands for (and no jokes about not standing for anything, please!). What I mean is: the second sentence claims that Obama has the record of a Marxist leftist, but nothing after that point under that section really justifies that statement. Indeed, much of it seems to be better placed under the next section "Faith and Values". It might be pertinent to have a more detailed analysis of individual parts of his policies and stances. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Obama's stances keep changing depending on which state is next in the primaries. It's a waste of time to attach any significance to his stated positions, other than to recognize how [[liberal]] he is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Perhaps pointing out these changes would be a better idea, Andy. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 20:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't view this as a priority, as Obama's supporters only care about his positions against the war and for abortion and don't care about much else, and those positions are spelled out. I'll unlock the entry for you if you'd like to add objective material that shows how he changes his position so often. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I know nothing of Obama's war opinion (aside troop withdrawal) and nothing of him pro-abortion position. Yet, I am still an Obama supporter, despite being non-US, as he is the only one who is not part of the great Washington machinery. It is time for change and the old stalwarts like McCain and Clinton need to go. Change can be good, not always but why not give it a chance?
Also, Bush Jnr had waaaaaaay less experience than Obama.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Can we un-lock, this artical needs to be updated ==

There is no information at all about how Obama was linked to the radical Afro-Centric "Church" in Chicago whose Pastor endorses crazy racialist theorys about Whites, the CIA did AIDS, Jews did 9/11, etcetera. ANd then of course he makes one silly speech that doesnt really say anything, and the liberal media fall over each other to praise him like the secnod coming of jesus. (btw, this isnt really my area of expertise, but I understand some American theologians have seriously considered whether he could be the anti-christ. i don't know if that's enough of a seriously taken theory but you folks should decide whether to mention it at least.

I dont understand why so many pages i try to edit are locked.

:: I think it is because reality has a well known liberal bias. (I joke, I joke) It just that liberals don't understand how to interpret reality but keep insisting that they do. It isn't like this problem is going away either.--[[User:Jroyale|Jroyale]] 21:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Étienne Léger
:Are you referring to Pastor Wright? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::Yes Jeremiah Wright is his name, he is basically an "afro-centric" race bigot who openly associates with Louis "Hitler was a great man" Farrakhan, he was Obama's chief Spiritual Advisor for many years except now he tries to deny it.

::: Please propose an encyclopedic-like addition, with a citation. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Agree: not sure why this article would be locked when it clearly needs to be updated to ensure the tone is encyclopedic and not simply derogatory. Otherwise, the reputation of this effort as a "trustworthy encyclopedia" will continue to be severely undermined.

: Im starting to think that it is too late to save this site. Its hard to take it seriously with articles like this . . . [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 18:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

OK Heres my suggestion, probably the English she needs work :) but I found lots of references and I think it's encyclopedia like. It should go under section 9 on "Faith and Values."

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

== This Article is Ridiculous ==

For God's sake, with articles like this Conservapedia is never going to be taken seriously. A “Marxist leftist"? This is just stupid, he's basically pro-life moderate conservative. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, you really are in the wrong place if you think anyone here is going to be fooled by your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::Fooled? I don't even especially like Barack Obama. Can you honestly say that Obama is a communist? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh I see, my bad, i meant pro-choice . . . Can i change it? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:49, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Could someone with access add something like "According to the Political Compass, Barack Obama would be better described as a moderate conservative <ref>http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008</ref>" after the Marxist comment? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::I agree that in no way can Obama be described a Marxist leftist. I've met Marxist leftists and argued with them a great deal (they tend to have very fixed ideals and observe an astonishing range of fallacies about the very unlamented Soviet Union) and compared to them Obama's a solid centrist. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 07:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, he's politically 'left' of Ann Coulter. By Conservapedian standards, that makes him a bomb-throwing Bolshevik revolutionary fnord. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

They also tend to be communists and call each other "comrade" and call for collectivism lol. But really, that quote either needs to be removed or balanced with another. Otherwise its just libel. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:05, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:It's not libel if it's a Liberal being lied about. Didn't you get the memo? That whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" thing only applies if thy neighbor is a Conservative. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, he's a liberal? I didn't know that! I can't find on the page where it says that he is a radical Islamic terrorist<ref>Barack HUSSEIN Obama!</ref>. He also a lying homosexual right? why isn't that included? If you need a source I can start a webpage and write that for you. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:21, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and Obama could hardly be called our neighbor. No blacks are allowed in conservapedia's neighborhood. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Voting "present" doesn't necessarily indicate a fence-sitter... ==

Oftentimes, a vote of present indicates that the candidate generally supports a proposal in principle, but is unable to support it in its current form. It's a way of saying "I'm here, I'm interested, but we can't do it this way." Say Congressman A is a strong fiscal conservative and hates deficits. A budget bill comes before the body which cuts taxes but also provides for incremental increases in government programs which Congressman A already believes are hopelessly bloated, and in so doing increases deficit spending. That Congressman might not be able to support the bill but voting "present" would put to the record that he did not outright reject the proposal, but rather that he might be open to supporting a similar, re-worked bill.

== Required Changes ==

This article needs a lot of work to bring it up to the standards of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'. Several claims don't pass muster.

- The claim "'''Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience'''" is laughingly false and makes this article look plain ignorant. There are well documented details of Obama's foreign policy experience in the article, yet this sentence remains. The reference for this claim is hopelessly incorrect. While this reference is in compliance with the commandments, it was obviously written by someone that didn't do their homework as proof of Obama's foreign policy experience is readily available. The same cannot be said of the next dubious claim.

:: You're clueless. Obama has zero military or executive experience, and his foreign policy experience is in the lowest 10% of senators. Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action'''." This comment is the sort of gossip that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Not only has this ridiculous claim been removed and reinserted many times, not a shred of evidence is presented to back up this basically idiotic nonsense. I'd like to think the leadership of this encyclopedia would set a good example for others to follow when writing articles, but there are way too many articles like this one that prove otherwise.

:: The evidence is overwhelming, with examples provided in the entry. All you have to do is cite some counterexamples. You can't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, the article states that Obama graduated from Harvard Law with honors. That strikes me as a "clear personal achievement". Are you suggesting, therefore, that he didn't deserve said honors, that faculty gave him an easy ride because he's African-American? --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:54, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He won a seat in the U.S. Senate after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, Alan Keyes'''." This claim is completely without merit. According to Fox News, Ryan was not forced out and the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged him to remain. The idea that '''liberals somehow obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records''' is disingenuous at the least and most likely a lie. According to Fox News, the records were released when the ''Chicago Tribune'' and Chicago TV station ''WLS'' sued. Divorce proceedings are a matter of public record unless the there is a compelling interest to make them private. According to the court, relevant portions of the divorce were kept private and the remaining portions were released. Please note that I am not quoting a liberal source for this information. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123716,00.html]

:: The records were confidential and the newspaper that sued for their relief was supportive of Obama. Yes, Jack Ryan was forced out as a result of the disclosures and no one familiar with politics credibly argues otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- This article was unlocked for a brief time a while ago until some vandals made their presence known. Even though the article was vandalized, it actually showed some signs of improvement. As it stands now, this article belongs on an Obama-hating lunatic fringe website, not part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.

:: I don't expect this factual entry to persuade anyone who is a big supporter of [[affirmative action]], because they don't care what Obama stands for or what his experience is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

The above seems to be someone's comments, debated by ASchlafly? But there's no name attached to any of these comments? Can you put back the signatures of whoever wrote those suggestions?

As to the actual comments ASchlafly, it seems you haven't actually read your own article. You ask "Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???", and the article clearly states that he has indeed been to London and met with Tony Blair. In comparison with all other candidates for the US Presidency, this leaves him "about the same". Most US Presidents do not come to the table with a huge amount of travel experience under their belts - witness the current President, who had never been out of the Continent before becoming President. No matter what you think of the candidate, the suggestion that the only things he has achieved are because of affirmative action beggars belief and doesn't even deserve a response, it's so unutterably stupid. Finally, referring to this article as a "factual entry" is revelatory. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:23, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

: "Western Europe" should be "continental Europe," because Obama did play second chair for an insignificant visit by a more experienced senator (Lugar) to Tony Blair. If that courtesy call is what you're hanging your hat on, then it merely underscores Obama's lack of experience. But I doubt you'd care anyway, as most Obama supporters don't support him for his experience or even his ever-changing or silent positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I'm delighted to see that you admit you were wrong, so thank you for that - it's good to keep the record straight. Now, for comparison to the other candidates, perhaps you'd like to list the foreign travel and policy experience of your candidate of choice? John McCain is off to Israel, London and Paris I see? Obama indeed does not have the French capital in his past itineraries, but comparing his Conservapedia article to Obama's, it would seem he is FAR more widely travelled than McCain. Finally, your suggestion about affirmative action might as well be directed at Clarence Thomas, since the only requirement you seem to need to make such a comment is the colour of these gentlemen's skin?

::PS Finally, could you please put back the sigs of whoever you were responding to? it's impossible to know where these comments come from? [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly: Contrary to your opinion, I am not the clueless one here. I happen to know that the United Kingdom is a part of Western Europe so therefore it can be concluded that Obama has made a trip to Western Europe since he visited London to see Tony Blair. Since you are making the claim that his foreign policy experience is the 'lowest 10% of senators', could you provide a reference please?

:::Where is this overwhelming evidence that Obama's success is explained by affirmative action? If it is so overwhelming, then you or the person that made this assertion should have absolutely no problem providing the reference. Where is the evidence in the article? I couldn't find anything. Could you provide this allegedly 'clueless' individual, as you like to call me, the specific line number?

:::Because Ryan refused to run for office after his divorce proceedings were made public, this means, using your line of reasoning, that the 'National Republican Senatorial Committee' lacks credibility. Perhaps this should be added to the article?

:::There are a lot of alleged 'facts' in this article that are nothing more than gossip and unsupported innuendo. According to the commandments that you wrote, these items should be removed. How can this article be a part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' if no attempt is made to follow the commandments and guidelines?

:::I happen to care what Obama, Clinton, and McCain stand for because I plan to vote and I want my vote to mean something. If someone wants to base their vote on what is written in Conservapedia, then they will be seriously misinformed. --Jimmy 21:30, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Law Professor ==

The sentence about Obama "falsely claiming to be a constitutional law professor" should be changed. According to the University of Chicago, he was considered to be a professor. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 19:14, 29 March 2008 (EST)

:He was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor. There's a big difference. The University of Chicago only ''considers'' Obama a professor, he wasn't actually one, as he falsely claimed to be. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::You're wasting your time, Tordenvaer. Certain people on here see nothing wrong in saying someone's not a professor if it suits their purposes and/or prejudices, even when there is ample evidence otherwise. See the Richard Dawkins [[Richard_Dawkins|article]] and [[Talk:Richard_Dawkins|Talk Page]] for an extremely good example of this. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:49, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::As an aside, Lyra, considering it is, in fact, universities that bestow the title of 'professor', if the University of Chicago basically saying that, as far as they were concerned, he was a professor, isn't 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? You also state that there is a big difference between 'Senior Lecturer' and 'professor'. Read the link given by Tordenvaer. The University of Chicago completely disagrees with you there. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:57, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: In other words, if [[liberals]] like someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[liberals]] are going to call him a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. Perhaps we should add this to [[liberal]] positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Done. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Alternatively, if [[conservatives]] dislike someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[conservatives]] are going to deny that he is a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:36, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

: Really? Perhaps you can tell us who peer-reviewed Obama's work, and when, and what the outcome was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Most likely the U of C law faculty did, repeatedly throughout his time working there, as all departments do with all faculty. The outcome was that they asked him to join the faculty full-time. In addition to the statement linked above, there is [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/701490,CST-NWS-obamaprof18.article] (para 3). They did not offer him a full-time position because they thought he was good-looking. [[User:Murray|Murray]]

:::: Well, I'll put it this way - who is more likely to be correct in who is or is not a professor? Aschlafly or the Universities of Chicago and Oxford? Personally, I'll go with the universities, and thus accept both Dawkins and Obama are professors, in one way or another. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 22:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: Certain people can't handle the ''truth'', Urushnor. Regardless of what U-Chicago's ''feeling'' is, he's a senior lecturer, not a professor. The university never gave him that title. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 23:31, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: 'The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

:::::: 'From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, '''Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School'''. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. '''Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors''', although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'[[User:Jtimber|Jtimber]] 23:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Precisely. It seems that certain people cannot handle the truth, indeed - Obama made a comment, in passing, which his opponents seized upon to try to brand him as a liar, because they thought it was wrong, as his actual title was 'Senior Lecturer', but now can't handle the truth that, in fact, 'Senior Lecturers' are regarded as professors, so the comment was correct. I also note, Lyra, that you still haven't actually answered my question - given that it is universities that bestow the title of professor, if a university saying that someone is or was a professor is not 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I believe I've already answered that question. My point was that he was not full-track. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:30, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No, from the above, your point was quite clearly that 'he was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor', to quote you exactly. The University of Chicago says he was a 'Senior Lecturer', which is considered to be a professor. So you haven't actually answered that question at all, unless you changing your point is your way of saying, 'oops, I was wrong - he ''is'' a professor, just not a full-time or tenure-track one'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 01:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Allow me to explain. When he says he is a ''professor'', many people will assume he means a full-time teaching committment, regardless of U of C's technicalities. It's a bit deceitful. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::During the time he worked as a senior lecturer, he was practicing law as well. I've actually read ''The Audacity of Hope''. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't really think it's that deceitful; he's just using common parlance versus the technical term. Technically, yes, he was a senior lecturer/adjunct faculty, but I knew lecturers at the university who would hold themselves out as professors. It's not deceit, it's just simplification, I think.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 20:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously. If someone like [[Dan Quayle]] had attempted Obama's self-serving "simplification", as you put it, then Quayle would have been strung up and run off the stage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::I totally concur--what Obama should be saying is he worked as a "part-time professor," if at all. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 20:34, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Obama held the position of senior lecturer for years, and surely understood what his title was. It doesn't seem too much to expect him not to exaggerate his credential.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:38, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

''In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously...'' Yes and no. Titles are meaningful, and indicate how prestigious a position is and generally the salary level. However, titles vary dramatically across university systems. For example, in the U. of Illinois system, Adjunct Professor is the equivalent a Lecturer at U of C - it indicates someone who is a part-time faculty member, hired solely to teach classes, either because there are not enough full-time faculty or to allow the full-timers more time for research. In the U. of California system though, an Adjunct Professor is a full-time faculty member, and UC guidelines suggest that on, for example, grant applications, an Adjunct Professor use the title of Professor to avoid confusion. So an Adjunct Professor in Champaign would be stretching it to use the title of Professor, whereas someone with the same title in LA or Berkeley would not. So titles are certainly meaningful, but their specific meaning isn't always readily apparent [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:36, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Would someone unlock this for a brief moment? Thanks! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== First St. Francis Assisi, then Mentang Besuki ==

There's a line in the Early Life section of the bio that gets the order of Obama's Indonesian elementary schools reversed. The Catholic one was first, for almost three years. The public one was only the last year or so. The misinformation is repeated in Faith and Values section. Says his father was a nonpracticing Muslim. Other sources say atheist. His stepfather was a practicing Muslim, however. No mention of the Afrocenric theology of TUCC. See Linda Chavez' article in NR online on this. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] 10:29, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Questions about This Article ==

No offense, but this article is very biased, and much of it lacks sources. Shouldn't there be sources for it, and if there are none should it not be removed? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:14, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: 43 citations. How many more do you want?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:53, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps something to cite things that are obviously personal attacks, such as this:
"He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.". That sounds more like an opinion than a definition of fact, and there's not citation for it anyway. Also, the lead for his article seems to be one giant summary of his political views, portrayed negatively. Very biased. Not sure how that is delt with here, but we try to keep things neutral on Wikipedia. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:31, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:Conservapedia does not require citations for statements like that. And even if they were there, they would just be links to conservative opinion pieces. Best to just leave it alone... the article as it is stands quite well as a reminder to visitors that this is a very different site from Wikipedia, for a variety of interesting reasons.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Image switch ==
I think you meant to say ''add'' placement bias. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama built his campaign on anti-American donations. A photo of his anti-patriotic posture reflects his campaign far more than a standard and unrevealing portrait photo does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::Here are Obama's top 20 donors: Goldman Sachs, University of California, UBS, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers (investment banking firm), Citigroup, National Amusements (who own 1400 theaters), Sidney Austin (law firm), Harvard, Google, Skadden Arps (law firm), Exelon, Morgan Stanley, Time Warner, Jones Day (law firm), Wilmerhale (law firm), Latham Watkins (more lawyers), University of Chicago, Kirkland & Ellis (lawyers), Citadel Investment Group. Not exactly a list of crazy liberals. But the point was really the comparison to all the pages of other senators here, all of which (if they have an image) have an official picture at the top. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:16, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Meaningless statistic, and only a tiny fraction of Obama's fundraising. His big money source is moveon.org types, and no one can deny that he's tapping into the stridently anti-war (and often anti-American) types. People are going to Obama's entry because he's running for president, not because he's a senator, and the photo placement should reflect that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Furthermore, I do not see how you can call forces within America anti-American, that title used to be restricted to ''foreign'' forces. Soviet Russia was anti-American. MoveOn is not. The American Colonies were anti-British, I suppose. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:18, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::You might as well give it up, before you get 90/10ed. From reading this site, it's pretty clear that on Planet Conservapedia, the GOP '''is''' America, and Liberals are all mindless robot drones created by Satan himself to DESTROY AMERICA, propelled by their disgusting glandular urges, hatred for all things Good and Holy and American and Conservative (as redundant as that is), and the occasional telepathic directive from the Ghost of Charles Darwin fnord. Thus, the very concept of [[Liberal patriotism]] is an [[oxymoron]]. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In Soviet Russia, rules follow you! In any case, Liberal just means willing to embrace new ideas and ''change''. More people should recogize that. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I know its not really important, but the colonials mainly considered themselves British and were fighting for their British rights about up until the Decleration of Indepedence was signed. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:And after that, they would've all been hanged as traitors to Crown and Country if they'd lost. Got to remember that part... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Well, the mini-series "John Adams" is very good, but the assertion that FernoKlump makes is not correct. Originally they were fighting for the rights afforded to all British subjects, but long before the Declaration of Independence was signed, most of the "heavy hitters" had long since realized there would be no reconciliation with the Crown. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes. The Founding Fathers must have been considered very unpatriotic by the British during the Revolution. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Maybe most of the "heavy hitters" had realized they were fighting for their independence, but the avererage colonial didn't really realize that until the decleration. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 10:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
==Category==
Put him in [[:Category:African Americans]]
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:07, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: This is absurd. [[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:49, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::Except for segregationists [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:26, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Those were primarily Democrats, you realize? Racists are just that, and don't depend on idealogical labels to be so. I know so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" who often express racist thinking. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Shall I put [[Adam Sandler]] into [[:Category:Jewish Americans]] too, Deborah? --

:Those segregationists were southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") and were social conservatives. Status as a Democrat or Republican doesn't necessarily label people in the past as liberal or conservative. Today Republicans tend to be conservative and Democrats tend to be liberal, but the Republican party was originally established to end slavery. Abolitionism was a VERY liberal idea at the time. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:56, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:: No, [[abolitionism]] came from [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]], and they were [[conservative]]. Southern Democrats (like [[Jimmy Carter]]) were not [[conservative]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::They weren't conservative if they wanted an end to slavery. Liberal, by definition, is the advocacy of change. An end to slavery would have been change. Therefore, an advocacy of the end of slavery would be liberal. Southern democrats, like Governor George Wallace, were conservatives because they sought to ''preserve'' the existing institution of segregation.

From dictionary.com:

Liberal- Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs

Conservative- Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

[[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your definition is meaningless. [[Conservatives]], for example, want big change on [[abortion]]. Use the more meaningful definitions and explanations found on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::No, Conservatives want to ''revert'' back to before abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade. Look at that definition again. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:58, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::FernoKlump, your history at CP is one of endless talk, talk, talk, argue, argue, argue. Yet, coming here, you were told up-front, if by nothing else than the name, ''this is a conservative encyclopedia''. Somehow a very small number of users, feel they have a right or obligation to turn this encyclopedia into a debate site. I feel an obligation to point out to you CP wasn't put here to provide a debate vehicle for you and other liberals.

:::You might want to look up, while you are busy with that dictionary, the meaning of "goodbye". I have a feeling you're going to need it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:19, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::TK, you probably shouldn't be indulging in personal remarks of that quality, which go against the Conservapedia Guidelines ("You must be civil. No bullying.") Your shirt is still the right color, though, so maybe you'll be okay. Just thought I'd let you know.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:40, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

*TomMore, please keep in mind that Conservapedia rejects the European and Wikipedia definitions of being "civil" and "bullying". Me stating facts, about arguing and endless talk, are factual, therefore conservatives do not view that as bullying, or uncivil. What is uncivil is the introduction, ''the forced introduction'', of foreign definitions that American conservatives expressly reject. Users who do nothing but post contentious comments to conservatives, and denigrate what we believe, should perhaps consider starting their own liberal encyclopedia and stop wasting time here. CP doesn't grant the right of endless arguing, talk, talk, talk. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:28, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

::Guys, this is silly. Lets end it. And he is right, this is an encyclopedia, not a debate site. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:46, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

1) I'm not a liberal.
2) I understand that this encyclopedia is supposed to have a conservative bias, but it has degenerated into a "how liberals are ruining America" encyclopedia. I really like the idea of an encyclopedia that tries to present things from a conservative view, but this site is just embarassing to the conservative cause and unrealistic (like "[[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race", when reality says otherwise). There is a big difference between a conservative point of view and a conservative version of reality. If I deserved to be banned for fighting against the lies that make conservapedia unreliable, then ban me. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:09, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sorry, not in the MVSN. Doesn't count.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:11, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::MVSN? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:15, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The blackshirts (Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale) ? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:17, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Don't know who they are... I looked at [[blackshirt]]s but there's nothing there. It's just a nickname :)--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:20, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
I didn't see anything on conservapedia about what 'MVSN' would mean, so I thought it might be a wikipedia term. I searched and got the blackshirts, which are basically Italian fascists. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:25, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Alright, this obviously has nothing to do with improving the article, so lets end it. Thanks in advance, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:27, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Proposed addition ==

It is seeming like this was lost due to all the chatter on the talk page, i don't know what everybody thinks of it. here is my proposal under "faith and values" section:

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

: I've unprotected the page for you to edit it as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Ideologically motivated "citation needed" insertions, for statements that are not seriously disputed, are not allowed. This is not [[Wikipedia]] where that same stunt by liberals occurs repeatedly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thank-you for the explanation. My citation request was not 'ideologically motivated', it was a simple request for a reference to an 'ideologically motivated' statement. My request also follows Commandment #2, something you have been willing to overlook in many of the articles I have edited. I get the idea that I would not be afforded the same opportunity to make the same statements without references since I'm not an administrator or the founder of this encyclopedia.--Jimmy 22:17, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm reinserting the other edit since you have no objection to it, thanks. --Jimmy 22:20, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama's actual title was Senior Lecturer, not Professor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
: And according to his university, a senior lecturer is a professor. It's that simple. --Jimmy 22:27, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:: You're misconstruing what the media relations department said. Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I am really interested to know what you are basing your "Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't)" on Aschlafly?
What info do you have to say it is the perception of the media dep. and not actually true?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:52, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

If you cannot give ANY evidence to back your claims up Aschlafly then the article should include what the university states. And, I might add, the media dep. is responsible for answering media enquiries hence the media dep. answering the query whether or not Obama is a prof. or not.
So ADD THE REFERENCE OR LOOK LIKE A FOOL. Your choice
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your quarrel is with the dictionary, not with me, and the citations about the "professor" issue are well-supported by the entry. In case you have problems following a link, I'll quote the observation on the Democratic Underground site, which is also well-supported with cites: [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307]

::[Obama's] publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort .... Now, given his relatively strong academic credentials and the extent of [[affirmative action]] in academic hiring, if Obama had written articles about, well, pretty much anything, he would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position. But he didn't.

::... [H]e is not a Professor of Constitutional Law. Nor is he an assistant professor or associate professor. ...

By the way, AdenJ, any more namecalling from you in violation of our rules will result in blocking of your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Heh. We see what you did there--quoting the website Democratic Underground as if to show that even liberals think Obama's professor claim is invalid. In reality, of course, the DU item was posted by an anonymous commentator ("agdlp"), something anyone could do, and hardly a reliable cite given that said post provides no evidence, just links repeating the claim. I could go on that site and write a post saying that Obama is an alien from the planet Mar’xennui, but that wouldn't make it true or cite-able. And as to your (repetition of the) claim that "given his relatively strong academic credentials...Obama would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position...but he didn't", please note that the UofChicago statement notes that Obama was offered a tenure-track position several times, but declined.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Your comments don't add anything. Look, if it makes you feel better to believe that Obama is somehow a professor, then suit yourself. By objective standards, including the dictionary, he plainly is not and never was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::How about we compromise? "Obama has claimed he was a constitutional law professor when he was actually a Senior Lecturer." That seems to fit with the facts better, and it circumvents what is starting to amount to a semantics debate. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, that doesn't capture the false boasting. And, by the way, your other edits to this entry also do not convey the truth, as in the boasting about the poverty bill that was a non-starter and never passed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which edit was that? The only edits I've made to the page were the foreign policy experience one (which you've reverted) and helping organize the sections a bit. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question about lead ==
The opening line of the third paragraph reads "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience." While nobody can dispute the lack of military or executive experience, could his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee count as foreign policy experience? Don't get me wrong, it's still not much experience, but it would seem to be enough to remove the foreign policy part. Thoughts? --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:41, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Mere membership on a congressional committee does not constitute "foreign policy" experience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: It doesn't make him a scholar or an expert on it, but I would've thought it would move him out of the category of "absolutely none". --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:09, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ampersand: You are now finding out that facts are not a substitute for the world that the Conservapedia leadership has constructed. It is a fact that Obama has foreign policy experience, but that does not matter to the people in charge. I have brought up issues like this numerous times on many other articles but usually nothing happens. Nothing happens to the articles this is, but I have been blocked on numerous occasions for trying to make this encyclopedia reflect the real world. Good luck! --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:59, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Merely being on a committee is not foreign policy experience. That is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You are absolutely 100% correct. But it has been demonstrated that Obama has made overseas trips with the Foreign Affairs Committee and has discussed policy with other world leaders and diplomats. This is a fact that cannot be denied in face of the irrefutable evidence that has been provided. No matter how limited his foreign policy experience has been; the sentence in the opening paragraph (Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience) is laughingly false. Presenting such inaccurate information as fact only gives ammunition to Conservapedia's critics. There are plenty of other factual criticisms that can be leveled at Obama without making up dumb factoids. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lead section question ==

In the second paragraph, this sentence "According to political expert and Republican strategist Karl Rove, became his "political mentors," and launched is state Senate campaign and subsequent national political career" seems to be missing a word. Does anyone know what it is?

== Ok, there is so much misinformation here idk where to start ==

I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives, but there is a ton of bad information here that really is not true and to discriminate against this man is blatently racist, especially in the way its being done: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" wtf people?? First of all, generalization such as this is a breach of most online encyclopedia protocol. Second of all, the assumption that he benefited from affirmative action is nothing more than an assumption, NOT fact. He went to Harvard, thus he is a smart man. Furthermore, why should he have to provide proof in a "clear personal achievement" that he does not rely on affirmative action? Assuming that a black man cannot succeed without affirmative action is not only racist, but also untrue. Next controversial statement in this article: "Barack Obama has captivated black and educated white voters, largely because of his race". How can anyone make that assessment? It is, once again, based off pure imagination rather than fact, as is further demonstrated by the lack of any sources backing it. The author also claims that Bill Clinton dismissed Barack's claim that he was against the war from the start as a "fairy tale". I checked the source of this statement, which is in actuality a website acknowledging Clinton's apology towards the "fairy tale" comment. Furthermore we must realize that Hillary and Bill Clinton are in fact married, which might perhaps explain why Bill Clinton might want to tarnish the rep of Clinton's main opponent. Again, more BS: "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience" Sure, he isn't as experienced as Hillary, but generally, when a candidate runs for the presidency, they do not have experience in being president. Another ridiculous claim here: Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in physics, yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." I checked up on this source as well, which has been misinterpreted by the author of this page here. Obama wrote a paper on the constitution, to which he used an analogy of space-time physics. In much the same way George Orwell's animal farm uses a farm to relate to communism. Orwell didn't have to be a farmer to write the book, and Obama doesn't need to be a nuclear physicist to read up on relativity. If anything, Obama's ability to understand the basic gist of physics without taking physics courses actually lends credence to his own intellect. Something that didn't come as a result of affirmative action. AND... he can say "nuclear". Neo-cons have no right to bash intelligence. Further on in the article, the author claims that "Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses[9] on the Constitution.[10]" Note the sources. They aren't sources. They don't lead anywhere or cite anything, but are just statements. AND they have nothing to do with this statement. If this encyclopedia is so trustworthy, why can't it provide proper sources for its misinformation?? Later on, the author makes the statement that Barack Obama has voted present 130 time in the IL senate and this is a reason to disbelieve him. This is in fact, true information, but I do have a problem with the heavy slant. Obama's aides say Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. Also, in Illinois law it is not unusual to protest bills with a present vote. You can check up on my facts, because it is found in the same source our author used to make the claim that Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times." In the second paragraph, the author says "He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at The University of Chicago Law School as of 2004.[14] He is no longer active at the school". Whereas the same source that was cited claims that "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Thus he WAS a professor after all. Check your information next time. I don't mind conservatives, in the old sense of the word. A true conservative worked to maintain the rights of business owners and left the economy alone. A true conservative kept taxes low and government spending no higher. What we get today are social conservatives. People who believe in the white christian male america. People who claim that the only way a smart, educated black man could be running for president is due to affirmative action. You criticize Reverend Wright for saying "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God." Look at yourselves. Give this man a chance; he did not go to Harvard because he was black nor does he recieve the support of both white and black america, red and blue america, and male and female america because he is black. This article is not trustworthy, or factual, but it is a bash. Now I am too tired to go through the remaining half of the article. Time to get a kick out of the Kangaroo one.
:I stopped reading after your bigoted "''I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives,'''" remark. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't even have to read that far. The above long-winded rant, too incoherent to read, let alone understand, illustrates the [[liberal]] style. I doubt he'd even agree with a conservative who says that "2+2=4".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Annie Oakley ==
This one needs to be phrased a little better. Just because something is outside of one's generation doesn't mean they can't possibly know what it is. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Nothing in Obama's background suggests he would have any idea who Annie Oakley was, and all evidence (including Obama's age) suggests he wouldn't. The conclusion by USA Today is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::I still think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that because someone was born after a certain date they're immune to cultural influences preceding them. Also, the conclusion's by a syndicated columnist, not USA Today itself. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Even John McCain wasn't alive when Annie Oakley died :D . And even Obama knows that Oakley was a female gun shooter. He was using it to make it appear that Hillary exaggerated her experience with guns as a child. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I am fifty and I know who Annie Oakley was. I just saw a PBS special on her and she is the subject of a popular musical that has been running for years. This Annie Oakley thing is just plain stupid. Makes you look like idiots. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:04, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The "Choice" bill is not just "supported by" the [[abortion]] industry, but is for its direct benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lapel pin ==
The sentence "Notice Obama's lack of an American flag lapel pin" completely ignores how he's not wearing a jacket. No lapel, no lapel pin. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 00:43, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama doesn't wear the flag when he is wearing a jacket either. By the way, I do think pins work on shirts! The caption could profitably omit the word "lapel".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: True, and criticism of him for it is valid. I'm still uncomfortable with the sentence being there at all since it seems like kind of a weak way to attack him on it, though. A more effective attack would be to find pictures of McCain and Hillary wearing them and one of him not and putting them together side by side in a single image to illustrate him not wearing a lapel pin. That'd drive the point home more effectively, I think. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:49, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

'''it seems like kind of a weak way to attack him on it'''....So, is the purpose here to attack him, or to write an accurate encyclopedia article about him? And a bit off-topic, why does it matter if he wears a lapel pin or not? Maybe it didn't occur to him to do so, or maybe he thought it was tacky (all lapel pins are, IMO). It doesn't make him an evil Communist. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:01, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I added that Obama has started wearing the flag pin once again, as can be seen when he addressed the comments of the President in Israel. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

== How Mike Ditka Unintentionally Boosted Obama's Rise to Prominence ==

An observation that I've not seen commented on in the press...

When scandal ridden Jack Ryan's Illinois US Senate campaign was falling apart, Obama looked like a shoe in....until ex-Bear's coach Mike Ditka seriously began considering pleas from some top Republcians that he should run for the Senate. And Ditka was doing interviews about his and his wife's thoughts on the matter, giving IL Republicans considerable hope. Suddenly, Democrats feared that even Chicago's normally reliable voters might hand the popular Ditka a landslide.

It was during this two or three week frenzy over the question of whether Ditka would run that Obama, with little seniority and experience, was picked to give a major address at the Democrat's National Convention endorsing John Kerry...a move clearly intended to give Obama a boost with Illinois voters. Obama ran with the opportunity and gave a speech that garnered lot's of favorable press and turned him into a media darling and pushed him toward a an extremely early presidential run. In my opinion, his rise to stardom was indirectly sparked by the fear that Mike Ditka might "steal" the IL senate seat out from under the Democrats. Unfortunately, Mike (apparantly at the behest of his wife) decided the Senate life wasn't for him afterall.

Without Mike's near run, Obama never would have become such a media darling...at least not so early in his career.--[[User:Billy21|Billy21]] 13:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Interesting analysis, but I doubt one evening at the Democratic National Convention had much to do with this. I'd say Hillary's electoral weakness is a bigger factor. And, of course, the [[liberal media]] has long been obsessed with race. When [[Rush Limbaugh]] commented that he felt a media focus on race influenced the choice of quarterback on an NFL team, he had to quit his job as a sports analyst.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I always thought the media's obsession with race and gender was incorrect in this race. From my experience, the main dividing line in the Democratic Party right now is generational. Clinton represents the baby boomers while Obama represents the youth, which is a large part of why her strength has been older voters and his strength has been younger ones. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I think there is a higher correlation in voting based on race than on age here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Race is definitely a factor, but within the white Democratic electorate you can see some definite splits that indicate a generational gap. The wealthier you are, the higher your education and the lower your age, the more likely you are to vote for Obama. The lower your income, the lower your education and the higher your age, the more likely you are to vote for Clinton. Now, given that many senior citizens, especially those who were blue-collar workers, are on fixed incomes and pensions, we could partially tie income into age. Education-wise, there tend to be more college graduates in the younger demographics than in the older demographics simply because young people have more educational opportunities than their parents or grandparents had. Now of course there are exceptions, just like there are exceptions to everything. But personally? I view the Democratic primary as a fight between my generation and a generation that's still in a metaphorical way fighting the Vietnam War. That's this young college liberal's take on the Democratic race. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Affirmative action==

* He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]].

Who said this? Should we endorse it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Joseph Farah: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=58632 The affirmative-action president]

Maybe we should give him credit; I would hate to be accused of [[plagiarism]] over this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:Here's some things I found on the subject: [http://www.cnbc.com/id/23579121/][http://www.slate.com/id/2187718/][http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=][http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070515_obama_cools_on_affirmative_action/] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: I think Conservapedia had the term first, see [[Affirmative Action President]], but I'm all for adding citations to others who also use it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::From a couple of the links I provided above, the remark may have come from Geraldine Ferraro. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:02, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:::No, I think the Ferraro kerfuffle was early March. CP's article on the subject began in January. I think all of these other johnny-come-latelys need to give Andy credit.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:22, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::This quote comes from here [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=]:
:::::''"This presents Barack Obama with unique opportunity. Having campaigned against the passage of the Michigan initiative, can he chart a new path now that he is running for president? And, having admitted he attended Harvard law school because of affirmative action, can he now say the time has come to try something different?"'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

I would be more than casually interested in seeing a credible reference for the proposition that Obama "admitted he attended Harvard Law School because of affirmative action." [[User:Archer070]]

: What are you quoting? I couldn't find it ... but your comment did lead me to remove some liberal bias that had crept into this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I've checked some more and apparently Conservapedia coined the term [[Affirmative Action President]] first. The uses by others were subsequent to the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:19, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations Andy... I guess you coined it first! :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:10, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Clarence Thomas benefitted from affirmative action but I don't see any reference to that in the article about him. Are you claiming that Barack Obama wouldn't have excelled without affirmative action? If so, why not make that claim about Clarence Thomas? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Because [[Clarence Thomas]] has real achievements and, I might add, real principles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Would you please list some of those real achievements and clarify how they are not a product of affirmative action. Also, bear in mind that there might be real principles that are different than yours. --[[User:Faust|Faust]] 21:24, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reopening request to erase professor sentence ==

The accusation that Obama was not a professor at University of Chicago has been thoroughly debunked by the University itself. Does anyone mind if I remove the offending sentence? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 19:32, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
: Also note the contents of source #15, which is the press release by the University of Chicago on the subject. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 19:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Not even the media relations folks at the University of Chicago claim [[Obama]] "was a professor." He obviously does not satisfy the dictionary definition of a professor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:::On the contrary, they do indeed claim he was a professor- which settles the issue. Any other claim is weaseling.

:::[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html] "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Actually, that seems to be exactly what the media relations folks at the University of Chicago say. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 23:16, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I have heard complain that liberals take thing so literally and now you splitting hairs over the dictionary definition of 'professor'. I bet that if Obama was a conservative/republican you would heaps praise on his professorship.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:42, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

: You bet wrong. Conservatives don't insist that someone was a professor when he really wasn't. As to the media relations department at the [[University of Chicago]], reread its statement again and again until you realize that not even it said Obama "was a professor." Acting or serving "as a professor" is not the same as "being a professor."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, "serving" as a professor is the same as being a professor. (In fact, one definition of professor is "one who lectures in their field of study." This is the most pathetic use of weasel-words I have ever seen to defend the indefensible. Everyone makes a mistake- but it takes a special kind of stubborn to try and change the definition. He was paid, he was employed, he was a professor as per his employer's criteria. This is just not an honest criticism, it's weird and I just don't understand the motivation? It's time for the whining to stop and this silliness to be put to bed before we all look like fools.

I have been following the US elections very closely, through BBC, FOX, CNN etc and websites and the only place I have heard Obama's professorship is here! I think the point to peoples debate is that the want the sentence removed from the article all together, not an insistence that the article state he is a professor. Its not even relevant to his presidential campagin!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Presidential campaign and that whole Aaction thing ==

Firstly the presidential race thing hasnt been kept up to date unfortunately. Secondly, if obama does become president (something i know scares some of you here mindless), will the lead still say that he became president by Aaction? Cheers folks. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:44, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

== A side note ==
I removed the bit on no foreign experience as you have a section on it!

Also, you say he has nothing that isnt likely affirmative action however think about this.....
He may have ''got into'' Harvard because of affirmative action however he still has to work. He didnt come to where he is without serious hard work.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:41, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign policy ==
You cant say he has ''no'' foreign policy experience and then have a section on foreign policy experience. So you have three choices here. Either revert my edit and keep the the foreign policy section (which is at odds with the article), delete the section (which means you have removed factual info to support an unfactual claim) or leave as is (which is correct according to the facts presented).
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 07:18, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==introductory paragraphs==
The first few paragraphs after the 1st paragraphs need a lot of work. Maybe integrate the ideas later into the article. The way it is now makes conservapedia look biased. It looks like an attack piece. One can integrate the same facts into a better written article.[[User:BTV|BTV]] 01:55, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pro-"Abortion" needs changing ==

In the introduction, someone please change that statement that Obama is "Pro-Abortion" to its correct term, "Pro-Choice." I understand this is a conservative encyclopedia, and I've read the "definition" of both [[pro-choice]] and [[pro-abortion]], but I don't think anyone gets their jollies off on abortion except, perhaps, the industry (who would probably argue that they are being funded to do a humanitarian service, much like the ASPCA does for animals). I am pro-life, but I will at least respect the debate (as far as I can respect Party Politics) enough to not use aggressive and untrue labels, such as naming someone who is Pro-Choice as Pro-Abortion. There is a literal difference between the two, so someone please fix that. There's enough of the conservative bias in the article without these foolish techniques. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 14:09, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-05-19T18:09:38Z

Capolavoro046: Pro-"Abortion" needs changing

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]

==Second Picture's caption==
The caption on the second picture should read "...during the national anthem." Also, I believe the picture was taken from here: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html. [[User:Shiritai|Shiritai]] 08:21, 7 November 2007 (EST)

People should also be aware that placing one's hand over their heart is required only for the pledge of allegiance, it is not required when one hears the star spangled banner (the national anthem).

The part of the caption "His refusal to follow simple tradition and respect for the Anthem is the result of twenty-plus years of listening to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American sermons." is pure malicious speculation that has no place in an encyclopedia of any kind.

== Who here would mind Obama as president?==
I'll admit it, i am a moderate on the conservative slanted site. Be as my politcal views span both sides, i am hoping for Obama to win the election. I'm sure that some people here have criticisms of him, some of which may even be valid. So have at it people: Why not Obama, the man sent to lead America to greatness?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 20:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I must remind you, this is a conservative encyclopedia. most conservatives can't handle the idea of a black man as superior to them! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ahhh, so we have a self-admitted Godless Liberal, accusing conservatives, all of them apparently, of being racists. Nice and intellectual! Once again a "mobocracy" trait shining through, ignoring all logic and putting idealogical hatred first! Nice. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::No right-thinking people could possible support having a black as President, let alone in their neighborhood. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:27, 21 March 2007 (PST).

:::I think it would be great if he won, I can't stand Hilary...--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 21:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm one of the most liberal people I know... and I cannot stand the woman. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, get to those primaries and vote (especially if you live in Iowa or NH). I believe that there are worthy candidates on the Republicans as well, but i want to ensure the best man for the job gets the democratic nomination.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:To be honest... He would be better than that anti-video gaming [[fascist]]. No offense to anybody. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Personally, I feel Obama may be too inexperienced for the job. However, I still would like to see him elected. In reality, the president doesn't need to be very smart or experienced to BE president. He has a Cabinet of advisors and a whole staff to make decisions for him. Ergo, Obama doesn't really NEED the experience. He's plenty smart enough, and he come off as highly educated and eloquent. Really though, what makes him a good candidate is that he is well liked. What we need right now is a president who is willing to go around to all the European countries we have angered and make kissy-face with them, thus patching up our foreign policy. Hillary isn't going to do that, and I doubt a Republican president would. If we don't get our foreign policy out of the toilet, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble soon.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That reminds me of Bush Jr... --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree completely! No person with the name hussein will become president[[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I understand why American terrorists would want Hussein Obama to be President. How obtuse can you be not to understand he is the Al-Qaeda candidate? I will not surrender willingly to Barack Hussein Obama. [[User:GettingItRight|GettingItRight]] 22:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:Exactly, because obviously an American sounding name makes a great president. Look at George Walker Bush. [[User:Kip|Kip]] 07:26, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::He's not a Muslim. He became a very religious Christian in his early 20's and then he met Rev. Wright who's a racist, Afro-centrist Christian, and he's still a member of that church. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

In response to the original question, Obama would not be a good candidate because the only thing he has going for him is his charisma. Example: when asked, he said if elected, he would immediately pull all American troops out of Iraq. Wether you agree with the war or not doesn't matter - that would be irrisponsible. It is not a matter of race by any means - I would love to see a black president, but one who is actually qualified for the job.--[[User:Justintree|Justintree]] 14:51, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Can't we get a better source for his voting record than an opinion piece? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse dude......he doesn't have much of one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not saying how to judge his voting record, I'm saying that an opinion piece doesn't merit a good source. A good rule of thumb is that if there's a little picture next to an article, it's a column or an opinion piece, not an article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that flew right over my head...I even heard the air noise! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

# I asked for people who were going to discuss his voting record to use an actual source, not an opinion piece as it is now
# You made a joke about his lack of a voting record
# I said that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about sources. Columns, op-eds, editorials are not sources. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, so my cracking a joke meant I didn't understand what you meant, and might have distracted the readers, so they wouldn't know either? Got it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::From the ass' butt to it's mouth, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm for last session. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Breaking News!!!!==

Barack has just raised 25 million dollars for his campaign making his in competiton with Hiliary Clinton!! [http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/25 million!!!!]

== Controversial ? ==

Why is Barack Obama's biographical entry a "controversial" topic for Conservapedia, and locked out from editing?
:Because people who don't feel like contributing useful information see fit to compare his name to those of terrorists. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::It was vandalized twice in 48 hours. I asked for it to be unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. It look presentable. I left in the material about how liberal he is, though I doubt its value. At least it looks nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*The political leanings of any politician are the most important of all. Their stated goals mean nothing, their idealogy everything. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't disagree, but I doubt the veracity of saying X is Y more liberal than Z. Liberalness is not a quanitfiable value. There are better ways to describe his political agenda than by saying "look who he is more liberal than." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, Myk, it's your MSM who does it, the Liberal news organizations, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know if I'd call the National Journal, a publication with an almost $2000 per year subscription rate, mainstream. I tend to avoid it when I hear it, just as I tend to avoid editorial commentary. A far better judge of whether or not a candidate fits your bill is to look issue by issue. And it may be the "Main Stream Media" that started it, but it was the Rocky Mountain News which reported it (in a column) and Conservapedia who repeated it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is this locked? I can still edit this. Maybe that's because i have proven myself in being able to see Obama for the wonderous person he really is. Or not (since i may get banned for a comment like that, him being a non-conservative)--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 01:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Things change on a wiki, dude. It got unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Goofy Article ==

I understand that B.O. hits a lot of people's hot buttons, but this article is a mess. "half-African, half-Caucasian"? What's up with that? Why not use the generally-accepted and perfectly accurate term "African-American"? Or ditch it altogether, unless we're going to start classifying all politicos by race/ethnicity ("Irish-Caucasoid Ted Kennedy", or "Texan-American George Bush"). Better still, ignore the race issue until it is relevant to the article ("Obama is the the first African-American to...").

Too, do we really need three sentences establishing Obama's exact degree of liberlosity? Can't we just say "liberal Democrat", or just describe his positions ("show, don't tell").--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*I took all that away once, have been overruled by another Sysop, evidently. I changed it back once, to African-American, but some felt it important to note he was Mulatto. An archaic term, if ever there was one. Mixed-race would be acceptable today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==

Why are we discussing Michael Richards (not Kramer by the way) and Jimmy the Greek (real name Jimmy Snyder) on Barack Obama's page? The Boston Globe criticized him, black leaders criticized him... that's relevant. Imus' career and the issues surround Richards and Snyder are not. I would change this myself but it was protected again. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:And while it's still off topic here, it might be pertinent for the [[Don Imus]] article to note that CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, not a few affiliates. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK, please tell me where Obama's intellect vs. the intellect of civil rights leaders is mentioned in the source. And please tell me why refering to the old civil rights era is not redundant as the civil rights era is generally considered to be the era of MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks. That's already old, TK. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps to you, perhaps to me, but not necessarily to readers. Our "job" is to make things clear for them, not us. I think my change to old-guard makes it much clearer. Your additions were borderline denigration, to Hill's advantage, I would say. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So this is a wiki. We create a link for Civil Rights Era and then we make the article. His disconnection from Civil Rights figures is well publicized, just google Sharpton AND Obama. Or Obama AND black AND enough. Never is his intellect brought up. That's your opinion and is not sourced. I have no reason to want to support Hillary Clinton. Never been a fan. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Someone reading his curriculum vitae cannot escape his intellect, no? Since we currently have in place a "Civil Rights" leadership, it isn't necessairly old, is it? Jackson and Sharpton (both bigots, IMO) are from the old-guard civil rights era, and that is germain, is it not, since Obama's age was brought into the argument? Are you really incensed at that one word addition, which is sourced by the rest of the page, or that it was me adding to it? I will be happy to add a cite for what you consider an assumption, later today. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I just think it's redundant. His disconnect is with the era. He was too young to participate in it and as he is not a descendant of slaves, he is considered to not be a part of the CRE culture. As for the intellect thing, that has no part of his disconnection. You are either saying Obama is smarter or stupider than Civil Rights Leaders, something of which you have no proof. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Myk, the "proof" that Obama is "smarter" is in the public record, IMO. Disconnect is a pejorative word, used by reporter and political scum to smear people without appearing to overtly do so. Did you not know that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**I read the article to say Obama wants to be known as a "national leader", not a "Black leader", to paraphrase moreless. Hence a sort of parting of the ways with traditional well known "Black civil rights leaders", so to speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. He views things, seemingly, unlike the older leaders, as not just black and white issues. Obviously due to his age, upbringing in a multi-cultural society, and his education....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Still, by referring to leadership in quotes, and comparing their intellect unfavorably to Obama's you are painting a whole bunch of folks with a wide pejorative brush. Jackson and Sharpton are not representative of the whole of the CRE activists. And, of course, the Obama entry is not the appropriate place for a broadside against JJ, AS, and so forth.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed, WJT, however they are allowed/painted/claimed to be "the leaders" both in the press and educational circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**This is indeed an important point, Obama's greatest fear is being marginalized as just another "Black leader"; he's counting on what Republicans call the 'color blind society" to elevate him as an equal, respected national figure and leader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well he certainly has my attention and support in doing that, and ridding us at long last of the hobgoblins of the past, and wresting the power away from the merchants of fear and hate. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Off Page Discussion ==

Regarding the published criticism of Barack Obama, don't you think the majority of that link would be better served in an article about Don Imus or about Racism in Broadcasting? It seems to me that the relevant bit is that the Boston Globe and some prominent black leaders question Obama's handling of the situation, not the digression towards Michael Richard and Jimmy the Greek. Myk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You convinced me. You wanna do it? RobS 15:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
It was locked last time I checked. Myk 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll unprotect you so you can fix it; but i may have to reprotect quickly cause actually I don;t know what's going on on that page. RobS 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That you'd have to take up with TK. He thinks the candidate pages are being excessively vandalized. I have been unable to persuade him otherwise. Myk 16:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. Check it out to make sure it still fits with what you wanted to say. I am an Obama supporter so I tried to keep it to the source as much as possible. Searching for Obama AND Imus actually comes up with a lot of comments about Imus and McGuirk (sp?) making derogatory comments about Obama himself. Those weren't helpful. Myk 16:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Real good. Couldn't have done better myself. Say, while I got you here, would you mind discussing why you support Obama just to answer some personal curiousity. I got two questions off the top (a) what age group do you fall into (18-24, 25-30, 30-45, 45+),and (b) when and/or where did you first hear of Obama? Thanks. RobS 16:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm narrowly into the 30-45 category. And I first heard Obama at the 04 convention. Went out and got his first book and then Audacity when it came out. Myk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Question 3: Do you think he can (a) defeat Hillary in the primaries and go on to win the General election, and/or (b) is just running for the VP spot? RobS 16:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
(Undent) I don't think people on the right fully appreciate how disenchanted a lot of Democrats are with Hillary. I think when the two of them are on the same stage in a debate the differences will become overwhelming. Obama is both charismatic and smart. As for the general... well, obviously he's going to be a polarizing figure just because of his race and his name... but far less polarizing than Clinton. I think Hillary is much more beatable in a general than Obama. Myk 16:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good observations, and I agree with all of it. Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party--42% will come out to vote for her, and 42% will come out to vote for whoever can beat her.
So as to the question of electability, Richardson & Obama got her beat. I just quickly reread Obama & Kerry's convention speeches, cause I recall at the time much of what Obama said was directly contradicted on successive nights by a host of successive speakers. Let's look at these two excisions:
Obama:tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America. [23]
Kerry:after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. [24]
Now, is this just meaningless election rhetoric on the part of both speakers, or is there some way to reconcile these divergent passages? RobS 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot comes down to genuineness (I think I just made up a word). When Obama uses rhetoric, I believe it. At least in a way that I never do from Kerry or Clinton. The position of president entails a mix of issues, ability and inspiration. Issues are always going to be split based on ideology. Ability is where Obama's going to take a hit due to his lack of national / executive experience but he clearly has the intellect. If he can handle that question, which I think he can, then his ability to inspire will make him a daunting force. Think Bill Clinton without the smarm. And hopefully without the personal problems. As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only GOP candidates I see capable of taking on Obama and then only if they don't prompt a more conservative third party candidate.
The fact that Obama chose to give a unifying speech at a historically polarizing venue took a lot of courage. Compare his keynote address to Zell Miller's. Regardless of your thoughts on the issues, Miller's speech was a heckuva lot more abrasive. Myk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Guilani doesn't have a prayer. GOP will not nominate an East Coast liberal in favor of abortion. The question is who can beat McCain? Richardson may, Hillary can't, and Obama probably can't either. (Incidentally, new item this morning says Fred Thompson has lymphoma, so that leaves Huckabee as the only other Bible-belt GOP candidate, and Bible-belt candidates, GOP or Dem, are the only ones who can win nowadays).
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on Americans entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
This is how the game of politics is played. RobS 17:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is how it is played, usually, like this, away from the article talk page, to the exclusion of those not specifically "watching" the page. :p --~ TK MyTalk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll cut and paste it over there. RobS 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
McCain has alienated both the left and the right. I don't think he has a shot for the nomination and the only thing that can save him in the general would be an abrupt upturn in the war. Myk 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS"

==Another take==
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:

Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on America's entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.

This is how the game of politics is played. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think he's running for VP. I think even being elected for VP would marginalize the accomplishment. And he's certainly not fundraising like a VP. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*One doesn't ever "run" for Vice President. However when Hillary is nominated, her asking him to take the job is pretty much a mandatory yes from him. Especially if he ever wants to run for President again. Refusing would term him out as a Senator, and strip him of any future party leadership. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Libby Dole did 2000.

:::*See, now we need to understand how the fundraising law operates (which can't be briefly explained right here). He's got $20+ million; as an Illinois Senator, he's not up for another 5 years, and needs maybe 6-10 million by then. So this is one way he's being rewarded, he's basically got enough cash to hold that Senate seat for the next 24 years right now, in addition to being able to contribute to other candidates, i.e. build a politcal machine. This is how the game of politics really operates, and if you look beneath the surface, follow events, and see where Obama ends up in the next 18 to 24 months (and several decades after), you really can get some insight on the inner workings that are often hazy and mysterious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Obama isn't Senator Dole, with her political pedigree, it is indeed apples and oranges. I do have friends who are managing Obama, since its a very small world at that level of handling, and he has a decent shot. But in my opinon, and that of Dick Morris (albeit a Hillary hater, but most certainly a FOB.) he will possibly be offered the VP shot. If not too throughly destroyed by the Clintons long before the convention. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**The name of the game is beat McCain. Right now McCain beats all hands down (as he has for two years now). McCain controls big donors, party apparatcheks, old Perot & Colin Powell middle of the roaders, and a few Democrats. But the dirty little secret is GOP rank and file core constituents, the tax cutters and the religious right, are not that enthusiastic about McCain. His biggest problem is in his own party. If Hillary is the nominee, then the core rank & file will come out to vote for McCain to stop Hillary. And a VP candidate such as Obama, as the record shows, adds nothing to the ticket. This however, is where Bill Richardson can win. If it’s McCain vs Richardson, and GOP rank & file stay home, Richardson could actually pull off the win, cause he doesn’t have the “high negatives”, as they are called, that candidates like Hillary & Gingrich have. High negatives motive people to go out and vote against a candidate. This is were the polling on McCain is deceptive, if it’s McCain vs Hillary, the Republicans will come out in force to stop Hillary; if it’s McCain vs Richardson, many Republicans will stay home rather than soil their conscience by voting for someone or something they detest. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I look forward to beating the pants off of McCain! Newt has the hearts and minds of the GOP, and many, many Democratic voters, with his commmon-sense, almost Reagan-like approach. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**Right now, 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the only thing that could screw it up is--Hillary Clinton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, again. However, have you looked at newt.org and some of the bipartisan initiatives he has launched? BTW I added some backgound on that scum reporter, some other interviews she gave and her own posts, discrediting her being bipartisan, or even fair, where Obama is concerned. I smell one of Bill's cigars at work. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd have Newt's baby if I were a women, but he's not going anywhere. And I recently read somewhere he's not serious anyway. The mold of modern Presidents is a Southern Governor, or at least a Southerner. This has been true since Lyndon Johnson. Nixon & Reagan were from California, but the demographics of California since the Dust Bowl era have been Southern (remember, Grapes of Wrath, the Okies headed west, etc). So California is really much more like the South than it is the Midwest or the East. Southerners do not vote by party, they vote for "one of their own", i.e. one who talks and sounds like them. Easterners & Midwesterners don;t vote like this, they are more ideological of party driven the by the common culture and history that Southerners share. Ironic, even thought the South lost the Civil War, they have come to dominate the Presidency since the 60s. Bill Richardson fits this mold. So do Huckabee & McCain. Fred Thompson & the guy from Kansas also. I suspect Hillary, cosmopolitan New Yorker that she has become, along with Pennsyvlania & Chicago roots, will really resurrect her Southern drawl she gave up nearly 15 years ago now in the next coming months. This will be comical to watch, listening to her Eastern & Midwest accent when she's DC or NY, but pouring on the the good 'ol drawl when she's out on the trail, cause she smart enough to know how Presidential elections are won. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, Newt is from Georgia. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Gingrich and Hillary have the identical problem: "high negatives". Both enjoy 42% over all support; both have 42% "unfavorable" ratings. In other words, it's a wash. +42% - 42% = 0 net positive. Neither can win.

:::What "high negatives" do is motivate voters to get out an ''vote against'' a candidate. Typically, voters a motivated by a candidates ''charisma'' so to speak, like Clinton or Reagan, where voters are motivated to ''vote for'' the candidate; when candidates fail to inspire, like Dole, Dukakis, ''et al'', voters stay home. But a candidate like Gingrich or Hillary with high negatives motivates voters to get out and defeat them by voting for whatever uninspiring, uncharismatic candidate stands the best chance to beat them. This is why uninspired Rebublicans ''will'' vote for McCain to defeat Hillary, with a high turnout, whereas in a McCain/Richardson contest, Republicans voters will stay home and a Democrat then can win. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Blog or an encyclopedia? ==

Would like to know if this is now officially an political blog, or are we still trying to make an encyclopedia? If the goal of the site hasn't changed, why are there entryes like: "Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States." ? Are we next going to collect President Bushes slips in his speeches and post them here under his article? Tell me if this is the new trend and ill go collect some. Would lenghten the article nicely. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

*Someone so obviously discontent with Conservapedia, makes one wonder why they are here at all. I mean, I am not wanting you to leave, if you think you can do productive work, most certainly. However I can only judge from my own feelings, which would mean if I was that unhappy, I wouldn't waste my breath on it. You are an extraordinary man, being able to do productive editing and be so displeased. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::nevermind --'''''[[User:Andersmusician|Andersmusician]]''''' 23:13, 22 July 2007 (EDT)~

*Gosh, you waited all this time to respond, and had to make a sock to do it? :O --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== GSmiley ==

Great additions here today! Thanks for your effort. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

"Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a “Marxist leftist.”"

I thought Conservapedia reached its recent page view goal without indulging in the gossip common on wikipedia? This is something I have seen on a number of political biographies here, but mainly on Democrats. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:40, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Drug Use ==

I was shocked that Obama's admitted cocaine use [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html] isn't mentioned in this article. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 14:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Our [[rules]] prohibit [[gossip]]. [[Gossip]] has zero educational value, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:: How does one define gossip? He wrote about it himself - making it not private, no? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:19, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Rankings Reference ==

I would like to see the reference for Obama being the 10th most liberal senator changed to this
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc
because this is what the other reference refers to and because this site is very informative as it lists other senators scores and votes. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Unprotected, so do it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Done! Reprotect again if you like. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Rumours ==
This article is somewhat sloppy in its attributions and quotes. The part about the allegations about Obama's childhood are a good case in point. Surely it should be made clear that the allegations that he attended a madrassa are lies? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggest Protection ==

There's a vandal who was blocked once today for targeting presidential candidate entries. Since the primary is tonight (fingers crossed for Huck!) I expect vandalism to go up on these articles, before it goes down! I would recommend protecting articles like this for a week, maybe?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

: No need for protection. We'll be watching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Affirmative action in summary ==

I'm sorry about not discussing the recent change I made- I didn't see how it was major, as MexMax suggests, or even arguable. Here's why I did it:

The summary contains an anti-Obama statement claiming he is nothing more than a black man, who gained his status due to affirmative action. I removed the section because this very article states that he not only graduated Harvard Law, but did so magna cum laude ("with highest honors"). I can understand someone having issue with the possibility of his getting accepted due to his race, but graduating at the top of his class is far from proven to be race-based.

Regarding the paper he wrote, it's just fluff. His lack of a background in physics is unrelated since he was not authoring a paper in physics. He was writing about law, using physics as an analogy of legal matters. If the editor who put this text here actually bothered to read the reference, they would have seen that the context of the quote was actually a compliment Tribe: "...he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades." Again, where is affirmative action in this?

Conservapedia is about truth, not spreading propaganda (correct me if my impression is mistaken). I understand that Obama does not share conservative values but lying is morally wrong as well and we should not tolerate it here.

-- [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 12:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Obama's record and support is full of puffery, preferences, and advantages based on his race. Your comments above only reinforce some of them, rather than rebut them. He was credited with analyzing a paper on physics, without any background in the topic. In fact, he apparently had no formal background in constitutional law at the time either! We're going to tell the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: You should be a bit careful, though, Andy. You don't want to get hung out to dry like you did over Dawkins. A word to the wise! [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:13, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:Removed the personal opinion on Tribe's remarks regarding Obama. Tribe can state whatever he wants regarding Obama, and if it's going to be referenced, do so straight up. CP isn't the place to debate Tribe's remark as he can't respond. If we include his remark (or the reference) we shouldn't be expounding on it. I didn't think an encyclopedia should contain personal opinion. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:17, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: Accounts will be blocked if they remove facts or quotes here, or in the Dawkins entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::How is "absurdly insisted" a fact and not an opinion? If it just said insisted, that's a fact because it was a direct quote. But to add the adverb "absurdly", that makes it opinion.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You deleted the Tribe quotes also, which is unacceptable. If you want to remove "absurdly" then insert "liberal" next to Tribe's name so that readers can see for themselves how ridiculous the quotes are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::Jdellaro's right, you know. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: "MatthewHopkins", you seem to love to talk, talk, talk. I'm going to check your edits now to see if there is any substance there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: That's rich. Check away, old horse. You'll find good stuff there, and most of the talk is attempting to argue sense into [[Liberals]]. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 16:05, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Aschalfly- First, we can't change things without talking, now Matt gets slammed because he tried to discuss the issue. You claim this is a meritocracy, but you push people around just because you don't know them. Your action here is that of a tyrant- threatening someone who is only trying to help the encyclopedia. I know you are concerned about liberals defacing the encyclopedia, but I don't think you've found one in this case. I've checked his edits without malice, and he seems to deserve good standing. You should be ashamed when you finish your witch hunt and apologize. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 07:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Mr. S, this is really weird. I mean, Obama might be just left of Lenin, but I don't get the affirmative action thing. Do we know his SATs, LSATs, etc? Do we have any evidence that his "achievements" are based on AA? If not, then this will look to any sane person like a racist piece of poo article. I mean, c'mon, let's get this guy on the facts, not on bizarre assumptions. Just cuz he's black doesn't mean he benefited from AA. He may have, and if he did, where's the citation? Otherwise, it's racist gossip.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 16:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Agreed- this nonsense makes the article looks more like a smear campaign that a fact-based biography. Due to the absence of any evidence, I will be removing much of the AA material later this week. I am halfway through reading the law review article, and there's nothing wrong with it. You may have a different opinion, but the essay is solid- liberal in its views perhaps, but certainly not absurd. There is none of this alleged analysis of physics, only a well cited collection of the physics issues described so that a layman can understand the importance of their discovery and their effects on modern scientific thought. Note that these effects are the key point and they have more to do with the history of science than science itself, and do not require the absurd call for a background in physics. The credits cite Barack for being the last of five persons providing "analytic and research assistance", but do not specify his contribution, which could have been anywhere from analytic to gofering to the law library to make photocopies. It also mentions a Harvard physics professor as a source of technical comments, so the physics are probably sound. If Obama was a major contributor to this essay, he should be commended for a job well done, but the current evidence doesn't allow for either congratulations or condemnation. Please provide comments and present supporting evidence. If you want to comment on the article, try reading it first: Harvard Law Review- Volume 103 November 1989, Number 1. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 13:28, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Some childish heavy-handed coward anonymously and secretly blocked my account instead of using discussion to come to a conclusion on this matter. Whoever you are, you can't shut me up by clicking a check box. Give me a fair trial for violating site policy or prove me wrong. Keep blocking new accounts only proves your contempt for truth and free speech. [[User:NepotisMonachusB|NepotisMonachusB]] 08:46, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Im sorry but that AA thing is complete bigotry, you can be black and still achieve. This is very offencive , only a racist would be happy with it, no wonder only moderates and liberals will stand a chance of winning the election, be it McCain, clinton or obama, the conservative voice will never again take prominance in politics. Maybe after seeing this im quite releaved. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 12:02, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The total number of votes cast by Obama is meaningless, since the vast majority of them would be on non-controversial issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:Not a problem; I was just trying to add a bit of perspective to the point. However, you might want to reconsider or reformulate the second part of the paragraph (which you also reverted). It's unclear who exactly "opponent" refers to--I understand it means Jack Ryan, but Obama's main Dem primary rival came to a similar end (dropped out of the race when details of his divorce became public). Further, readers might recall that Obama defeated Alan Keyes in the general election and wrongly believe the sexual allegations refer to him. Hence, my phrasology of "initial Republican" and "dropped out". Also, thanks for (re)clarifying the research citation.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

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

Seems a little harsh (and uncited). Could it maybe be reworded slightly? His race is perhaps one factor, but ''surely'' it's not implied that Obama's entire life has consisted of coasting on a combination of his ethnicity and [[liberal]] [[affirmative action]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:That's extremely harsh, I agree, and veering towards the biased. Of all the thousands of people who have voted for him, surely what he has to say, what he has written and what he has done have all had a bigger impact than affirmative action? If affirmative action was in place, then why isn't Alan Keyes the Republican front-runner? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Republican voters do not support [[affirmative action]], and do care about military and other experience in choosing a Commander in Chief. Many (not all) Democratic voters care more about promoting [[racial quotas]]. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Aschlafly- you've avoided the point with more anti-liberal statements. While I'm happy to sling those around with you, bias is the question here. I'll try to make Feebasfactor's point a little clearer for you: Is there bias in the affirmative action statement, or is the accusation verifiable? If proof cannot be provided, how are we better are than the liberals on Wikipedia, who we bash daily on their bias? Do we even care anymore or have we abandoned Conservapedia's founding principles? [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 16:46, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Aschafly - If Republicans care about military experience, then why choose Reagan or G. W Bush, whose experience of warfare was minimal? And if I can point out something with my tongue firmly in my cheek, why are the current Republican candidates for the Oval Office all themselves from minorities - a Mormon, an Old Age Pensioner, an Evangelical, an African-American and a... a whatever the heck Ron Paul is? Isn't that affirmative action too? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::Aschafly - Let's say all the Democratic candidates for President are black. (Bear with me here.) These are all people who graduated from a prestigious school with high honors, worked as a lawyer, and served as a Congressman, governor, or mayor. Would you then say that all of them got to where they were as a result of affirmative action and nothing else? That none of the things they accomplished came as a result of their talent, or perhaps their intelligence? That successful minorities must be viewed upon with suspicion?

:::Kinda stupid hypothetical situation, I know, but I hope it gets my point across, however stupid you think that point may be. [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 20:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::Let's say there's a young white guy, not bad-looking, but not all that original a thinker. His parent is a famous theocrat and a founder of the new Religious Right in the late 70s/early 80s. Despite his lack of original thinking and intelligence, he manages to get into an ivy league school, and despite that, his greatest accomplishment is a bizarre blogwiki hybrid on which he spreads hate and fear to children. Isn't that affirmative action?
::::Never mind, it's too weird to contemplate.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Peggy Noonan, that well-known leftist, in the well-known leftist publication The Wall Street Journal:

"He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you.
(I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)"

Possibly she means you guys. I merely suggest. "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" is at least good enough to have been written by David Duke.
Archer070

I'm removing that line until a citation of some kind is given. If there was an affirmative action program for congress in place I am sure that its Conservapedia entry would be even more popular than the one on Homosexuality. [[User:NoraReed|NoraReed]] 23:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== African american ==

In this article is says that:"He is, as of 2007, the only African American serving in the United States Senate"
but
"Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii"
He is most certainly not african american.

He is not African American because he was born in Hawaii? You MUST be joking. O__O I mean, I have heard "He is not the descendant of African slaves, so he isn't really African American." and I have heard "Living all over the world, he surely isn't in touch with African American life." but I think you have taken the petty distinctions to a new low.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 12:31, 1 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==

Found a great article while searching for W's foreign policy experience before the war. The full article is here:
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/</ref>

Here's the relevant portions:

<blockquote>
Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?

Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II. But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union; the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United Nations; and so on.

He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded, successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the Suez Canal. Successes.

John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called "While England Slept."

As president, he had one big failure: the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.

Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his presidency.

Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after decades of silence.
Carter
Former President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success: negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's presidency.

Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you look at Truman or Reagan.
</blockquote>

Seems that Reagan and W had about as much experience as Obama.

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

== removed false information ==

While Obama is left of Stalin on some matters, the Affirmative Action statement is blatant racism without some example given. Further, the Harvard law Review is hardly "liberal', as it counts among it's alum Supreme Court Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. And IT DOES NOT HAVE A QUOTA!

We can disagree with his policies, but we are not going to lie about him.

Having the same issues as reported above this is the second time I've had to remove the affirmative action statement, which is completely unquantifiable. I've also made edits removing language which is somewhat misleading and gives the article a very bias anti-Obama slant. If this site is dedicated to eliminating bias, it should not turn a blind-eye to conservative bias or in this case blatant racial discrimination. I have also expanded upon the issue surrounding his voting "present" so often. As stated in the article, voting "present" is commonplace in the Illinois Senate on both sides of the aisle. I kindly ask that [[Aschlafly]] stops reverting the article back to its previous biased and misleading state. If you disagree with the edits I've made write on my talk page or respond on the article's talk page instead of simply eliminating my changes, all of which seek to further expand the information in the article and maintain neutrality as best as possible.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 11:39, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: The Harvard Law review is extremely liberal, and it does have racial quotas in its admission. Your false accusation of lying are not appreciated and will not be allowed.

: The statement about [[affirmative action]] is accurate and will remain in the entry. Repeated attempts to remove it without justification will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Justified how? Saying that Obama's life amounts to nothing more than lucking out with affirmative action isn't a quantifiable statement...at all. It is nothing more than a completely biased statement and does in fact convey a sense of bigotry. The edits I've made to the article have not introduced some virile liberal bias, I've simply elaborated on contentious issues and removed language and phrasing which is decidedly opinionated. Just because someone disagrees with you [[Aschlafly]] does not make that person wrong. Stop using the power which you have been granted out of good faith by the rest of this site to act like the NKVD, censoring whatever you feel like, and threatening those who disagree with you through bans or some other reprimands when they have only sought to maintain neutrality and expand factuality.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 15:45, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Your racial bullying is not going to work here. [[Affirmative action]] is a big part of Obama's career and his support. Don't delete it from the entry and don't deny that the Harvard Law Review is a very liberal institution that uses [[racial quotas]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Racial bullying? I'm sorry my defective leftist brain must not be able to comprehend your superior Divine logic. But I'm not the one throwing baseless affirmative action rants into what should be a neutral and factual article. Even Clarence Thomas would tell you just how bigoted and perposturous such a claim is.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly: Enforcer of <s>Truth</s> ==

So, after having edited the Obama article for the third time to remove some of the more opinionated wording, removing the baseless affirmative action claim, and expanding on the procedures of the Illinois Senate to give people a better understanding of why Obama voted "present" 129 times, Conservapedia Fuhrer [[Aschlafly]] has threatened to ban me if I edit the article again, despite the neutrality and factuality of my edits. Does anybody else think this is somewhat of an abuse of power as well as an attempt to enforce his own opinion on the rest of the site, and, is there someway that we could replace him with someone who is not a fanatical reactionary.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)
:It's Andy's site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:49, 17 February 2008 (EST)
: :Agree it's Andy's site. Of course Andy should be ashamed of himself; but it's still his site. Andy has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of his mom's clout. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]
::: It's Andy's site?!?!?! I was under the opinion it was an encyclopedia![[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 09:57, 20 February 2008 (EST)

This is the reason liberals will win the whitehouse , people are tired of these attitudes , people need to move into the 21st century .... quickly. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:46, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== It's ASTOUNDING! . . . Why? Don't you people know how Congress works? ==

"For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times."

Why is that astounding? That is an incredibly SMALL number. Congresspersons vote on thousands of issues each TERM. And for Barack Obama to have been a Senator for EIGHT YEARS and to only not vote 130 times... lol.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

:"As for his voting performance, Obama liked sitting on the fence. He is recalled for taking full advantage of an Illinois rule that lets you vote "present" if you don't want to commit yourself. Illinois State Senator Bill Brady recalled: "I learned very quickly that the 'present' vote, where the button you press is very appropriately coloured yellow, is the chicken's way out." ([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''])[[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:14, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: Voting "present" 130 times is NOT a small number. It is an astounding large number of times to duck important issues, so large that even [[Hillary Clinton]] has ridiculed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:02, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::It's a fair point, but I'd suggest that the article should nonetheless give some concept of scale. 130 "present" votes translates to about 3% of the votes cast, which quite frankly isn't a lot. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:06, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: It is enormous. A politician is serving only himself, and not his constituents, by ducking so many important issues. You won't find any earnest politician voting "present" so many times and ducking so many important issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:10, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: But those statements that you make, Andrew, are all opinions that aren't sourced from cited sources. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, merely trying to ensure that we have the most accurately cited article we can have; all I'm saying is that in order to support the claim that voting present 3% of the time - which purely quantitatively doesn't '''seem''' like much to the average obsever - you'd actually need to give '''a solid, cited example''' of an "earnest politician" who hasn't voted present on a comparable proportion of issues. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:34, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The reversion removed a silly, self-serving quote that only filled the entry with junk. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 23 February 2008 (EST)

The reversion this morning reinserted a liberal deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Introduction to article ==

I don't disagree with the subject matter, but I think there's a problem with the introduction. Most of the information seems to relate to his ideological/political stances, and so would be better placed in the body of the article rather than posted up front. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: We put the important stuff first here. But thanks for your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Some things need altering like the affirmative action thing. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 15:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: What's the problem? No [[liberals]] have any problems in complaining about alleged special preferences for [[conservatives]]. When someone gets special treatment and then seeks to become president on that basis, it's fair game to criticize the special treatment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Maybe he DID get SOME special treatment , but the article suggests that everything he`s achieved in life is a result of AA. Maybe it needs a little tinkering with, it comes across too strongly , there is no problem saying that AA helped him but to say thats the only reason he got anywhere in life is a big jump. If he becomes president (trust me there is a good chance of it) are you going to say he only became president as a result of AA? Thats just not possible, people voted for him because they liked him and his ideas not because they felt sorry for him for past racism towards black people.--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 06:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:: To be fair, "no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained ... [by] affirmative action" is a much stronger statement than, say, "he could not have achieved the heights he has in the absence of affirmative action." The former claims he has _no_ achievements of his own, which seems so exaggerated that I'd believe it was written by a troll if you weren't defending it yourself. I would never consider entering politics, and even I have what might reasonably called "personal achievements." I'm sure Obama has some too. The latter statement merely (rightly!) observes that his achievements would never have elevated him to the status he's achieved, if it were not for liberal affirmative action; isn't that more like what you mean? [[User:Coas|Coas]] 16:31, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Needs a major overhaul... ==

On the whole, this article, I believe, needs a major overhaul. Firstly, too much of this, while true, is written in so many ways like gossip. A glaring error that any serious writer would immediatly reject is the phrase: "Obama is SO pro-abortion..." It sounds like some high-school kid exaggerating to a friend. While it may be true, to phrase it in such a way is very unprofessional, and degrades the credibility of the article.

Also, while I understand that many see this article as an outlet to vent frustration at an inexperienced, unproven candidate, to write the entire article in a highly critical light errodes the circumstantiated tone that I assume Conservapedia strives for. Those not well informed might see this article as bigoted and hateful, whith spurious and unsubstantiated claims. My advice is to write these facts in a neutral, detatched style, as is the case with most encyclopedias. To do otherwise detracts from Conservapedia as a whole.

A few suggestions just from the very beginning:

1. "Obama is so pro-abortion..." should be changed to something like: "Obama has a well-noted stance of pro-abortion, demostrated in cases such as his blocking of the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants protection act, which was unanimously supported by the U.S. Senate."

2. "Obama has absolutely no military..." needs to be reworked into something more or less as follows: "Obama has a distinct lack of military, executive, and foreign policy experience as evidenced by..." and include some example of how he simply has not been in a position where he could gain any of this experience.

3. "Throughout his career, he has repeatedly ducked..." has too much opinion attached to it, and the "...in an apparent attempt..." part reeks of unprofessionalism. A good alternative would be "Obama has many times abstained from taking a controversial stand on certain issues, voting 'present' instead of 'aye' or 'nay' a substantial 130 times during his career as an Illinois state senator."

Much, much more needs to be done for this to sound like an authoritative encyclopedic article instead of an opinionated rant.
--[[User:Churro|Churro]] 01:18, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==
I'd like to add a few paragraphs about Obama's foreign policy experience. Any chance the article can be unprotected? --Jimmy 21:29, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: The article was unprotected for a long time, and endured repeated attempts at liberal bias. How about suggesting your edits here first?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::== Foreign Policy Experience ==
::Sen. Obama has been a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations since his election to the Senate. <ref>http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/about.html </ref>

::He has visited many countries in his capacity as a Senator.

::Russia and former Soviet republics: Met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. Also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN).
::United Kingdom: Met with Prime Minister Tony Blair during visit with Sen. Lugar. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit </ref>

::Visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad: Discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/ </ref>

::Ten day tour of the Middle East: Talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/ </ref>--Jimmy 22:14, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Completely incorrect information in Foreign Policy==

The information provided is completely incorrect. Senator Obama has indeed visited Continental Europe on official business - he visited Eastern Europe in August 2005, taking in Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and the UK[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]. Please correct the article.

Not only is the article factually incorrect, but the suggestion is made that this 'lack of travel experience' would make him unsuitable for the Presidency. To which I would point out that the current President George W. Bush, had NEVER visited Europe until a year '''after''' taking the Presidency. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 13:32, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Political Views section ==

I don't know whether this is a valid criticism to make, but it occurred to me while reading the article that the "Political Views" seection is rather short and vague. Although it's great to make concise comments on issues such as illegal immigration etc., it doesn't really give us a good picture of exactly what he stands for (and no jokes about not standing for anything, please!). What I mean is: the second sentence claims that Obama has the record of a Marxist leftist, but nothing after that point under that section really justifies that statement. Indeed, much of it seems to be better placed under the next section "Faith and Values". It might be pertinent to have a more detailed analysis of individual parts of his policies and stances. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Obama's stances keep changing depending on which state is next in the primaries. It's a waste of time to attach any significance to his stated positions, other than to recognize how [[liberal]] he is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Perhaps pointing out these changes would be a better idea, Andy. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 20:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't view this as a priority, as Obama's supporters only care about his positions against the war and for abortion and don't care about much else, and those positions are spelled out. I'll unlock the entry for you if you'd like to add objective material that shows how he changes his position so often. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I know nothing of Obama's war opinion (aside troop withdrawal) and nothing of him pro-abortion position. Yet, I am still an Obama supporter, despite being non-US, as he is the only one who is not part of the great Washington machinery. It is time for change and the old stalwarts like McCain and Clinton need to go. Change can be good, not always but why not give it a chance?
Also, Bush Jnr had waaaaaaay less experience than Obama.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Can we un-lock, this artical needs to be updated ==

There is no information at all about how Obama was linked to the radical Afro-Centric "Church" in Chicago whose Pastor endorses crazy racialist theorys about Whites, the CIA did AIDS, Jews did 9/11, etcetera. ANd then of course he makes one silly speech that doesnt really say anything, and the liberal media fall over each other to praise him like the secnod coming of jesus. (btw, this isnt really my area of expertise, but I understand some American theologians have seriously considered whether he could be the anti-christ. i don't know if that's enough of a seriously taken theory but you folks should decide whether to mention it at least.

I dont understand why so many pages i try to edit are locked.

:: I think it is because reality has a well known liberal bias. (I joke, I joke) It just that liberals don't understand how to interpret reality but keep insisting that they do. It isn't like this problem is going away either.--[[User:Jroyale|Jroyale]] 21:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Étienne Léger
:Are you referring to Pastor Wright? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::Yes Jeremiah Wright is his name, he is basically an "afro-centric" race bigot who openly associates with Louis "Hitler was a great man" Farrakhan, he was Obama's chief Spiritual Advisor for many years except now he tries to deny it.

::: Please propose an encyclopedic-like addition, with a citation. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Agree: not sure why this article would be locked when it clearly needs to be updated to ensure the tone is encyclopedic and not simply derogatory. Otherwise, the reputation of this effort as a "trustworthy encyclopedia" will continue to be severely undermined.

: Im starting to think that it is too late to save this site. Its hard to take it seriously with articles like this . . . [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 18:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

OK Heres my suggestion, probably the English she needs work :) but I found lots of references and I think it's encyclopedia like. It should go under section 9 on "Faith and Values."

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

== This Article is Ridiculous ==

For God's sake, with articles like this Conservapedia is never going to be taken seriously. A “Marxist leftist"? This is just stupid, he's basically pro-life moderate conservative. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, you really are in the wrong place if you think anyone here is going to be fooled by your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::Fooled? I don't even especially like Barack Obama. Can you honestly say that Obama is a communist? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh I see, my bad, i meant pro-choice . . . Can i change it? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:49, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Could someone with access add something like "According to the Political Compass, Barack Obama would be better described as a moderate conservative <ref>http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008</ref>" after the Marxist comment? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::I agree that in no way can Obama be described a Marxist leftist. I've met Marxist leftists and argued with them a great deal (they tend to have very fixed ideals and observe an astonishing range of fallacies about the very unlamented Soviet Union) and compared to them Obama's a solid centrist. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 07:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, he's politically 'left' of Ann Coulter. By Conservapedian standards, that makes him a bomb-throwing Bolshevik revolutionary fnord. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

They also tend to be communists and call each other "comrade" and call for collectivism lol. But really, that quote either needs to be removed or balanced with another. Otherwise its just libel. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:05, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:It's not libel if it's a Liberal being lied about. Didn't you get the memo? That whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" thing only applies if thy neighbor is a Conservative. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, he's a liberal? I didn't know that! I can't find on the page where it says that he is a radical Islamic terrorist<ref>Barack HUSSEIN Obama!</ref>. He also a lying homosexual right? why isn't that included? If you need a source I can start a webpage and write that for you. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:21, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and Obama could hardly be called our neighbor. No blacks are allowed in conservapedia's neighborhood. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Voting "present" doesn't necessarily indicate a fence-sitter... ==

Oftentimes, a vote of present indicates that the candidate generally supports a proposal in principle, but is unable to support it in its current form. It's a way of saying "I'm here, I'm interested, but we can't do it this way." Say Congressman A is a strong fiscal conservative and hates deficits. A budget bill comes before the body which cuts taxes but also provides for incremental increases in government programs which Congressman A already believes are hopelessly bloated, and in so doing increases deficit spending. That Congressman might not be able to support the bill but voting "present" would put to the record that he did not outright reject the proposal, but rather that he might be open to supporting a similar, re-worked bill.

== Required Changes ==

This article needs a lot of work to bring it up to the standards of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'. Several claims don't pass muster.

- The claim "'''Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience'''" is laughingly false and makes this article look plain ignorant. There are well documented details of Obama's foreign policy experience in the article, yet this sentence remains. The reference for this claim is hopelessly incorrect. While this reference is in compliance with the commandments, it was obviously written by someone that didn't do their homework as proof of Obama's foreign policy experience is readily available. The same cannot be said of the next dubious claim.

:: You're clueless. Obama has zero military or executive experience, and his foreign policy experience is in the lowest 10% of senators. Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action'''." This comment is the sort of gossip that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Not only has this ridiculous claim been removed and reinserted many times, not a shred of evidence is presented to back up this basically idiotic nonsense. I'd like to think the leadership of this encyclopedia would set a good example for others to follow when writing articles, but there are way too many articles like this one that prove otherwise.

:: The evidence is overwhelming, with examples provided in the entry. All you have to do is cite some counterexamples. You can't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, the article states that Obama graduated from Harvard Law with honors. That strikes me as a "clear personal achievement". Are you suggesting, therefore, that he didn't deserve said honors, that faculty gave him an easy ride because he's African-American? --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:54, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He won a seat in the U.S. Senate after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, Alan Keyes'''." This claim is completely without merit. According to Fox News, Ryan was not forced out and the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged him to remain. The idea that '''liberals somehow obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records''' is disingenuous at the least and most likely a lie. According to Fox News, the records were released when the ''Chicago Tribune'' and Chicago TV station ''WLS'' sued. Divorce proceedings are a matter of public record unless the there is a compelling interest to make them private. According to the court, relevant portions of the divorce were kept private and the remaining portions were released. Please note that I am not quoting a liberal source for this information. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123716,00.html]

:: The records were confidential and the newspaper that sued for their relief was supportive of Obama. Yes, Jack Ryan was forced out as a result of the disclosures and no one familiar with politics credibly argues otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- This article was unlocked for a brief time a while ago until some vandals made their presence known. Even though the article was vandalized, it actually showed some signs of improvement. As it stands now, this article belongs on an Obama-hating lunatic fringe website, not part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.

:: I don't expect this factual entry to persuade anyone who is a big supporter of [[affirmative action]], because they don't care what Obama stands for or what his experience is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

The above seems to be someone's comments, debated by ASchlafly? But there's no name attached to any of these comments? Can you put back the signatures of whoever wrote those suggestions?

As to the actual comments ASchlafly, it seems you haven't actually read your own article. You ask "Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???", and the article clearly states that he has indeed been to London and met with Tony Blair. In comparison with all other candidates for the US Presidency, this leaves him "about the same". Most US Presidents do not come to the table with a huge amount of travel experience under their belts - witness the current President, who had never been out of the Continent before becoming President. No matter what you think of the candidate, the suggestion that the only things he has achieved are because of affirmative action beggars belief and doesn't even deserve a response, it's so unutterably stupid. Finally, referring to this article as a "factual entry" is revelatory. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:23, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

: "Western Europe" should be "continental Europe," because Obama did play second chair for an insignificant visit by a more experienced senator (Lugar) to Tony Blair. If that courtesy call is what you're hanging your hat on, then it merely underscores Obama's lack of experience. But I doubt you'd care anyway, as most Obama supporters don't support him for his experience or even his ever-changing or silent positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I'm delighted to see that you admit you were wrong, so thank you for that - it's good to keep the record straight. Now, for comparison to the other candidates, perhaps you'd like to list the foreign travel and policy experience of your candidate of choice? John McCain is off to Israel, London and Paris I see? Obama indeed does not have the French capital in his past itineraries, but comparing his Conservapedia article to Obama's, it would seem he is FAR more widely travelled than McCain. Finally, your suggestion about affirmative action might as well be directed at Clarence Thomas, since the only requirement you seem to need to make such a comment is the colour of these gentlemen's skin?

::PS Finally, could you please put back the sigs of whoever you were responding to? it's impossible to know where these comments come from? [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly: Contrary to your opinion, I am not the clueless one here. I happen to know that the United Kingdom is a part of Western Europe so therefore it can be concluded that Obama has made a trip to Western Europe since he visited London to see Tony Blair. Since you are making the claim that his foreign policy experience is the 'lowest 10% of senators', could you provide a reference please?

:::Where is this overwhelming evidence that Obama's success is explained by affirmative action? If it is so overwhelming, then you or the person that made this assertion should have absolutely no problem providing the reference. Where is the evidence in the article? I couldn't find anything. Could you provide this allegedly 'clueless' individual, as you like to call me, the specific line number?

:::Because Ryan refused to run for office after his divorce proceedings were made public, this means, using your line of reasoning, that the 'National Republican Senatorial Committee' lacks credibility. Perhaps this should be added to the article?

:::There are a lot of alleged 'facts' in this article that are nothing more than gossip and unsupported innuendo. According to the commandments that you wrote, these items should be removed. How can this article be a part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' if no attempt is made to follow the commandments and guidelines?

:::I happen to care what Obama, Clinton, and McCain stand for because I plan to vote and I want my vote to mean something. If someone wants to base their vote on what is written in Conservapedia, then they will be seriously misinformed. --Jimmy 21:30, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Law Professor ==

The sentence about Obama "falsely claiming to be a constitutional law professor" should be changed. According to the University of Chicago, he was considered to be a professor. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 19:14, 29 March 2008 (EST)

:He was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor. There's a big difference. The University of Chicago only ''considers'' Obama a professor, he wasn't actually one, as he falsely claimed to be. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::You're wasting your time, Tordenvaer. Certain people on here see nothing wrong in saying someone's not a professor if it suits their purposes and/or prejudices, even when there is ample evidence otherwise. See the Richard Dawkins [[Richard_Dawkins|article]] and [[Talk:Richard_Dawkins|Talk Page]] for an extremely good example of this. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:49, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::As an aside, Lyra, considering it is, in fact, universities that bestow the title of 'professor', if the University of Chicago basically saying that, as far as they were concerned, he was a professor, isn't 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? You also state that there is a big difference between 'Senior Lecturer' and 'professor'. Read the link given by Tordenvaer. The University of Chicago completely disagrees with you there. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:57, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: In other words, if [[liberals]] like someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[liberals]] are going to call him a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. Perhaps we should add this to [[liberal]] positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Done. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Alternatively, if [[conservatives]] dislike someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[conservatives]] are going to deny that he is a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:36, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

: Really? Perhaps you can tell us who peer-reviewed Obama's work, and when, and what the outcome was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Most likely the U of C law faculty did, repeatedly throughout his time working there, as all departments do with all faculty. The outcome was that they asked him to join the faculty full-time. In addition to the statement linked above, there is [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/701490,CST-NWS-obamaprof18.article] (para 3). They did not offer him a full-time position because they thought he was good-looking. [[User:Murray|Murray]]

:::: Well, I'll put it this way - who is more likely to be correct in who is or is not a professor? Aschlafly or the Universities of Chicago and Oxford? Personally, I'll go with the universities, and thus accept both Dawkins and Obama are professors, in one way or another. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 22:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: Certain people can't handle the ''truth'', Urushnor. Regardless of what U-Chicago's ''feeling'' is, he's a senior lecturer, not a professor. The university never gave him that title. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 23:31, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: 'The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

:::::: 'From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, '''Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School'''. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. '''Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors''', although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'[[User:Jtimber|Jtimber]] 23:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Precisely. It seems that certain people cannot handle the truth, indeed - Obama made a comment, in passing, which his opponents seized upon to try to brand him as a liar, because they thought it was wrong, as his actual title was 'Senior Lecturer', but now can't handle the truth that, in fact, 'Senior Lecturers' are regarded as professors, so the comment was correct. I also note, Lyra, that you still haven't actually answered my question - given that it is universities that bestow the title of professor, if a university saying that someone is or was a professor is not 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I believe I've already answered that question. My point was that he was not full-track. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:30, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No, from the above, your point was quite clearly that 'he was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor', to quote you exactly. The University of Chicago says he was a 'Senior Lecturer', which is considered to be a professor. So you haven't actually answered that question at all, unless you changing your point is your way of saying, 'oops, I was wrong - he ''is'' a professor, just not a full-time or tenure-track one'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 01:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Allow me to explain. When he says he is a ''professor'', many people will assume he means a full-time teaching committment, regardless of U of C's technicalities. It's a bit deceitful. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::During the time he worked as a senior lecturer, he was practicing law as well. I've actually read ''The Audacity of Hope''. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't really think it's that deceitful; he's just using common parlance versus the technical term. Technically, yes, he was a senior lecturer/adjunct faculty, but I knew lecturers at the university who would hold themselves out as professors. It's not deceit, it's just simplification, I think.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 20:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously. If someone like [[Dan Quayle]] had attempted Obama's self-serving "simplification", as you put it, then Quayle would have been strung up and run off the stage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::I totally concur--what Obama should be saying is he worked as a "part-time professor," if at all. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 20:34, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Obama held the position of senior lecturer for years, and surely understood what his title was. It doesn't seem too much to expect him not to exaggerate his credential.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:38, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

''In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously...'' Yes and no. Titles are meaningful, and indicate how prestigious a position is and generally the salary level. However, titles vary dramatically across university systems. For example, in the U. of Illinois system, Adjunct Professor is the equivalent a Lecturer at U of C - it indicates someone who is a part-time faculty member, hired solely to teach classes, either because there are not enough full-time faculty or to allow the full-timers more time for research. In the U. of California system though, an Adjunct Professor is a full-time faculty member, and UC guidelines suggest that on, for example, grant applications, an Adjunct Professor use the title of Professor to avoid confusion. So an Adjunct Professor in Champaign would be stretching it to use the title of Professor, whereas someone with the same title in LA or Berkeley would not. So titles are certainly meaningful, but their specific meaning isn't always readily apparent [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:36, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Would someone unlock this for a brief moment? Thanks! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== First St. Francis Assisi, then Mentang Besuki ==

There's a line in the Early Life section of the bio that gets the order of Obama's Indonesian elementary schools reversed. The Catholic one was first, for almost three years. The public one was only the last year or so. The misinformation is repeated in Faith and Values section. Says his father was a nonpracticing Muslim. Other sources say atheist. His stepfather was a practicing Muslim, however. No mention of the Afrocenric theology of TUCC. See Linda Chavez' article in NR online on this. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] 10:29, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Questions about This Article ==

No offense, but this article is very biased, and much of it lacks sources. Shouldn't there be sources for it, and if there are none should it not be removed? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:14, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: 43 citations. How many more do you want?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:53, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps something to cite things that are obviously personal attacks, such as this:
"He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.". That sounds more like an opinion than a definition of fact, and there's not citation for it anyway. Also, the lead for his article seems to be one giant summary of his political views, portrayed negatively. Very biased. Not sure how that is delt with here, but we try to keep things neutral on Wikipedia. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:31, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:Conservapedia does not require citations for statements like that. And even if they were there, they would just be links to conservative opinion pieces. Best to just leave it alone... the article as it is stands quite well as a reminder to visitors that this is a very different site from Wikipedia, for a variety of interesting reasons.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Image switch ==
I think you meant to say ''add'' placement bias. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama built his campaign on anti-American donations. A photo of his anti-patriotic posture reflects his campaign far more than a standard and unrevealing portrait photo does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::Here are Obama's top 20 donors: Goldman Sachs, University of California, UBS, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers (investment banking firm), Citigroup, National Amusements (who own 1400 theaters), Sidney Austin (law firm), Harvard, Google, Skadden Arps (law firm), Exelon, Morgan Stanley, Time Warner, Jones Day (law firm), Wilmerhale (law firm), Latham Watkins (more lawyers), University of Chicago, Kirkland & Ellis (lawyers), Citadel Investment Group. Not exactly a list of crazy liberals. But the point was really the comparison to all the pages of other senators here, all of which (if they have an image) have an official picture at the top. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:16, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Meaningless statistic, and only a tiny fraction of Obama's fundraising. His big money source is moveon.org types, and no one can deny that he's tapping into the stridently anti-war (and often anti-American) types. People are going to Obama's entry because he's running for president, not because he's a senator, and the photo placement should reflect that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Furthermore, I do not see how you can call forces within America anti-American, that title used to be restricted to ''foreign'' forces. Soviet Russia was anti-American. MoveOn is not. The American Colonies were anti-British, I suppose. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:18, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::You might as well give it up, before you get 90/10ed. From reading this site, it's pretty clear that on Planet Conservapedia, the GOP '''is''' America, and Liberals are all mindless robot drones created by Satan himself to DESTROY AMERICA, propelled by their disgusting glandular urges, hatred for all things Good and Holy and American and Conservative (as redundant as that is), and the occasional telepathic directive from the Ghost of Charles Darwin fnord. Thus, the very concept of [[Liberal patriotism]] is an [[oxymoron]]. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In Soviet Russia, rules follow you! In any case, Liberal just means willing to embrace new ideas and ''change''. More people should recogize that. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I know its not really important, but the colonials mainly considered themselves British and were fighting for their British rights about up until the Decleration of Indepedence was signed. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:And after that, they would've all been hanged as traitors to Crown and Country if they'd lost. Got to remember that part... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Well, the mini-series "John Adams" is very good, but the assertion that FernoKlump makes is not correct. Originally they were fighting for the rights afforded to all British subjects, but long before the Declaration of Independence was signed, most of the "heavy hitters" had long since realized there would be no reconciliation with the Crown. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes. The Founding Fathers must have been considered very unpatriotic by the British during the Revolution. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Maybe most of the "heavy hitters" had realized they were fighting for their independence, but the avererage colonial didn't really realize that until the decleration. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 10:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
==Category==
Put him in [[:Category:African Americans]]
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:07, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: This is absurd. [[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:49, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::Except for segregationists [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:26, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Those were primarily Democrats, you realize? Racists are just that, and don't depend on idealogical labels to be so. I know so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" who often express racist thinking. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Shall I put [[Adam Sandler]] into [[:Category:Jewish Americans]] too, Deborah? --

:Those segregationists were southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") and were social conservatives. Status as a Democrat or Republican doesn't necessarily label people in the past as liberal or conservative. Today Republicans tend to be conservative and Democrats tend to be liberal, but the Republican party was originally established to end slavery. Abolitionism was a VERY liberal idea at the time. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:56, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:: No, [[abolitionism]] came from [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]], and they were [[conservative]]. Southern Democrats (like [[Jimmy Carter]]) were not [[conservative]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::They weren't conservative if they wanted an end to slavery. Liberal, by definition, is the advocacy of change. An end to slavery would have been change. Therefore, an advocacy of the end of slavery would be liberal. Southern democrats, like Governor George Wallace, were conservatives because they sought to ''preserve'' the existing institution of segregation.

From dictionary.com:

Liberal- Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs

Conservative- Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

[[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your definition is meaningless. [[Conservatives]], for example, want big change on [[abortion]]. Use the more meaningful definitions and explanations found on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::No, Conservatives want to ''revert'' back to before abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade. Look at that definition again. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:58, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::FernoKlump, your history at CP is one of endless talk, talk, talk, argue, argue, argue. Yet, coming here, you were told up-front, if by nothing else than the name, ''this is a conservative encyclopedia''. Somehow a very small number of users, feel they have a right or obligation to turn this encyclopedia into a debate site. I feel an obligation to point out to you CP wasn't put here to provide a debate vehicle for you and other liberals.

:::You might want to look up, while you are busy with that dictionary, the meaning of "goodbye". I have a feeling you're going to need it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:19, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::TK, you probably shouldn't be indulging in personal remarks of that quality, which go against the Conservapedia Guidelines ("You must be civil. No bullying.") Your shirt is still the right color, though, so maybe you'll be okay. Just thought I'd let you know.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:40, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

*TomMore, please keep in mind that Conservapedia rejects the European and Wikipedia definitions of being "civil" and "bullying". Me stating facts, about arguing and endless talk, are factual, therefore conservatives do not view that as bullying, or uncivil. What is uncivil is the introduction, ''the forced introduction'', of foreign definitions that American conservatives expressly reject. Users who do nothing but post contentious comments to conservatives, and denigrate what we believe, should perhaps consider starting their own liberal encyclopedia and stop wasting time here. CP doesn't grant the right of endless arguing, talk, talk, talk. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:28, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

::Guys, this is silly. Lets end it. And he is right, this is an encyclopedia, not a debate site. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:46, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

1) I'm not a liberal.
2) I understand that this encyclopedia is supposed to have a conservative bias, but it has degenerated into a "how liberals are ruining America" encyclopedia. I really like the idea of an encyclopedia that tries to present things from a conservative view, but this site is just embarassing to the conservative cause and unrealistic (like "[[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race", when reality says otherwise). There is a big difference between a conservative point of view and a conservative version of reality. If I deserved to be banned for fighting against the lies that make conservapedia unreliable, then ban me. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:09, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sorry, not in the MVSN. Doesn't count.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:11, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::MVSN? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:15, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The blackshirts (Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale) ? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:17, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Don't know who they are... I looked at [[blackshirt]]s but there's nothing there. It's just a nickname :)--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:20, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
I didn't see anything on conservapedia about what 'MVSN' would mean, so I thought it might be a wikipedia term. I searched and got the blackshirts, which are basically Italian fascists. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:25, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Alright, this obviously has nothing to do with improving the article, so lets end it. Thanks in advance, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:27, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Proposed addition ==

It is seeming like this was lost due to all the chatter on the talk page, i don't know what everybody thinks of it. here is my proposal under "faith and values" section:

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

: I've unprotected the page for you to edit it as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Ideologically motivated "citation needed" insertions, for statements that are not seriously disputed, are not allowed. This is not [[Wikipedia]] where that same stunt by liberals occurs repeatedly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thank-you for the explanation. My citation request was not 'ideologically motivated', it was a simple request for a reference to an 'ideologically motivated' statement. My request also follows Commandment #2, something you have been willing to overlook in many of the articles I have edited. I get the idea that I would not be afforded the same opportunity to make the same statements without references since I'm not an administrator or the founder of this encyclopedia.--Jimmy 22:17, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm reinserting the other edit since you have no objection to it, thanks. --Jimmy 22:20, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama's actual title was Senior Lecturer, not Professor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
: And according to his university, a senior lecturer is a professor. It's that simple. --Jimmy 22:27, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:: You're misconstruing what the media relations department said. Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I am really interested to know what you are basing your "Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't)" on Aschlafly?
What info do you have to say it is the perception of the media dep. and not actually true?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:52, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

If you cannot give ANY evidence to back your claims up Aschlafly then the article should include what the university states. And, I might add, the media dep. is responsible for answering media enquiries hence the media dep. answering the query whether or not Obama is a prof. or not.
So ADD THE REFERENCE OR LOOK LIKE A FOOL. Your choice
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your quarrel is with the dictionary, not with me, and the citations about the "professor" issue are well-supported by the entry. In case you have problems following a link, I'll quote the observation on the Democratic Underground site, which is also well-supported with cites: [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307]

::[Obama's] publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort .... Now, given his relatively strong academic credentials and the extent of [[affirmative action]] in academic hiring, if Obama had written articles about, well, pretty much anything, he would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position. But he didn't.

::... [H]e is not a Professor of Constitutional Law. Nor is he an assistant professor or associate professor. ...

By the way, AdenJ, any more namecalling from you in violation of our rules will result in blocking of your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Heh. We see what you did there--quoting the website Democratic Underground as if to show that even liberals think Obama's professor claim is invalid. In reality, of course, the DU item was posted by an anonymous commentator ("agdlp"), something anyone could do, and hardly a reliable cite given that said post provides no evidence, just links repeating the claim. I could go on that site and write a post saying that Obama is an alien from the planet Mar’xennui, but that wouldn't make it true or cite-able. And as to your (repetition of the) claim that "given his relatively strong academic credentials...Obama would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position...but he didn't", please note that the UofChicago statement notes that Obama was offered a tenure-track position several times, but declined.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Your comments don't add anything. Look, if it makes you feel better to believe that Obama is somehow a professor, then suit yourself. By objective standards, including the dictionary, he plainly is not and never was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::How about we compromise? "Obama has claimed he was a constitutional law professor when he was actually a Senior Lecturer." That seems to fit with the facts better, and it circumvents what is starting to amount to a semantics debate. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, that doesn't capture the false boasting. And, by the way, your other edits to this entry also do not convey the truth, as in the boasting about the poverty bill that was a non-starter and never passed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which edit was that? The only edits I've made to the page were the foreign policy experience one (which you've reverted) and helping organize the sections a bit. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question about lead ==
The opening line of the third paragraph reads "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience." While nobody can dispute the lack of military or executive experience, could his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee count as foreign policy experience? Don't get me wrong, it's still not much experience, but it would seem to be enough to remove the foreign policy part. Thoughts? --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:41, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Mere membership on a congressional committee does not constitute "foreign policy" experience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: It doesn't make him a scholar or an expert on it, but I would've thought it would move him out of the category of "absolutely none". --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:09, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ampersand: You are now finding out that facts are not a substitute for the world that the Conservapedia leadership has constructed. It is a fact that Obama has foreign policy experience, but that does not matter to the people in charge. I have brought up issues like this numerous times on many other articles but usually nothing happens. Nothing happens to the articles this is, but I have been blocked on numerous occasions for trying to make this encyclopedia reflect the real world. Good luck! --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:59, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Merely being on a committee is not foreign policy experience. That is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You are absolutely 100% correct. But it has been demonstrated that Obama has made overseas trips with the Foreign Affairs Committee and has discussed policy with other world leaders and diplomats. This is a fact that cannot be denied in face of the irrefutable evidence that has been provided. No matter how limited his foreign policy experience has been; the sentence in the opening paragraph (Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience) is laughingly false. Presenting such inaccurate information as fact only gives ammunition to Conservapedia's critics. There are plenty of other factual criticisms that can be leveled at Obama without making up dumb factoids. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lead section question ==

In the second paragraph, this sentence "According to political expert and Republican strategist Karl Rove, became his "political mentors," and launched is state Senate campaign and subsequent national political career" seems to be missing a word. Does anyone know what it is?

== Ok, there is so much misinformation here idk where to start ==

I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives, but there is a ton of bad information here that really is not true and to discriminate against this man is blatently racist, especially in the way its being done: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" wtf people?? First of all, generalization such as this is a breach of most online encyclopedia protocol. Second of all, the assumption that he benefited from affirmative action is nothing more than an assumption, NOT fact. He went to Harvard, thus he is a smart man. Furthermore, why should he have to provide proof in a "clear personal achievement" that he does not rely on affirmative action? Assuming that a black man cannot succeed without affirmative action is not only racist, but also untrue. Next controversial statement in this article: "Barack Obama has captivated black and educated white voters, largely because of his race". How can anyone make that assessment? It is, once again, based off pure imagination rather than fact, as is further demonstrated by the lack of any sources backing it. The author also claims that Bill Clinton dismissed Barack's claim that he was against the war from the start as a "fairy tale". I checked the source of this statement, which is in actuality a website acknowledging Clinton's apology towards the "fairy tale" comment. Furthermore we must realize that Hillary and Bill Clinton are in fact married, which might perhaps explain why Bill Clinton might want to tarnish the rep of Clinton's main opponent. Again, more BS: "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience" Sure, he isn't as experienced as Hillary, but generally, when a candidate runs for the presidency, they do not have experience in being president. Another ridiculous claim here: Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in physics, yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." I checked up on this source as well, which has been misinterpreted by the author of this page here. Obama wrote a paper on the constitution, to which he used an analogy of space-time physics. In much the same way George Orwell's animal farm uses a farm to relate to communism. Orwell didn't have to be a farmer to write the book, and Obama doesn't need to be a nuclear physicist to read up on relativity. If anything, Obama's ability to understand the basic gist of physics without taking physics courses actually lends credence to his own intellect. Something that didn't come as a result of affirmative action. AND... he can say "nuclear". Neo-cons have no right to bash intelligence. Further on in the article, the author claims that "Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses[9] on the Constitution.[10]" Note the sources. They aren't sources. They don't lead anywhere or cite anything, but are just statements. AND they have nothing to do with this statement. If this encyclopedia is so trustworthy, why can't it provide proper sources for its misinformation?? Later on, the author makes the statement that Barack Obama has voted present 130 time in the IL senate and this is a reason to disbelieve him. This is in fact, true information, but I do have a problem with the heavy slant. Obama's aides say Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. Also, in Illinois law it is not unusual to protest bills with a present vote. You can check up on my facts, because it is found in the same source our author used to make the claim that Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times." In the second paragraph, the author says "He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at The University of Chicago Law School as of 2004.[14] He is no longer active at the school". Whereas the same source that was cited claims that "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Thus he WAS a professor after all. Check your information next time. I don't mind conservatives, in the old sense of the word. A true conservative worked to maintain the rights of business owners and left the economy alone. A true conservative kept taxes low and government spending no higher. What we get today are social conservatives. People who believe in the white christian male america. People who claim that the only way a smart, educated black man could be running for president is due to affirmative action. You criticize Reverend Wright for saying "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God." Look at yourselves. Give this man a chance; he did not go to Harvard because he was black nor does he recieve the support of both white and black america, red and blue america, and male and female america because he is black. This article is not trustworthy, or factual, but it is a bash. Now I am too tired to go through the remaining half of the article. Time to get a kick out of the Kangaroo one.
:I stopped reading after your bigoted "''I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives,'''" remark. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't even have to read that far. The above long-winded rant, too incoherent to read, let alone understand, illustrates the [[liberal]] style. I doubt he'd even agree with a conservative who says that "2+2=4".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Annie Oakley ==
This one needs to be phrased a little better. Just because something is outside of one's generation doesn't mean they can't possibly know what it is. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Nothing in Obama's background suggests he would have any idea who Annie Oakley was, and all evidence (including Obama's age) suggests he wouldn't. The conclusion by USA Today is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::I still think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that because someone was born after a certain date they're immune to cultural influences preceding them. Also, the conclusion's by a syndicated columnist, not USA Today itself. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Even John McCain wasn't alive when Annie Oakley died :D . And even Obama knows that Oakley was a female gun shooter. He was using it to make it appear that Hillary exaggerated her experience with guns as a child. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I am fifty and I know who Annie Oakley was. I just saw a PBS special on her and she is the subject of a popular musical that has been running for years. This Annie Oakley thing is just plain stupid. Makes you look like idiots. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:04, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The "Choice" bill is not just "supported by" the [[abortion]] industry, but is for its direct benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lapel pin ==
The sentence "Notice Obama's lack of an American flag lapel pin" completely ignores how he's not wearing a jacket. No lapel, no lapel pin. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 00:43, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama doesn't wear the flag when he is wearing a jacket either. By the way, I do think pins work on shirts! The caption could profitably omit the word "lapel".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: True, and criticism of him for it is valid. I'm still uncomfortable with the sentence being there at all since it seems like kind of a weak way to attack him on it, though. A more effective attack would be to find pictures of McCain and Hillary wearing them and one of him not and putting them together side by side in a single image to illustrate him not wearing a lapel pin. That'd drive the point home more effectively, I think. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:49, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

'''it seems like kind of a weak way to attack him on it'''....So, is the purpose here to attack him, or to write an accurate encyclopedia article about him? And a bit off-topic, why does it matter if he wears a lapel pin or not? Maybe it didn't occur to him to do so, or maybe he thought it was tacky (all lapel pins are, IMO). It doesn't make him an evil Communist. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:01, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I added that Obama has started wearing the flag pin once again, as can be seen when he addressed the comments of the President in Israel. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

== How Mike Ditka Unintentionally Boosted Obama's Rise to Prominence ==

An observation that I've not seen commented on in the press...

When scandal ridden Jack Ryan's Illinois US Senate campaign was falling apart, Obama looked like a shoe in....until ex-Bear's coach Mike Ditka seriously began considering pleas from some top Republcians that he should run for the Senate. And Ditka was doing interviews about his and his wife's thoughts on the matter, giving IL Republicans considerable hope. Suddenly, Democrats feared that even Chicago's normally reliable voters might hand the popular Ditka a landslide.

It was during this two or three week frenzy over the question of whether Ditka would run that Obama, with little seniority and experience, was picked to give a major address at the Democrat's National Convention endorsing John Kerry...a move clearly intended to give Obama a boost with Illinois voters. Obama ran with the opportunity and gave a speech that garnered lot's of favorable press and turned him into a media darling and pushed him toward a an extremely early presidential run. In my opinion, his rise to stardom was indirectly sparked by the fear that Mike Ditka might "steal" the IL senate seat out from under the Democrats. Unfortunately, Mike (apparantly at the behest of his wife) decided the Senate life wasn't for him afterall.

Without Mike's near run, Obama never would have become such a media darling...at least not so early in his career.--[[User:Billy21|Billy21]] 13:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Interesting analysis, but I doubt one evening at the Democratic National Convention had much to do with this. I'd say Hillary's electoral weakness is a bigger factor. And, of course, the [[liberal media]] has long been obsessed with race. When [[Rush Limbaugh]] commented that he felt a media focus on race influenced the choice of quarterback on an NFL team, he had to quit his job as a sports analyst.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I always thought the media's obsession with race and gender was incorrect in this race. From my experience, the main dividing line in the Democratic Party right now is generational. Clinton represents the baby boomers while Obama represents the youth, which is a large part of why her strength has been older voters and his strength has been younger ones. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I think there is a higher correlation in voting based on race than on age here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Race is definitely a factor, but within the white Democratic electorate you can see some definite splits that indicate a generational gap. The wealthier you are, the higher your education and the lower your age, the more likely you are to vote for Obama. The lower your income, the lower your education and the higher your age, the more likely you are to vote for Clinton. Now, given that many senior citizens, especially those who were blue-collar workers, are on fixed incomes and pensions, we could partially tie income into age. Education-wise, there tend to be more college graduates in the younger demographics than in the older demographics simply because young people have more educational opportunities than their parents or grandparents had. Now of course there are exceptions, just like there are exceptions to everything. But personally? I view the Democratic primary as a fight between my generation and a generation that's still in a metaphorical way fighting the Vietnam War. That's this young college liberal's take on the Democratic race. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Affirmative action==

* He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]].

Who said this? Should we endorse it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Joseph Farah: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=58632 The affirmative-action president]

Maybe we should give him credit; I would hate to be accused of [[plagiarism]] over this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:Here's some things I found on the subject: [http://www.cnbc.com/id/23579121/][http://www.slate.com/id/2187718/][http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=][http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070515_obama_cools_on_affirmative_action/] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: I think Conservapedia had the term first, see [[Affirmative Action President]], but I'm all for adding citations to others who also use it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::From a couple of the links I provided above, the remark may have come from Geraldine Ferraro. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:02, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:::No, I think the Ferraro kerfuffle was early March. CP's article on the subject began in January. I think all of these other johnny-come-latelys need to give Andy credit.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:22, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::This quote comes from here [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=]:
:::::''"This presents Barack Obama with unique opportunity. Having campaigned against the passage of the Michigan initiative, can he chart a new path now that he is running for president? And, having admitted he attended Harvard law school because of affirmative action, can he now say the time has come to try something different?"'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

I would be more than casually interested in seeing a credible reference for the proposition that Obama "admitted he attended Harvard Law School because of affirmative action." [[User:Archer070]]

: What are you quoting? I couldn't find it ... but your comment did lead me to remove some liberal bias that had crept into this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I've checked some more and apparently Conservapedia coined the term [[Affirmative Action President]] first. The uses by others were subsequent to the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:19, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations Andy... I guess you coined it first! :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:10, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Clarence Thomas benefitted from affirmative action but I don't see any reference to that in the article about him. Are you claiming that Barack Obama wouldn't have excelled without affirmative action? If so, why not make that claim about Clarence Thomas? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Because [[Clarence Thomas]] has real achievements and, I might add, real principles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Would you please list some of those real achievements and clarify how they are not a product of affirmative action. Also, bear in mind that there might be real principles that are different than yours. --[[User:Faust|Faust]] 21:24, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reopening request to erase professor sentence ==

The accusation that Obama was not a professor at University of Chicago has been thoroughly debunked by the University itself. Does anyone mind if I remove the offending sentence? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 19:32, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
: Also note the contents of source #15, which is the press release by the University of Chicago on the subject. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 19:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Not even the media relations folks at the University of Chicago claim [[Obama]] "was a professor." He obviously does not satisfy the dictionary definition of a professor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:::On the contrary, they do indeed claim he was a professor- which settles the issue. Any other claim is weaseling.

:::[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html] "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Actually, that seems to be exactly what the media relations folks at the University of Chicago say. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 23:16, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I have heard complain that liberals take thing so literally and now you splitting hairs over the dictionary definition of 'professor'. I bet that if Obama was a conservative/republican you would heaps praise on his professorship.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:42, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

: You bet wrong. Conservatives don't insist that someone was a professor when he really wasn't. As to the media relations department at the [[University of Chicago]], reread its statement again and again until you realize that not even it said Obama "was a professor." Acting or serving "as a professor" is not the same as "being a professor."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, "serving" as a professor is the same as being a professor. (In fact, one definition of professor is "one who lectures in their field of study." This is the most pathetic use of weasel-words I have ever seen to defend the indefensible. Everyone makes a mistake- but it takes a special kind of stubborn to try and change the definition. He was paid, he was employed, he was a professor as per his employer's criteria. This is just not an honest criticism, it's weird and I just don't understand the motivation? It's time for the whining to stop and this silliness to be put to bed before we all look like fools.

I have been following the US elections very closely, through BBC, FOX, CNN etc and websites and the only place I have heard Obama's professorship is here! I think the point to peoples debate is that the want the sentence removed from the article all together, not an insistence that the article state he is a professor. Its not even relevant to his presidential campagin!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Presidential campaign and that whole Aaction thing ==

Firstly the presidential race thing hasnt been kept up to date unfortunately. Secondly, if obama does become president (something i know scares some of you here mindless), will the lead still say that he became president by Aaction? Cheers folks. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:44, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

== A side note ==
I removed the bit on no foreign experience as you have a section on it!

Also, you say he has nothing that isnt likely affirmative action however think about this.....
He may have ''got into'' Harvard because of affirmative action however he still has to work. He didnt come to where he is without serious hard work.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:41, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign policy ==
You cant say he has ''no'' foreign policy experience and then have a section on foreign policy experience. So you have three choices here. Either revert my edit and keep the the foreign policy section (which is at odds with the article), delete the section (which means you have removed factual info to support an unfactual claim) or leave as is (which is correct according to the facts presented).
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 07:18, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==introductory paragraphs==
The first few paragraphs after the 1st paragraphs need a lot of work. Maybe integrate the ideas later into the article. The way it is now makes conservapedia look biased. It looks like an attack piece. One can integrate the same facts into a better written article.[[User:BTV|BTV]] 01:55, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pro-"Abortion" needs changing ==

In the introduction, someone please change that statement that Obama is "Pro-Abortion" to its correct term, "Pro-Choice." I understand this is a conservative encyclopedia, but I don't think anyone gets their jollies off on abortion. I am pro-life, but I will at least respect the debate (as far as I can respect Party Politics) enough to not use aggressive and untrue labels, such as naming someone who is Pro-Choice as Pro-Abortion. There is a literal difference between the two, so someone please fix that. There's enough of the conservative bias in the article without these foolish techniques. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 14:09, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-05-19T03:10:52Z

Capolavoro046: /* To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" */

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-05-19T03:06:39Z

Capolavoro046: /* To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" */

[[/archive 1|Archive 1]] (20th March 2008)

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: PeterS, you may be an expert in history, but your logic does not follow. The entry does not care ''why'' someone was homeschooled in listing who was homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I think PeterS has a valid point, at least in his first line. As he points out, the article describes homeschooling as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". So for starters, how many on the list were homeschooled ''in the United States''? Clearly, however, homeschooling is not confined to the U.S., so it's the definition rather than the list that should be changed (as far as my argument goes so far).
:: I don't agree with him that it's not a movement; I think that's probably an apt term. But that raises the next problem with the list. Homeschooling ''as a movement'' is a relatively recent phenomenon, over the last forty years, I would guess. So anybody on that list who was educated at home more than around forty years ago does not fit the definition.
:: There's more that I could say, along the lines of PeterS' second paragraph, but perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Similar to my comment below, this criticism is overly literal. But to play that game, "homeschooling" is the movement, while those who were "homeschooled" is a broader category that can go beyond the movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: My immediate response to that, without thinking through it, is that that might make sense, but if it does, at the very least that distinction should be made clear in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Perhaps the opening part of the article could refer to a general, specific definition of homeschooling. That would clear up some of the conceptual difficulties that become more evident later in the article. '''Then''' you could branch out after that and comment on the "homeschooling movement" in the United States. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: An addendum to my previous post: I still think my dispute with the Dickens example stands. Just because someone does not receive a formal education at a school, it does not mean they were homeschooled. The facts are these: Dickens was educated as long as was financially possible. When his father was jailed, he was sent to work in a factory, like many financially disadvantaged young people at the time. To my knowledge (and the minutiae of the personal histories of English authors are not my strongest point), there is no evidence that his mother actively homeschooled him. Indeed, all the evidence points to his mother being firmly in favour of him working at a boot-blacking factory ''instead of'' getting an education. If you have evidential proof that this was not the case, feel free to cite it. Once again, if you think my argumentation over this is not valid, then you've got to sort out the definitional problem ASAP. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded the introduction to:
* Remove the United States as part of the definition.
* To define homeschooling as being educated "primarily at home", rather than "outside the traditional school system", as the latter could include non-traditional schools. The existing text later in the article expands on "primarily at home", to explain the parts that are not at home.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also changed references to homeschooling in the prominent people list to "educated at home" or "taught at home" (as some entries already were) for all persons whose education preceded the formation of the homeschooling movement. By the way, the entry for Leonardo doesn't actually say that he was taught at home. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nobody uses the phrase "educated at home," Philip. Have you ever heard anyone use it? An encyclopedia should use common and easily understood terminology, first and foremost. "Homeschooled" is the term that is used. Also, I'm not aware of a category that is "outside the traditional school system" but not homeschooled. Homeschooling is not dependent on the ''physical location'', but on the approach. Again, I object to the overly literal and [[materialistic]] approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "educated at home"...
::* I'm not in the habit of noting down every phrase I hear, so in one sense I couldn't say whether I've ever heard it, but I would think that I ''have'' heard it.
::* That's apart from this article, which as I said, already used it, the phrase having been included by Dpbsmith ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=16849]), Hsmom ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151194], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151212], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=155576], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=165607],[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=167430]), and NonXtianConservative ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=219041]).
::* Google returns 106,000 hits for "educated at home", so it's fairly common.
::* And even if none of that was the case, isn't Conservapedia proud of inventing [[Conservapedia terms|new terms]]?
:: "Homeschooled" is one of a number of terms that are used. Another is "taught at home", which was used by none other than one Aschlafly ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=218738])! I've used both those terms to avoid too much repetition.
:: And of course there is the ''reason'' I made those changes, that if homeschooling is defined (correctly, I believe) to be a movement that started in the 1960s, then anybody educated/taught/tutored at home prior to then cannot be said to be "homeschooled". That's not to say that their situation is necessarily quite different, but it does mean that the term itself should not be used of them.
:: "outside the traditional school system" depends on what is meant by "traditional". It could mean schools that allow the students to decide what they learn, for example, or other schools that take a non-traditional approach in any number of ways. It could include parent-controlled Christian schools, as ''traditionally'' schools have been controlled by governments or religious denominations. Yes, those examples are all schools, but they're not necessarily ''traditional'' schools.
:: If "homeschooling" is not dependent (to a fair extent) on the physical location, then why is it called "''home''schooling"? And if it's dependent on the approach, why is it not defined in terms of the approach? In any case, the previous definition was based on physical location, that being "outside ... schools".
:: How is my definition "overly literal"?
:: And how is is "materialistic"?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, you say that "Google returns 106,000 hits for 'educated at home,' so it's fairly common." But that is only about 5% of the frequency of use of "homeschooled", which generates nearly 2 million hits on Google. So "educated at home" is not "fairly common" relative to its counterpart. It is also meaningless to define ''where'' someone is taught rather than focusing on the approach.

::: It is overly literal and materialistic to define homeschooling in terms of the physical location (e.g., at home) rather than the approach (e.g., parental control). Shall we next define [[Christian]]s based on where they pray? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Googling "homeschooled" without the quotes I get 1.6 million hits (which includes variations such as ''homeschooling'' and ''homeschool''). Googling "homeschooled ''with'' the quotes, I get 1.49 million hits. So the percentage is actually about 7. But I wasn't trying to claim that it's the most common use of the term. I was pointing out that your claim that "Nobody uses the phrase" is incorrect. If 7% is "nobody", then I guess nobody gets homeschooled, as the figure there is "only" 2%. But clearly 2% still amounts to a large figure, and 7% is also quite sufficient to say that the term is commonly used, even if "homeschooled" is considerably more common.
:::: As I said, the previous definition focused on "where" and "the physical location", except for it being a positive "at home" it was a negative "not at school". So my change did not change that the definition was location-based. However, the new definition that you've now provided is a good one, and I'm reasonably happy with that (it could be tweaked a bit. For example, it links to the American definition of 'public school' rather than the broader 'school').
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some thoughts - I use the term "educated at home" quite frequently, as it can include quite a number of educational approaches, only some of which I'd call "homeschooling". In some states in the USA, various terms have very specific meaning. As an example, in Pennsylvania, students can be "privately tutored", "receiving homebound instruction", "enrolled in a cyber-charter school", or "enrolled in a home education program". All four of these kinds of students are educated at home - that is, they get much of their education in their own home. Some folks call all four kinds "homeschooled". However, in two of these cases the students are public school students (educated at taxpayer expense, with school-provided curriculum). Many people would not consider this "homeschooling", at least in the traditional sense, especially as the parents have little say in the curriculum content, which has to meet state standards. Students can be "privately tutored" by their parent or a hired tutor - for various reasons, some would consider only the former to be "homeschooling". "Home education programs" create a broad umbrella which can encompas a variety of approaches. For example, home educated students can enroll in homeschool co-ops - essentially "schools for homeschoolers", and may actually do little if any of their learning in their own home. In some other states, no one is, legally speaking, homeschooling - they are all enrolled in private schools, some of which are so small as to have only students from a single family. With the rise of publicly-run and publicly-funded internet-based schools, people are being more careful about how they use the term "homeschooling". We do not want the general public to assume that anyone who is homeschooling is doing so at significant taxpayer expense, as that could result in an unacceptable level of government oversight and control, so we must be careful with our terminology. It's tricky stuff.
:::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that the list of arguably homeschooled people stretches the definition of homeschooling beyond my recognition (as a homeschooling mom). [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] makes a good case that Dickens was not homeschooled (lack of education does not IMHO equal homeschooling, as discussed previously with George Washington Carver). I also think Joan of Arc was not homeschooled - her mother taught her prayers and household skills, as most mothers have taught their daughters for centuries, but there is no evidence she gave any academic instruction. But [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it's your sandbox, so your say goes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto ban on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The government of California has said they will not enforce it, but to have it on the books begs a time when the government may not be as friendly and could decide to crack down. They didn't allow homeschooling per se, but did it's equivalent by saying a special license was necessary to teach. Since homeschoolers score higher on standardized tests than their public school counterparts, it is especially troubling to see efforts made to curtail it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, Learn Together! I didn't read it from a primary source, I read it from someone who regurgitated it for me. They said that that they would require extensive training/licencing to be a homeschool teacher, which would essentially kill the movement. The article I read didn't say that CA wasn't going to enforce the ruling (because that would make for a significantly less interesting article for a libertarian newsletter!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, let's look at your examples, several of whom would not be described as "great mathematicians"; others in your list who were [[homeschooled]]; and still more who were schooled but achieved despite it. Spell out the schooling of each of your examples and you'll find that nearly all of them fall in one of the categories I just identified, and hence my reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That last category ("were schooled but achieved despite it") is of people who were ''not'' homeschooled. Correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, you are literally correct, but figuratively that category reinforces the thesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: How does "people who were educated in a regular shool and did well" (to rephrase it) support the thesis? (The phrase "despite it" presumes what the thesis is trying to demonstrate, so is a circular argument.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::Right, so let's have a look at the first criterion. In other words, "several of whom would not be described as great mathematicians". Actually, I don't think that's my job. I think if you want to make a statement claiming that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled, you need to prove it. '''You''' need to identify exactly who you would classify as a "great mathematician" and name them all: or have you already done that? What are your criteria for great mathematicians? Then '''you''' need to identify what percentage of those were homeschooled. '''Then''' you can assert that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. Now: "others in your list who were homeschooled". Again, it's a meaningless statement because you have never defined exactly what constitutes a homeschooled person - how many years they need to have been homeschooled - and when people have asked on this talk page, you haven't answered. Next: "still more who were schooled but achieved despite it". Hmmm... so you're making the assumption that because they were high achievers but attended school, they must have achieved '''despite''' their education? And you're using that justify the contention that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Which means that those who achieved highly did so despite their education? Which means that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Where does the circular nature of that argument end? Can I reiterate: I think that homeschooling is great if people are prepared to do it, and I think that you personally have done a lot of good things in terms of homeschooling. But I don't think it helps our conservative cause if we make silly hyperbolic statements all over the place in a futile gesture to stick it up to the liberals/atheists. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: PeterS, our list of homeschoolers includes many of the greatest mathematicians. Please read it. Your list does not disprove the statement that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. I invited you to spell out the schooling of those in your list (as I have done for those homeschooled), but so far you've declined to do so. So your objection does not persuade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Andrew, I have read the list. But "many of the greatest mathematicians" is a different statement from "nearly every great mathematician". "Many" is completely different from "nearly every". "Many" is fairly uncontroversial, because it doesn't directly imply proportionality - it could mean a majority, or it could mean a sizeable minority, or it could mean some arbitrary proportion that you specify. "Nearly every" implies a sizeable majority, probably somewhere in the region of 90-95% - I'm being arbitrary here, but "nearly every" would, in the English language, be somewhere close to 100%. Now, until you can tell us what a "great mathematician" is, and list all those that you classify as great mathematicians, you cannot say that almost 100% of great mathematicians were homeschooled. If a student came to me with an essay saying something like "nearly every person killed in the Reign of Terror was an aristocrat", I would underline the statement, ask in the page margin for a citation of the number of people killed in the Terror, ask for a citation of the number of aristocrats killed in the Terror, and ask them to justify why that may have been the case (based on a historical interpretation). Your statement does not match any of these rather non-exhaustive criteria, and it'd be interesting if you could address this. On to the second part of your question: citations for my names. It should not be my job to find citations to help to prove or disprove your unproven statement. And I ask that before you try to pick apart my examples and set arbitrary criteria, you address what I've just said in this paragraph and my previous statements. But I'll do this anyway.
:::* '''Isaac Newton''' - accounts vary, but all acknowledge that he received a formal education in at least one school. According to this source, [http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm], he was educated at King's School, Grantham. According to this source, [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] he was educated at Free Grammar School, Grantham. Despite the inconsistency in the name, we can conclude that whichever school(s) he attended, he did attend school for most of his childhood. This source [http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html] tells us that while he spent years out of school, he was not homeschooled during that time: indeed, it was felt that "he did not need an education". Without even requiring criteria, I think we can conclude that the development of Calculus is enough to make him a "great mathematician", not to mention these things called the laws of motion...
:::* '''Leonhard Euler''' - this source [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Leonhard%20Euler] tells us that he went to a low quality school, but the fact stands: he attended school during that time, even if he self-taught and received tutoring at the same time. But even if you choose to disagree with my contention, it doesn't change my objections, noted in all my above comments. Anyway, Euler = great mathematician, no contest, even without criteria.
:::* '''George Pólya''' - [http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/polya/biography.htm] says it all. Again, criteria are a problem, because you have never specified any, but Pólya is one of the world's foremost modern contributors to mathematical logic and combinatorics through elements such as the Pólya enumeration theorem and his four principles of mathematical proofs/problem solving.
:::* '''Carl Friedrich Gauss''' - this source [http://www.mathsong.com/cfgauss/Dunnington/1927/] tells us that he was educated from the age of seven. Case closed. That page also details his mathematical achievements very well in areas such as number theory in particular.
:::* '''John Venn''' - [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Venn.html]: went straight through Cholmley's and Islington. End of story. As for being a great mathematician... ever used a Venn diagram?
:::* '''Bernoulli family''' - it is much more difficult to find evidence for the Bernoulli family - it is a pattern that people would either be taught at home or sent to a local school before moving onto more prestigious pursuits in secondary school or university. Obviously it's difficult to be consistent in researching across a cross-generational family. I'll gladly ignore this one.
:::* '''Pierre de Fermat''' - he self-taught mathematics [http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Fermat-e.htm], but that came once he had already studied jurisprudence at university and become a councillor. This source [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html] tells us that he did indeed receive a primary and secondary education. This source confirms that he was probably schooled at a Franciscan monastery [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html]. And he was great; no matter what criteria you set.
:::* '''Johannes Kepler''' - this source [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kepler.html] tells us that although he helped in his grandfather's inn, he attended a local school and then a seminary. Kepler did of course achieve extraordinary things in astronomy, physics and mathematics including things such as positing the Kepler conjecture (which will probably become a theorem).
:::{{unsigned|PeterS}}

:: OK, your list of great mathematicians who were not homeschooled is dwindling fast. Working backwards, Kepler evidently was educated while helped at his relative's inn, and he isn't considered a great mathematician anyway. Fermat was self-taught in mathematics. The Bernouilli family almost certainly handed down their expertise through homeschooling, and you've conceded dropping them. Venn was not a great mathematician.

:: We're left with only four: Newton, Euler, Polya, and Gauss. I'll check them out now. It may be that a few of them were not homeschooled, which is why the claim is not that every great mathematician was homeschooled, but that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. But I'm curious to investigate the education of these four.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Newton apparently did not attend school until age 10, making him another homeschooler. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::The fact that Newton did not attend school until the age of 10 does not make him a homeschooler. Indeed the source you cited says nothing about what his education was before Free Grammar School, if he had one. A homeschooling education seems unlikely, as the source says that Newton's grandfather, whom he was living with, practically ignored Newton, and that Newton hated his mother and step-father. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 23:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Andrew Schlafly, you claim to be an expert in everything yet you are totally incapable of answering a simple request of another person is only trying to improve your encyclopaedia. I have spent several screenfuls of this discussion page trying to ask you two '''very simple questions''', which shouldn't be too difficult whether the answerer is homeschooled or not. (1) '''What is your definition of a great mathematician?''' and (2) '''What exactly constitutes homeschooling?''' Your page does neither. Under your (highly elusive) criteria, spending a couple of years at home while of primary school age is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, receiving private tutoring while simultaneously attending school daily is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, a mathematician is great only if you say so, because under your criteria, Johannes Kepler and John Venn cease to become a great mathematician. Schlafly, this encyclopaedia will only live up to its name - Conservapedia - when it becomes an accurate reflection of a conservative viewpoint. At the moment, its Schlaflipedia: if you don't want to answer a reasonable question, you block your ears. That's also why you lock Conservapedia from editing when there aren't sysops around to jump on people who are trying to improve articles. You are driving away conservatives who want to make a difference but can't because Sleep-ly (grab a German dictionary if you don't get the pun) doesn't want his personal authority challenged. I am a conservative on every issue - foreign policy, economic policy, social policy et al - but that won't keep me at Conservapedia. You are harming the good work of real conservatives who deal in facts and proofs. I should note that I don't expect this comment to be here tomorrow; I expect that it will be "archived" in the rubbish bin, along with my user account. "Godspeed" to anyone who ever tries to object to Schlafly's perverse logic and warped ideas. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: PeterS, your comments are becoming increasingly long-winded, incoherent and insulting. Get to the point succinctly and politely, and I'll respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time. By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician," nor is one necessary for such a term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you've just conceded his point. If you don't define what constitutes a "great mathematician" then you can not define the set of "great mathematicians" therefore you can not legitimately claim that "nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled" be cause it is completely unquantifiable. Like-wise, you refuse to define what constitutes "homeschooled". For you, it appears to mean anyone who ever learned anything outside of a traditional public school system education from K-12 and college... but this ignores the fact that such traditional structure has not been commonplace since the dawn of history. Many of the examples you give are from several hundred years ago when this structure was not in plaace in the manner it is to day, yet you conflate any kind of home learning in that time period with homescholling as it is today... the two are not necessarily equivalent. You want them to be, in order to push your ideology. Also, discounting any example given as either "not a great mathematician" or labelling them "homeschooled" because they have some minor period of time that they were not traditionally schooled seems a prime example of either conservative deceit or deliberate ignorance. And, in case you are actually interested in true facts, and a quantifiable definition of great mathematicians... here's at least one list of the 100 greatest per Mathematics Teacher magazine from 1962: afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~flora/100.html You might note that Kepler is among the names listed. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Taking a look at the first 10 names on the list:
*Newton - not homeschooled
*Leibnitz - not homeschooled
*Lagrange - self taught
*Euler - attended schooler and studied under Bernoulli
*Laplace - not homeschooled
*Euclid - unkown, though he did probably attend Plato's Academy
*Gauss - not homeschooled
*Archimedes - his schooling is also unknown
*Descartes - not homeschooled
*Cardano - homeschooled
:So 5 of the top 10 were definitely not homeschooled. One (Cardano) definitely was, one's (Lagrange's) status depends on how you define homeschooling, one (Euler) had both simultaneously, and two are unknown. Do you really want to continue the claim that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You don't say, but perhaps your "list" is from the 1962 ranking by "Mathematics Teacher." Nearly all the entries are (oddly) prior to the 19th century, and it's likely that most of the referenced individuals were homeschooled. I've already checked Newton, as explained above, and he did not enter a school under after age 10. So I don't find anything credible about your statements. If you want to provide details about the schooling of those to support a claim they were not homeschooled, then we can look at your detail. Otherwise, your objection is not persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::If you really count ''being schooled at home until only about fourth or fifth grade and then speding the rest of his schooling years being taught in formal schools'' as homeschooling (which seems to be a poor definition), then yes, Newton was homeschooled. However, even in modern times, alegbra isn't even taught that young, so how much math schooling Newton could have received before the age of 10 is questionable. As for the others:
::*Leibnitz: "At the age of seven, Leibniz entered the Nicolai School in Leipzig"[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html]
::*Laplace: "Laplace attended a Benedictine priory school in Beaumont-en-Auge, as a day pupil, between the ages of 7 and 16." [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Laplace.html]
::*Gauss: "At the age of seven, Carl Friedrich Gauss started elementary school" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Gauss.html]
::*Descartes: "Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Descartes.html]
:::And while we have been providing sources, you have yet to provide a source showing that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 15:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Our entry has numerous examples of great mathematicians who were homeschooled. Have you even read it yet???

:::: For all the bluster by critics, we are down to only four great mathematicians who may not have been homeschooled: Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes. But even your description of those four are not persuasive, and raise more questions than they answer. By age 7 or 8, great mathematicians are often quite a bit along already in their skills. And what did these four mathematicians do after they entered school? Laplace, for example, was apparently taught mathematics in a special way by his uncle in connection with the school. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-5572(194902)2%3A33%3A303%3C1%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::First of all, I highly resent the use of the word bluster. Second of all, you've forgotten Euler, Polya, Kepler, and Venn, mentioned above. Third, here are more of from the list of the top 100:
::::*Legendre: Went to college in Paris, before that schooling unstated [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Legendre.html]
::::*Monge: attended Oragion college before going to Lyons at 16 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Monge.html]
::::*D'Alembert: attended private school, then attended Collège des Quatre Nations [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/D'Alembert.html]
::::*Fourier: first studied at Pallais's school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier.html]
::::*Napier: homeschooled until age of 13 after (interestingly enough) his uncle sent his father a letter: "I pray you, sir, to send your son John to school; over to France or Flanders; for he cannot learn well at home" [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Napier.html]
::::*Viete: attended school in Fontenay-le-Comte [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Viete.html]
::::*Maclaurin: his family moved to Dumbarton specifically for the attendence of school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Maclaurin.html]
::::*Cavalieri: studied at a Jesuit monestary and the University of Pisa [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cavalieri.html]
::::*Wallis: attended school in Ashford and Tenterden [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wallis.html]
::::*Tartaglia: attended school from the age of four [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia.html]
::::*Poncet: attended Lycee Imperial [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Victor_Poncelet]
::::*Chasles: attended Lycee Imperial [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Chasles.html]
::::*Cremona: educated at Ginnasio in Pavia [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cremona.html]
::::*Boscovich: attended Ragusinum starting at age 9 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boscovich.html]
::::*Lambert: attended school in Mulhouse [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lambert.html]
::::*Barrow: attended Charterhouse and Felstead [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Barrow.html]
:::::These are just ones whose non-homeschooled education can be confirmed. This is also only from the top 50 of this one list. Many of the top 50 not mentioned weren't necessarily homeschooled either. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking back, others and I have listed 24 mathematicians not homeschooled (Barrow, Boscovich, Cavalieri, Chasles, Cremona, D'Alembert, Descartes, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Kepler, Lambert, Laplace, Legrende, Leibnitz, Maclaurin, Monge, Napier, Polya, Poncet, Tartaglia, Venn, Viete, Wallis). Your article lists 11 who were homeschooled (Cauchy, Chebyshev, Erdos, Fermat, Galois, Hamilton, Jacobi, Mandelbrot, Pascal, Poincare, Riemann) (though I might have missed one or two) [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 20:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Were you unable to provide details about your four mathematicians (Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes) as discussed above? It seems you're now resorting to quantity rather than quality. I've already debunked several claims among your new list of 24, and at least half of them fail to qualify as "great" mathematicians. Unless you can back up your claim with respect to the four mentioned above, I'm going to move on confident that the great mathematicians were almost all homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::"By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician,"" are your own words. So why can't I call them great mathematicians? I don't have a definition either, but I think all of them are great, and I certainly think a publication entitled "Mathematics Teacher" is more qualified than you to determine who qualifies as great. Of Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss, and Descartes, only for Laplace did you provide any evidence against formal education being their primary source of education, while I have sources that outright state that they attended a formal school of some kind. Also, I looked at your source for Laplace and I can't see beyond the first page, which states merely that Laplace's uncle was on the staff of his school and kindled his interest in mathematics, not that his uncle actually taught him in a special form. My previous citations for their education still stand. If you have any real proof that their education was still homeschooling of some sort after they entered a formal school, please enlighten me. Also, if you have debunked some of my claims, would you be so kind as to show some proof for those as well? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, ZTak, I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't provided a single mathematician with evidence that he was never homeschooled. I've provided in this entry countless examples of great mathematicians who were. I'll take a look at your other three examples, but am confident that nearly all of them were homeschooled also. A mathematician is unlikely to develop to greatness without the head start, independence, encouragement and flexibility that homeschooling uniquely provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Now you're moving the goalposts. I have to prove they were '''never''' homeschooled? That's a universal negative. I can't ever prove that. That would be like asking me to prove that none of them were ever abducted by aliens who fed knowledge directly into their brain. I can't prove that such abudctions never happened. I can prove, which I did, that their main education was at some sort of formal school. I proved that for Legendre, Monge, D'Alembert, Fourier, Napier, Viete, Maclaurin, Cavalieri, Wallis, Tartaglia, Poncet, Chasles, Cremona, Boscovich, Lambert, and Barrow. Finally, you still have yet to prove your statement that Laplace was specially educated by his uncle. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I can qualify too, eh? I wrote a theorem for [[Synthetic Division]]--which had many, many corollaries--and I was "fake schooled" up to 2nd grade mathematics to substitute for missing the preschool deadline. ("fake school" is what I called homeschooling at that age). -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFK]] 22:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Opinions ==

This article voices personal opinions more so than fact with a conservative point of view, directly in line with the Conservapedia Commandments. Opinions? I can find examples in the text if you would like. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sufiah Yusof ==

Homeschooled prodigy Sufiah Yusof, who went to Oxford at 13, has been found working as a prostitute ten years later. Will this mentioned in the article? Doubt it. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-human-cost-of-trying-to-make-geniuses/2008/04/04/1207249453810.html] [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Parents who send a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college should have their heads examined. Your link supports that decision as the cause of this tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[University of Oxford]] is a "liberal college"? I see that it is also "One of the most influential universities in history...". At least that's what the Conservapedia article says. Fancy that! Pretty good going for a mere liberal college. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:38, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes on both points, and there's no contradiction there. Hello, Oxford is [[liberal]] today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Hello. On what basis do you say that? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:07, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, time for [[liberal denial]], I see. If you can identify a half-dozen [[conservative]] professors at Oxford, then I'd be astonished. I'm confident you can't. Meanwhile, observe all the [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] there, and how students like Christopher Hitchens became Trotskyists while at Oxford. [http://www.experiencefestival.com/political_views].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Schlafly, when you become a qualified psychologist, then perhaps you will be in a position to make your insensitive and blasé judgements about this case. I challenge you to find a single reputable psychologist who will tell you that Sufiah Yusof's present condition is caused not by pushy parenting, "hot house" homeschooling, or excessive media exposure (or a combination of the three) but instead caused by attending an institution which you claim is a hotbed for "liberal deceit". Or perhaps you'd instead like to play a game of Schlafly word bingo and throw in mentions of [[homosexuality]], [[intelligent design]], [[liberal hypocrisy]], [[liberal hysteria]] and [[liberal myths]] in your next post. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Peter, you're clueless about the dangers of sending a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college. If you think it takes a credentialed psychologist to explain that, then you have a lot to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, I can't think what came over me: for a moment, I thought that facts and evidence were actually valued in this place. The issue here isn't that she was sent to a ''liberal'' college at age 13. It is that she was sent to a college '''at all''' at age 13. It is that she was hot-housed (a form of extremely rigorous homeschooling) and driven mercilessly by a pushy and overambitious father. It is that her father also did everything he could to overwhelm her with media attention. You boast on the Homeschooling page about people who went to university at age 13 or 14 and then became great mathematicians or philosophers or whatever. But the simple fact is that large numbers of homeschooled prodigies do '''not''' reach such pinnacles and instead have their lives ruined by the reckless practices of their parents. You're right. It doesn't take a credentialed psychologist to explain this scenario: Sufiah Yusof herself describes her experience at the hands of '''her parents''' (that's right, '''not''' Oxford's oppressive liberal regime) as a living hell and says that she has "enough of 15 years of physical and emotional abuse".[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/child-prodigy-working-as-a-prostitute/2008/04/04/1207249460601.html?page=2] Happy now? (I doubt it.) [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:09, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Difficulties ==

This article looks pretty strange to me, since it includes people who lived centuries ago, such as Leonardo Da Vinci. But my understanding of the homeschooling movement indicates that it exists only in contrast to public schooling... and widespread public schooling is a much more recent innovation. In the United States, for example, public schooling began shortly before the twentieth century.
Certainly many of these individuals belong on the page, but it seems disingenuous to claim that Benjamin Franklin was "homeschooled," for example, since at that time such was still mostly the norm. This makes it quite distinct from the modern era, wherein homeschooling is very unusual (speaking statistically, not as a value judgment).
By the same token, I wouldn't call him "public schooled," either, naturally. But this article blurs the line between modern homeschooling (a distinct "movement" in opposition to national institutionalized public schools) and the simple sparcity of formal schooling in the centuries before government public schools. Given the fact that the owner of this site, Andy Schlafly, is a well-known homeschooling advocate, indeed even teaching homeschooling classes on the site, and his personal view is endorsed by most of the sysops on the site, I think this gives the appearance (if not the fact) of trying to deliberately smudge the dividing line between the two eras. Such an appearance or fact should be corrected.

Another criticism might be made in that the list of "homeschooled" individuals is very liberal with that assignation. I would suggest a clarifying sentence at the fore of the list, mentioning what the requirements for the list are... currently they are simply described as being "educated at home," which is a very broad statement. It should be clarified that these are individuals who have spent any portion of their youth or young adulthood being educated at home, since many of them spent years in formal education.
Please consider each of the above points separately on their own merit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments, though thoughtful, seem to reject the definition of homeschooling:

::Homeschooling is a movement in which students receive education from a parent or guardian, or instructors acting under the direction of a parent or guardian, rather than from certified teachers in a formal school setting like a public school.

:Though you implicitly seem to reject this definition, you don't propose an alternative. Note that this definition applies whenever a formal school setting existed, which goes back at least to [[ancient Greece]], before Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::As I note, there exists a generally understood distinction in most people's minds between the modern homeschooling "movement," as it is described on the page, and the previous lack of public schools. If you request a different definition, then I would suggest something such as "Homeschooling is the modern movement in which students... etc.", and then the examples of individuals "homeschooled" previous to a certain date (1850 or so would seem reasonable, as that was about when public schooling came into being in America to the best of my knowledge) could be moved to a different section. This new section could have the heading connecting the modern homeschooling movement with the tradition of home schooling which existed prior to the alternative of public schooling. This would allow all of the names and such to remain on the page, and keep that connection which reflects positively on homeschooling (the clear intent) without being quite so absurd. Would those changes satisfy you?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree with TomMoore, and am very disappointed that Andy has ignored the previous discussion on this page and reverted to terminology that was changed because of these very concerns, and after discussion. The article also says that "homeschooling began in the 1960s", and whilst I don't know the exact date, or even the exact decade, I would think that the 1960s would be about right. So people educated outside schools centuries or even millennia ago cannot properly be called "homeschooled".
::: (Actually, since writing that, I've been done a little research. "Dr. Raymond S Moore, the inspiration to many homeschoolers of recent generations" started homeschooling in the 1940s. The book "No More Public School", published in 1972, is described as a "Pioneering how-to book about homeschooling, from the days when homeschooling had a tenuous legal status and the term "homeschooling" hadn't been coined".)
::: If the article is meant to be about the modern movement, then those older examples don't belong here. If the page is meant to be about people educated outside the school system, then the title and content should be altered to reflect that, and the term "homeschooling" should be dropped for those older examples.
::: It is true that schools have existed as far back as ancient Greece (at least), but that doesn't mean that they have always existed since then, nor in all societies. For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich. In other words, for much of history, being educated at home (or etc.) was the normal way that people got educated, and was not the exception, and was certainly not called "homeschooling".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it not the case that homeschooling in the contemporary sense exists in opposition to, or any rate as distinct from, 'compulsory' state education? One can only 'opt out' of a system if that system exists in the first place; and therefore one could say homeschooling o0nly became a valid concept once education of children was made compulsory by the state. Thus in the UK 'homeschooling' would only be a realistic concept after the Education Act of 1871 which decreed that all children should receive elementary education. That is not to say, of course, that children were not educated at home before then; but the notion of 'homeschooling' as a 'political' act or act of resistance against the perceived shortcomings (educational, moral, religious) of the official education system can only date from that point. [[User:Mediaevalist|Mediaevalist]] 07:14, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.

::::: Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "Modern" schooling was begun, I believe, by Christian churches. "Sunday School" was not religious education for children while the adults listened to the sermon, but "secular" education on the only day that the children were not at work in the mines, fields, or factories. Eventually, this church-sponsored education was taken over by governments, but prior to the churches doing this, there was little if anything in the way of formal education. Ancient Greece may have been different; I don't know, but I wasn't trying to suggest that schooling started off only for the rich; I actually meant that this likely came ''later'' than Greece, although even in Greece I ''suspect'' that it was not for everyone.
:::::: But more to the point is what Mediaevalist said above, that homeschooling is an 'opting out' of the official education system, and as such ''can't'' exist until there is an official education system.
:::::: Your change to the homeschooling ''movement'' starting in the 1960s doesn't help: The first line of the article defines homeschooling ''as the movement''. Previously the article said (in effect), "Homeschooling is a movement... Homeschooling began in the 1960s" Now, it says (in effect) "Homeschooling is a movement...that began in the 1960s". So pre-1960s examples are still not "homeschooling".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Good point about the flaw in the definition. Homeschooling should not be defined as a movement, and I've deleted that reference. There is a "homeschooling movement." Just as a pacifist does not have to belong to an antiwar movement, a homeschooler need not belong to any movement.

::::::: Homeschooling does not require "opting out" and to limit the definition to that is to relegate it perpetually to the fringe. Homeschooling does typically entail rejecting a formalized and popularized schooling system, but as already noted such systems have existed at least since [[ancient Greece]]. Surely the ancient [[Hebrews]] and [[Christians]] also had church-based schooling systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I don't particularly agree with modern homeschooling and all those older examples being lumped in together, but I have to admit that the article is probably more consistent and less objectionable now.
:::::::: I guess that the answer to whether or not the ancient Hebrews and Christians had church-based schooling systems depends on what you mean by "schooling", but I think the answer is essentially "no", they didn't. That is, there might well have been ''some'' things that children learnt in church, but as far as I know, there were no formalised schools run by anyone for the most part, for thousands of years. Almost all education was done directly by parents, and even this was pretty limited, with the result that most could not even read and write. Sure, no doubt they learnt various life skills, but even this would not have been in any sort of formalised schooling in the home, let along in schools. It was probably more in the form akin to apprenticeships, that is, children learnt their parent's trade by helping their parents in their work.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I appreciate your first paragraph, but must disagree with your second. I'm sure the ancient [[Hebrews]] had schooling just as the [[ancient Greeks]] did, and probably many other ancient civilizations did also. How else could Pharisees and other members of the priestly class be trained?

::::::::: There is a modern (and [[liberal]]) tendency to look down on our ancient ancestors. All indications, however, are that they were ''smarter'' than people today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindented)
This is a minor improvement, Mr. Schlafly, but I still think the problem exists. Let me address your replies.

''Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.''

That is not necessarily true. I would argue that homeschooling as a concept, as it is understood by the vast majority of people, would be construed as the deliberate choice to teach a child at home as specifically opposed to public schooling. This latter part of the definition is the one missing from this article's approach to the matter, since most people (as indicated here) disagree with the idea that anyone in history taught at home was "homeschooled" in the sense in which the idea is understood today. I think this is the real substantive point, in fact, behind this disagreement. You should take note, I think, of that fact that both I (as liberal as they come) and PJR (as conservative as they come, and your most intelligent sysop) are neither of us opposed to homeschooling, and yet we feel that this article is misleadingly favorable to the practice, whereas you (a strong advocate) feel it is not. Perhaps you might want to step back from this one, and a few other outside opinions on the matter?

: Tom, you overrely on your perceptions of what others think (see point 11 in [[liberal style]]). Homeschooling is not defined in terms of [[public school]]. The view of homeschoolers towards public school is varied, and public schools themselves have changed throughout history and are different in different locations today. Homeschooling is a parental approach to child-rearing that would exist regardless of the form taken by public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I assume from your aspersion that you are declining to take a step back from this, despite the fact that you are extraordinarily partisan to one side in this discussion? That is somewhat disappointing.

::It seems to me that it is only reasonable to rely on "perceptions of what others think" when it comes to interpreting the meaning of words. Words mean only what they are agreed-upon to mean; this is why meanings shift over time in a sometimes-dramatic manner (such as "geek"). "Homeschooling" to you seems to mean "any alternative schooling by non-certified individuals at home." That is a very reasonable interpretation, and I am not saying it is ''wrong.'' I am just saying that the vast majority of people specifically identify homeschooling with the more modern "movement" (as it was put previously), not with your broader definition, and that should be taken into account. Or, if you want to change the way people think about it, you should specifically contradict the colloquial definition and state more explicitly the difference between the customary understanding and your usage.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Tom, you're not even quoting me correctly and still don't seem to understand the essence of homeschooling. Please expand your horizons and get to know some homeschooling families, and read about those who have homeschooled in history. Then we can chat again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I thought I was quoting you adequately, and apologize if there was some error in the above quote ("perceptions of what others think"). It was copy-and-pasted from your own words, though.

::::If the definition of homeschooling I give above is also inaccurate, that is possible, but it is not a quote, it was an attempt to sum up for use in our dialog. Please substitute your whole definition above, if that helps.

::::I am not sure what you mean about "expanding my horizons;" I was good friends with an enormous family that homeschooled all their children and then sent them to the University of Stuebenville. They were about as devout a set of devotees to homeschooling as can be imagined. I know them and their views, as well as your own, quite well. That's why I opened this conversation, to address a gross shortcoming in the article.

::::The "homeschooled in history" item is the crux of the issue here, and so I strongly urge you not to dismiss me as you have. My concerns are stated clearly and substantively several times: I feel that the article blurs the divide between the commonly-held perspective of what "homeschooling" is, and a historical although perhaps technically accurate analogue, and that this blurring is encyclopedic. It is easy to brush me aside with personal remarks about how I need to "expand my horizons," but clearly less easy to address my concerns.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:03, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Tom, I'm not going to spend all night discussing this with you, and your account will be blocked if you just talk here. You misquoted the definition of homeschooling and seem blinded by your contact with an unusual single homeschooling family. If you continue to think that people today are very different from people hundreds of years ago, and homeschool for very different reasons, you're wrong. Meet more homeschoolers and read more history; you can do both on this site. Then let's chat further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I have made substantive edits tonight, such as to [[Alice and Wonderland]], [[Beowulf]], and [[Mind/body]], so I am not worried about being blocked for "just talk[ing] here," since I am not doing so.

::::::I am sorry if it appears as though I misquoted the definition. As I said scrupulously above, you may substitute the whole of your definition if you would like, since I was simply quoting it as I referred to it, rather than suggesting it as some sort of change.

::::::Please, do not continue to speculate as to my personal knowledge of homeschooling. That is not the ''only'' homeschooling family I know, I was mentioning them only to let you know that your assertion that I was not familiar with any was entirely wrong. I am an Eagle Scout, and many of those in my troop were homeschooled. I assure you, I am fully familiar with the concepts and people involved, and it doesn't change my considered opinion of the article at all. How would it, after all?

::::::I really am only trying to get a firm conclusion on the matter to which I have referred you: the discrepancy between your definition of homeschooling, which includes all such schooling throughout history, and the common understanding which generally is understood as referring to the modern movement. Please do not block me by way of avoiding this matter, I am quite serious and think I have presented a very compelling case. If you personally do not have time (since you say you don't want to spend all night on it), you have numerous other sysops. Ordinarily, of course, I would just make the edits myself, but it is pretty clear that on topics like this no one is allowed to edit anything that might be disagreed with, without checking with an authority figure first. Perhaps one of the other active sysops - Conservative, Croicite, Ed Poor, or the like - might also weigh in, since Phillip J Rayment concurred with me earlier along with another user?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

''Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.''

But that type of decision is not being described in the article. If you want to broaden it to include that, I think it would be appropriate to do so. The key would be specificity, then; the article should be changed to reflect that this is a list of people who have "eschew[ed] common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning", very different from what most people think when they read the article currently (which presents the matter as synonymous with modern homeschooling).

: Modern homeschoolers are no different from ancient ones in rejecting formal schools. We define the term homeschooling and I doubt many would argue with it. The people listed satisfy that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::The people do satisfy the definition, but I disagree that many would not argue with the blurring between modern homeschooling and historical "homeschooling" that is engaged in. At the very least, your change in the customary usage should be acknowledged.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Consider, for example, the fact that a large proportion of wealthy children were "homeschooled" in Europe for centuries, in the sense that they were tutored in their home by professionals. This was the norm for the wealthy, yet your definition includes such as being "homeschooled," contradictory to the common perception of the matter.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 15:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: No, the definition is clear that homeschooling rejects the approach of "certified" teachers (or its equivalent). Wealthy children in Europe who were schooled in a formal setting by certified teachers (or its equivalent) should not be included; those taught by their parents, relatives, or non-certified teachers (or its equivalent) should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree, the definition is clear, but it is only natural to assume that when one is speaking of "homeschooling" that one is speaking of what most people know of with the concept, as explained above. At the very least, explicate further. Otherwise at least the appearance of an attempt to deceive exists, even if that is not the case.

::And again, I would urge you to step back from this and let other sysops handle it; it's only appropriate.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pornography ==

I'm deleting the reference to homeschooling being remedy for pornogrpahy addiction. I read a study earlier this month which showed that there was actually a higher chance of a child becoming involved in pornography and other unsavoury internet based activities if home schooled. Of course the study applied to equally supervised children, which is, of course, rarely the case in homeschooling. Still rather than promote complacancy and information which is empirically wrong I felt the need to delete the reference. I can find the name of the study if anyone needs it, but as far as I know there is no digital reference. {{unsigned|ObamaSharma}}

== To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" ==

I think one of the major disadvantages that is not mentioned in the article (though it is generally touched on) involves a certain kind of social interaction. The article, as it is right now, implies that the social development that homeschooling can stunt is more or less limited to making friends, having conversations, etc. (on top of peer pressure, bullying, intimidation, etc. as mentioned). I feel it is important to include '''Tolerance''', '''Working together in spite of differences''', and '''Compromise to accomplish like goals'''. I think it goes without saying that we all have had to work very closely with people we've disagreed with on almost everything, and elitism (which I never thought to be a characteristic of homeschooling until I came to Conservapedia) can stall progress. I think mentioning parents enrolling their kids in social organizations can satisfy compromise to accomplish like goals, but I question how much the kids would be exposed to other cultures and races, that would develop tolerance, since these organizations often have many class and moral characteristics in common. I know many of the conservative sysops on this page "Don't believe in tolerance when it compromises truth" but I think we can still agree that different races, classes, and faiths can still produce good people that certainly don't deserve being inferior to the stereotypical american WASP. Please keep in mind that I'm not talking about anything other than the physical world, so please take any arguments of what Jesus said or what will happen to their souls if they don't accept Him elsewhere. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

:If public schools were about these things, then I would agree. Unfortunately what you have is positions being forced upon children in the name of 'tolerance'. As long as you agree with them then you're fine. If you don't -- look out. Homeschooling is about allowing children to avoid having a value system pushed upon them from a "community" that has decided it already knows what is right and will tell you to accept the same -- even against your own family. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::That's a good point, and I can concede to it. Could not the argument be made that the value system that the family lives by (which could include racist, elitism, exclusivity, among other things) be more aggressively pushed onto the subordinate child? I find that I'm a little uncomfortable with people who were raised with limited exposure to different ideas and cultures, but I am no expert on the subject, as I'm sure is apparent, which is why I'm speaking here instead of trying to edit the page. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::: Anything can be misused, and certainly homeschooling ''can'' have these problems if it is not done properly, but you seem to be seeing government schools through rose-coloured glasses. When I was in primary school, there was some racism there (although I didn't understand what it was at the time), but I remember none of that from Sunday School and church. Many homeschooling families are Christians, and my point is that they can get many of these social interactions via church and church-related activities, and that's likely to be a better environment for them than a government school environment that often has undesirable values. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:11, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Perhaps I'm simply recalling my own experiences, which were better than most since I attended one of the better elementary schools in my county before finishing elementary and middle school in the fundamental system, and my high school was one of the better schools in the county as well. I suppose it all should be taken on a case by case basis, and my problem then is with the elitism (and in some cases blatant discrimination against public schools) exhibited around Conservapedia instead of having any problems with homeschooling. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 11:46, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Capolavoro046, I read as far as your absurd accusation of "elitism" above. There is nothing about homeschooling or this site that is "elitist" and I suspect that ideology is clouding your opinions here. Maybe you did have a good experience in [[public school]] at some time in the past, but without more information it is impossible to assess that. No one is claiming that every student is ruined by public school, but public school does deprive its students of classroom prayer. As a teacher, I can assure you that such deprivation does have an adverse effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Considering that one of this site's very strong focal points is trying to influence homeschooling, I would say that my "accusations" (though I would describe them as observations) of some people having an elitist view are not absurd at all. For example, the entire list of [professor values] demonstrates the elitist view, as its sole purpose is propaganda against teachers. Do not be so quick to apply a label to everyone that falls into a classification. I think they have a word for that... what is it? Oh yes, stereotyping. To address the depravity of prayer, I disagree passionately with you. Every year in school, we as students were offered a "moment of silence" following the pledge of allegiance (which did not ignore "Under [God]") for prayer, among other things. I feel that you have a very closed-minded view of things, and coming from a SysOp from a site that works so fervently against the media, I feel you use media coverage of incidences in public schools as a crutch, and choose not to look at things on a case by case basis because it could possibly hurt your arguments. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 23:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-05-19T03:05:30Z

Capolavoro046: /* To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" */

[[/archive 1|Archive 1]] (20th March 2008)

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: PeterS, you may be an expert in history, but your logic does not follow. The entry does not care ''why'' someone was homeschooled in listing who was homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I think PeterS has a valid point, at least in his first line. As he points out, the article describes homeschooling as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". So for starters, how many on the list were homeschooled ''in the United States''? Clearly, however, homeschooling is not confined to the U.S., so it's the definition rather than the list that should be changed (as far as my argument goes so far).
:: I don't agree with him that it's not a movement; I think that's probably an apt term. But that raises the next problem with the list. Homeschooling ''as a movement'' is a relatively recent phenomenon, over the last forty years, I would guess. So anybody on that list who was educated at home more than around forty years ago does not fit the definition.
:: There's more that I could say, along the lines of PeterS' second paragraph, but perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Similar to my comment below, this criticism is overly literal. But to play that game, "homeschooling" is the movement, while those who were "homeschooled" is a broader category that can go beyond the movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: My immediate response to that, without thinking through it, is that that might make sense, but if it does, at the very least that distinction should be made clear in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Perhaps the opening part of the article could refer to a general, specific definition of homeschooling. That would clear up some of the conceptual difficulties that become more evident later in the article. '''Then''' you could branch out after that and comment on the "homeschooling movement" in the United States. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: An addendum to my previous post: I still think my dispute with the Dickens example stands. Just because someone does not receive a formal education at a school, it does not mean they were homeschooled. The facts are these: Dickens was educated as long as was financially possible. When his father was jailed, he was sent to work in a factory, like many financially disadvantaged young people at the time. To my knowledge (and the minutiae of the personal histories of English authors are not my strongest point), there is no evidence that his mother actively homeschooled him. Indeed, all the evidence points to his mother being firmly in favour of him working at a boot-blacking factory ''instead of'' getting an education. If you have evidential proof that this was not the case, feel free to cite it. Once again, if you think my argumentation over this is not valid, then you've got to sort out the definitional problem ASAP. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded the introduction to:
* Remove the United States as part of the definition.
* To define homeschooling as being educated "primarily at home", rather than "outside the traditional school system", as the latter could include non-traditional schools. The existing text later in the article expands on "primarily at home", to explain the parts that are not at home.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also changed references to homeschooling in the prominent people list to "educated at home" or "taught at home" (as some entries already were) for all persons whose education preceded the formation of the homeschooling movement. By the way, the entry for Leonardo doesn't actually say that he was taught at home. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nobody uses the phrase "educated at home," Philip. Have you ever heard anyone use it? An encyclopedia should use common and easily understood terminology, first and foremost. "Homeschooled" is the term that is used. Also, I'm not aware of a category that is "outside the traditional school system" but not homeschooled. Homeschooling is not dependent on the ''physical location'', but on the approach. Again, I object to the overly literal and [[materialistic]] approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "educated at home"...
::* I'm not in the habit of noting down every phrase I hear, so in one sense I couldn't say whether I've ever heard it, but I would think that I ''have'' heard it.
::* That's apart from this article, which as I said, already used it, the phrase having been included by Dpbsmith ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=16849]), Hsmom ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151194], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151212], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=155576], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=165607],[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=167430]), and NonXtianConservative ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=219041]).
::* Google returns 106,000 hits for "educated at home", so it's fairly common.
::* And even if none of that was the case, isn't Conservapedia proud of inventing [[Conservapedia terms|new terms]]?
:: "Homeschooled" is one of a number of terms that are used. Another is "taught at home", which was used by none other than one Aschlafly ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=218738])! I've used both those terms to avoid too much repetition.
:: And of course there is the ''reason'' I made those changes, that if homeschooling is defined (correctly, I believe) to be a movement that started in the 1960s, then anybody educated/taught/tutored at home prior to then cannot be said to be "homeschooled". That's not to say that their situation is necessarily quite different, but it does mean that the term itself should not be used of them.
:: "outside the traditional school system" depends on what is meant by "traditional". It could mean schools that allow the students to decide what they learn, for example, or other schools that take a non-traditional approach in any number of ways. It could include parent-controlled Christian schools, as ''traditionally'' schools have been controlled by governments or religious denominations. Yes, those examples are all schools, but they're not necessarily ''traditional'' schools.
:: If "homeschooling" is not dependent (to a fair extent) on the physical location, then why is it called "''home''schooling"? And if it's dependent on the approach, why is it not defined in terms of the approach? In any case, the previous definition was based on physical location, that being "outside ... schools".
:: How is my definition "overly literal"?
:: And how is is "materialistic"?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, you say that "Google returns 106,000 hits for 'educated at home,' so it's fairly common." But that is only about 5% of the frequency of use of "homeschooled", which generates nearly 2 million hits on Google. So "educated at home" is not "fairly common" relative to its counterpart. It is also meaningless to define ''where'' someone is taught rather than focusing on the approach.

::: It is overly literal and materialistic to define homeschooling in terms of the physical location (e.g., at home) rather than the approach (e.g., parental control). Shall we next define [[Christian]]s based on where they pray? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Googling "homeschooled" without the quotes I get 1.6 million hits (which includes variations such as ''homeschooling'' and ''homeschool''). Googling "homeschooled ''with'' the quotes, I get 1.49 million hits. So the percentage is actually about 7. But I wasn't trying to claim that it's the most common use of the term. I was pointing out that your claim that "Nobody uses the phrase" is incorrect. If 7% is "nobody", then I guess nobody gets homeschooled, as the figure there is "only" 2%. But clearly 2% still amounts to a large figure, and 7% is also quite sufficient to say that the term is commonly used, even if "homeschooled" is considerably more common.
:::: As I said, the previous definition focused on "where" and "the physical location", except for it being a positive "at home" it was a negative "not at school". So my change did not change that the definition was location-based. However, the new definition that you've now provided is a good one, and I'm reasonably happy with that (it could be tweaked a bit. For example, it links to the American definition of 'public school' rather than the broader 'school').
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some thoughts - I use the term "educated at home" quite frequently, as it can include quite a number of educational approaches, only some of which I'd call "homeschooling". In some states in the USA, various terms have very specific meaning. As an example, in Pennsylvania, students can be "privately tutored", "receiving homebound instruction", "enrolled in a cyber-charter school", or "enrolled in a home education program". All four of these kinds of students are educated at home - that is, they get much of their education in their own home. Some folks call all four kinds "homeschooled". However, in two of these cases the students are public school students (educated at taxpayer expense, with school-provided curriculum). Many people would not consider this "homeschooling", at least in the traditional sense, especially as the parents have little say in the curriculum content, which has to meet state standards. Students can be "privately tutored" by their parent or a hired tutor - for various reasons, some would consider only the former to be "homeschooling". "Home education programs" create a broad umbrella which can encompas a variety of approaches. For example, home educated students can enroll in homeschool co-ops - essentially "schools for homeschoolers", and may actually do little if any of their learning in their own home. In some other states, no one is, legally speaking, homeschooling - they are all enrolled in private schools, some of which are so small as to have only students from a single family. With the rise of publicly-run and publicly-funded internet-based schools, people are being more careful about how they use the term "homeschooling". We do not want the general public to assume that anyone who is homeschooling is doing so at significant taxpayer expense, as that could result in an unacceptable level of government oversight and control, so we must be careful with our terminology. It's tricky stuff.
:::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that the list of arguably homeschooled people stretches the definition of homeschooling beyond my recognition (as a homeschooling mom). [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] makes a good case that Dickens was not homeschooled (lack of education does not IMHO equal homeschooling, as discussed previously with George Washington Carver). I also think Joan of Arc was not homeschooled - her mother taught her prayers and household skills, as most mothers have taught their daughters for centuries, but there is no evidence she gave any academic instruction. But [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it's your sandbox, so your say goes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto ban on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The government of California has said they will not enforce it, but to have it on the books begs a time when the government may not be as friendly and could decide to crack down. They didn't allow homeschooling per se, but did it's equivalent by saying a special license was necessary to teach. Since homeschoolers score higher on standardized tests than their public school counterparts, it is especially troubling to see efforts made to curtail it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, Learn Together! I didn't read it from a primary source, I read it from someone who regurgitated it for me. They said that that they would require extensive training/licencing to be a homeschool teacher, which would essentially kill the movement. The article I read didn't say that CA wasn't going to enforce the ruling (because that would make for a significantly less interesting article for a libertarian newsletter!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, let's look at your examples, several of whom would not be described as "great mathematicians"; others in your list who were [[homeschooled]]; and still more who were schooled but achieved despite it. Spell out the schooling of each of your examples and you'll find that nearly all of them fall in one of the categories I just identified, and hence my reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That last category ("were schooled but achieved despite it") is of people who were ''not'' homeschooled. Correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, you are literally correct, but figuratively that category reinforces the thesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: How does "people who were educated in a regular shool and did well" (to rephrase it) support the thesis? (The phrase "despite it" presumes what the thesis is trying to demonstrate, so is a circular argument.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::Right, so let's have a look at the first criterion. In other words, "several of whom would not be described as great mathematicians". Actually, I don't think that's my job. I think if you want to make a statement claiming that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled, you need to prove it. '''You''' need to identify exactly who you would classify as a "great mathematician" and name them all: or have you already done that? What are your criteria for great mathematicians? Then '''you''' need to identify what percentage of those were homeschooled. '''Then''' you can assert that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. Now: "others in your list who were homeschooled". Again, it's a meaningless statement because you have never defined exactly what constitutes a homeschooled person - how many years they need to have been homeschooled - and when people have asked on this talk page, you haven't answered. Next: "still more who were schooled but achieved despite it". Hmmm... so you're making the assumption that because they were high achievers but attended school, they must have achieved '''despite''' their education? And you're using that justify the contention that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Which means that those who achieved highly did so despite their education? Which means that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Where does the circular nature of that argument end? Can I reiterate: I think that homeschooling is great if people are prepared to do it, and I think that you personally have done a lot of good things in terms of homeschooling. But I don't think it helps our conservative cause if we make silly hyperbolic statements all over the place in a futile gesture to stick it up to the liberals/atheists. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: PeterS, our list of homeschoolers includes many of the greatest mathematicians. Please read it. Your list does not disprove the statement that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. I invited you to spell out the schooling of those in your list (as I have done for those homeschooled), but so far you've declined to do so. So your objection does not persuade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Andrew, I have read the list. But "many of the greatest mathematicians" is a different statement from "nearly every great mathematician". "Many" is completely different from "nearly every". "Many" is fairly uncontroversial, because it doesn't directly imply proportionality - it could mean a majority, or it could mean a sizeable minority, or it could mean some arbitrary proportion that you specify. "Nearly every" implies a sizeable majority, probably somewhere in the region of 90-95% - I'm being arbitrary here, but "nearly every" would, in the English language, be somewhere close to 100%. Now, until you can tell us what a "great mathematician" is, and list all those that you classify as great mathematicians, you cannot say that almost 100% of great mathematicians were homeschooled. If a student came to me with an essay saying something like "nearly every person killed in the Reign of Terror was an aristocrat", I would underline the statement, ask in the page margin for a citation of the number of people killed in the Terror, ask for a citation of the number of aristocrats killed in the Terror, and ask them to justify why that may have been the case (based on a historical interpretation). Your statement does not match any of these rather non-exhaustive criteria, and it'd be interesting if you could address this. On to the second part of your question: citations for my names. It should not be my job to find citations to help to prove or disprove your unproven statement. And I ask that before you try to pick apart my examples and set arbitrary criteria, you address what I've just said in this paragraph and my previous statements. But I'll do this anyway.
:::* '''Isaac Newton''' - accounts vary, but all acknowledge that he received a formal education in at least one school. According to this source, [http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm], he was educated at King's School, Grantham. According to this source, [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] he was educated at Free Grammar School, Grantham. Despite the inconsistency in the name, we can conclude that whichever school(s) he attended, he did attend school for most of his childhood. This source [http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html] tells us that while he spent years out of school, he was not homeschooled during that time: indeed, it was felt that "he did not need an education". Without even requiring criteria, I think we can conclude that the development of Calculus is enough to make him a "great mathematician", not to mention these things called the laws of motion...
:::* '''Leonhard Euler''' - this source [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Leonhard%20Euler] tells us that he went to a low quality school, but the fact stands: he attended school during that time, even if he self-taught and received tutoring at the same time. But even if you choose to disagree with my contention, it doesn't change my objections, noted in all my above comments. Anyway, Euler = great mathematician, no contest, even without criteria.
:::* '''George Pólya''' - [http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/polya/biography.htm] says it all. Again, criteria are a problem, because you have never specified any, but Pólya is one of the world's foremost modern contributors to mathematical logic and combinatorics through elements such as the Pólya enumeration theorem and his four principles of mathematical proofs/problem solving.
:::* '''Carl Friedrich Gauss''' - this source [http://www.mathsong.com/cfgauss/Dunnington/1927/] tells us that he was educated from the age of seven. Case closed. That page also details his mathematical achievements very well in areas such as number theory in particular.
:::* '''John Venn''' - [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Venn.html]: went straight through Cholmley's and Islington. End of story. As for being a great mathematician... ever used a Venn diagram?
:::* '''Bernoulli family''' - it is much more difficult to find evidence for the Bernoulli family - it is a pattern that people would either be taught at home or sent to a local school before moving onto more prestigious pursuits in secondary school or university. Obviously it's difficult to be consistent in researching across a cross-generational family. I'll gladly ignore this one.
:::* '''Pierre de Fermat''' - he self-taught mathematics [http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Fermat-e.htm], but that came once he had already studied jurisprudence at university and become a councillor. This source [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html] tells us that he did indeed receive a primary and secondary education. This source confirms that he was probably schooled at a Franciscan monastery [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html]. And he was great; no matter what criteria you set.
:::* '''Johannes Kepler''' - this source [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kepler.html] tells us that although he helped in his grandfather's inn, he attended a local school and then a seminary. Kepler did of course achieve extraordinary things in astronomy, physics and mathematics including things such as positing the Kepler conjecture (which will probably become a theorem).
:::{{unsigned|PeterS}}

:: OK, your list of great mathematicians who were not homeschooled is dwindling fast. Working backwards, Kepler evidently was educated while helped at his relative's inn, and he isn't considered a great mathematician anyway. Fermat was self-taught in mathematics. The Bernouilli family almost certainly handed down their expertise through homeschooling, and you've conceded dropping them. Venn was not a great mathematician.

:: We're left with only four: Newton, Euler, Polya, and Gauss. I'll check them out now. It may be that a few of them were not homeschooled, which is why the claim is not that every great mathematician was homeschooled, but that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. But I'm curious to investigate the education of these four.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Newton apparently did not attend school until age 10, making him another homeschooler. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::The fact that Newton did not attend school until the age of 10 does not make him a homeschooler. Indeed the source you cited says nothing about what his education was before Free Grammar School, if he had one. A homeschooling education seems unlikely, as the source says that Newton's grandfather, whom he was living with, practically ignored Newton, and that Newton hated his mother and step-father. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 23:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Andrew Schlafly, you claim to be an expert in everything yet you are totally incapable of answering a simple request of another person is only trying to improve your encyclopaedia. I have spent several screenfuls of this discussion page trying to ask you two '''very simple questions''', which shouldn't be too difficult whether the answerer is homeschooled or not. (1) '''What is your definition of a great mathematician?''' and (2) '''What exactly constitutes homeschooling?''' Your page does neither. Under your (highly elusive) criteria, spending a couple of years at home while of primary school age is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, receiving private tutoring while simultaneously attending school daily is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, a mathematician is great only if you say so, because under your criteria, Johannes Kepler and John Venn cease to become a great mathematician. Schlafly, this encyclopaedia will only live up to its name - Conservapedia - when it becomes an accurate reflection of a conservative viewpoint. At the moment, its Schlaflipedia: if you don't want to answer a reasonable question, you block your ears. That's also why you lock Conservapedia from editing when there aren't sysops around to jump on people who are trying to improve articles. You are driving away conservatives who want to make a difference but can't because Sleep-ly (grab a German dictionary if you don't get the pun) doesn't want his personal authority challenged. I am a conservative on every issue - foreign policy, economic policy, social policy et al - but that won't keep me at Conservapedia. You are harming the good work of real conservatives who deal in facts and proofs. I should note that I don't expect this comment to be here tomorrow; I expect that it will be "archived" in the rubbish bin, along with my user account. "Godspeed" to anyone who ever tries to object to Schlafly's perverse logic and warped ideas. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: PeterS, your comments are becoming increasingly long-winded, incoherent and insulting. Get to the point succinctly and politely, and I'll respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time. By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician," nor is one necessary for such a term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you've just conceded his point. If you don't define what constitutes a "great mathematician" then you can not define the set of "great mathematicians" therefore you can not legitimately claim that "nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled" be cause it is completely unquantifiable. Like-wise, you refuse to define what constitutes "homeschooled". For you, it appears to mean anyone who ever learned anything outside of a traditional public school system education from K-12 and college... but this ignores the fact that such traditional structure has not been commonplace since the dawn of history. Many of the examples you give are from several hundred years ago when this structure was not in plaace in the manner it is to day, yet you conflate any kind of home learning in that time period with homescholling as it is today... the two are not necessarily equivalent. You want them to be, in order to push your ideology. Also, discounting any example given as either "not a great mathematician" or labelling them "homeschooled" because they have some minor period of time that they were not traditionally schooled seems a prime example of either conservative deceit or deliberate ignorance. And, in case you are actually interested in true facts, and a quantifiable definition of great mathematicians... here's at least one list of the 100 greatest per Mathematics Teacher magazine from 1962: afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~flora/100.html You might note that Kepler is among the names listed. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Taking a look at the first 10 names on the list:
*Newton - not homeschooled
*Leibnitz - not homeschooled
*Lagrange - self taught
*Euler - attended schooler and studied under Bernoulli
*Laplace - not homeschooled
*Euclid - unkown, though he did probably attend Plato's Academy
*Gauss - not homeschooled
*Archimedes - his schooling is also unknown
*Descartes - not homeschooled
*Cardano - homeschooled
:So 5 of the top 10 were definitely not homeschooled. One (Cardano) definitely was, one's (Lagrange's) status depends on how you define homeschooling, one (Euler) had both simultaneously, and two are unknown. Do you really want to continue the claim that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You don't say, but perhaps your "list" is from the 1962 ranking by "Mathematics Teacher." Nearly all the entries are (oddly) prior to the 19th century, and it's likely that most of the referenced individuals were homeschooled. I've already checked Newton, as explained above, and he did not enter a school under after age 10. So I don't find anything credible about your statements. If you want to provide details about the schooling of those to support a claim they were not homeschooled, then we can look at your detail. Otherwise, your objection is not persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::If you really count ''being schooled at home until only about fourth or fifth grade and then speding the rest of his schooling years being taught in formal schools'' as homeschooling (which seems to be a poor definition), then yes, Newton was homeschooled. However, even in modern times, alegbra isn't even taught that young, so how much math schooling Newton could have received before the age of 10 is questionable. As for the others:
::*Leibnitz: "At the age of seven, Leibniz entered the Nicolai School in Leipzig"[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html]
::*Laplace: "Laplace attended a Benedictine priory school in Beaumont-en-Auge, as a day pupil, between the ages of 7 and 16." [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Laplace.html]
::*Gauss: "At the age of seven, Carl Friedrich Gauss started elementary school" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Gauss.html]
::*Descartes: "Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Descartes.html]
:::And while we have been providing sources, you have yet to provide a source showing that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 15:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Our entry has numerous examples of great mathematicians who were homeschooled. Have you even read it yet???

:::: For all the bluster by critics, we are down to only four great mathematicians who may not have been homeschooled: Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes. But even your description of those four are not persuasive, and raise more questions than they answer. By age 7 or 8, great mathematicians are often quite a bit along already in their skills. And what did these four mathematicians do after they entered school? Laplace, for example, was apparently taught mathematics in a special way by his uncle in connection with the school. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-5572(194902)2%3A33%3A303%3C1%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::First of all, I highly resent the use of the word bluster. Second of all, you've forgotten Euler, Polya, Kepler, and Venn, mentioned above. Third, here are more of from the list of the top 100:
::::*Legendre: Went to college in Paris, before that schooling unstated [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Legendre.html]
::::*Monge: attended Oragion college before going to Lyons at 16 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Monge.html]
::::*D'Alembert: attended private school, then attended Collège des Quatre Nations [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/D'Alembert.html]
::::*Fourier: first studied at Pallais's school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier.html]
::::*Napier: homeschooled until age of 13 after (interestingly enough) his uncle sent his father a letter: "I pray you, sir, to send your son John to school; over to France or Flanders; for he cannot learn well at home" [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Napier.html]
::::*Viete: attended school in Fontenay-le-Comte [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Viete.html]
::::*Maclaurin: his family moved to Dumbarton specifically for the attendence of school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Maclaurin.html]
::::*Cavalieri: studied at a Jesuit monestary and the University of Pisa [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cavalieri.html]
::::*Wallis: attended school in Ashford and Tenterden [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wallis.html]
::::*Tartaglia: attended school from the age of four [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia.html]
::::*Poncet: attended Lycee Imperial [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Victor_Poncelet]
::::*Chasles: attended Lycee Imperial [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Chasles.html]
::::*Cremona: educated at Ginnasio in Pavia [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cremona.html]
::::*Boscovich: attended Ragusinum starting at age 9 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boscovich.html]
::::*Lambert: attended school in Mulhouse [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lambert.html]
::::*Barrow: attended Charterhouse and Felstead [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Barrow.html]
:::::These are just ones whose non-homeschooled education can be confirmed. This is also only from the top 50 of this one list. Many of the top 50 not mentioned weren't necessarily homeschooled either. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking back, others and I have listed 24 mathematicians not homeschooled (Barrow, Boscovich, Cavalieri, Chasles, Cremona, D'Alembert, Descartes, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Kepler, Lambert, Laplace, Legrende, Leibnitz, Maclaurin, Monge, Napier, Polya, Poncet, Tartaglia, Venn, Viete, Wallis). Your article lists 11 who were homeschooled (Cauchy, Chebyshev, Erdos, Fermat, Galois, Hamilton, Jacobi, Mandelbrot, Pascal, Poincare, Riemann) (though I might have missed one or two) [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 20:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Were you unable to provide details about your four mathematicians (Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes) as discussed above? It seems you're now resorting to quantity rather than quality. I've already debunked several claims among your new list of 24, and at least half of them fail to qualify as "great" mathematicians. Unless you can back up your claim with respect to the four mentioned above, I'm going to move on confident that the great mathematicians were almost all homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::"By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician,"" are your own words. So why can't I call them great mathematicians? I don't have a definition either, but I think all of them are great, and I certainly think a publication entitled "Mathematics Teacher" is more qualified than you to determine who qualifies as great. Of Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss, and Descartes, only for Laplace did you provide any evidence against formal education being their primary source of education, while I have sources that outright state that they attended a formal school of some kind. Also, I looked at your source for Laplace and I can't see beyond the first page, which states merely that Laplace's uncle was on the staff of his school and kindled his interest in mathematics, not that his uncle actually taught him in a special form. My previous citations for their education still stand. If you have any real proof that their education was still homeschooling of some sort after they entered a formal school, please enlighten me. Also, if you have debunked some of my claims, would you be so kind as to show some proof for those as well? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, ZTak, I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't provided a single mathematician with evidence that he was never homeschooled. I've provided in this entry countless examples of great mathematicians who were. I'll take a look at your other three examples, but am confident that nearly all of them were homeschooled also. A mathematician is unlikely to develop to greatness without the head start, independence, encouragement and flexibility that homeschooling uniquely provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Now you're moving the goalposts. I have to prove they were '''never''' homeschooled? That's a universal negative. I can't ever prove that. That would be like asking me to prove that none of them were ever abducted by aliens who fed knowledge directly into their brain. I can't prove that such abudctions never happened. I can prove, which I did, that their main education was at some sort of formal school. I proved that for Legendre, Monge, D'Alembert, Fourier, Napier, Viete, Maclaurin, Cavalieri, Wallis, Tartaglia, Poncet, Chasles, Cremona, Boscovich, Lambert, and Barrow. Finally, you still have yet to prove your statement that Laplace was specially educated by his uncle. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I can qualify too, eh? I wrote a theorem for [[Synthetic Division]]--which had many, many corollaries--and I was "fake schooled" up to 2nd grade mathematics to substitute for missing the preschool deadline. ("fake school" is what I called homeschooling at that age). -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFK]] 22:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Opinions ==

This article voices personal opinions more so than fact with a conservative point of view, directly in line with the Conservapedia Commandments. Opinions? I can find examples in the text if you would like. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sufiah Yusof ==

Homeschooled prodigy Sufiah Yusof, who went to Oxford at 13, has been found working as a prostitute ten years later. Will this mentioned in the article? Doubt it. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-human-cost-of-trying-to-make-geniuses/2008/04/04/1207249453810.html] [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Parents who send a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college should have their heads examined. Your link supports that decision as the cause of this tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[University of Oxford]] is a "liberal college"? I see that it is also "One of the most influential universities in history...". At least that's what the Conservapedia article says. Fancy that! Pretty good going for a mere liberal college. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:38, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes on both points, and there's no contradiction there. Hello, Oxford is [[liberal]] today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Hello. On what basis do you say that? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:07, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, time for [[liberal denial]], I see. If you can identify a half-dozen [[conservative]] professors at Oxford, then I'd be astonished. I'm confident you can't. Meanwhile, observe all the [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] there, and how students like Christopher Hitchens became Trotskyists while at Oxford. [http://www.experiencefestival.com/political_views].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Schlafly, when you become a qualified psychologist, then perhaps you will be in a position to make your insensitive and blasé judgements about this case. I challenge you to find a single reputable psychologist who will tell you that Sufiah Yusof's present condition is caused not by pushy parenting, "hot house" homeschooling, or excessive media exposure (or a combination of the three) but instead caused by attending an institution which you claim is a hotbed for "liberal deceit". Or perhaps you'd instead like to play a game of Schlafly word bingo and throw in mentions of [[homosexuality]], [[intelligent design]], [[liberal hypocrisy]], [[liberal hysteria]] and [[liberal myths]] in your next post. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Peter, you're clueless about the dangers of sending a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college. If you think it takes a credentialed psychologist to explain that, then you have a lot to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, I can't think what came over me: for a moment, I thought that facts and evidence were actually valued in this place. The issue here isn't that she was sent to a ''liberal'' college at age 13. It is that she was sent to a college '''at all''' at age 13. It is that she was hot-housed (a form of extremely rigorous homeschooling) and driven mercilessly by a pushy and overambitious father. It is that her father also did everything he could to overwhelm her with media attention. You boast on the Homeschooling page about people who went to university at age 13 or 14 and then became great mathematicians or philosophers or whatever. But the simple fact is that large numbers of homeschooled prodigies do '''not''' reach such pinnacles and instead have their lives ruined by the reckless practices of their parents. You're right. It doesn't take a credentialed psychologist to explain this scenario: Sufiah Yusof herself describes her experience at the hands of '''her parents''' (that's right, '''not''' Oxford's oppressive liberal regime) as a living hell and says that she has "enough of 15 years of physical and emotional abuse".[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/child-prodigy-working-as-a-prostitute/2008/04/04/1207249460601.html?page=2] Happy now? (I doubt it.) [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:09, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Difficulties ==

This article looks pretty strange to me, since it includes people who lived centuries ago, such as Leonardo Da Vinci. But my understanding of the homeschooling movement indicates that it exists only in contrast to public schooling... and widespread public schooling is a much more recent innovation. In the United States, for example, public schooling began shortly before the twentieth century.
Certainly many of these individuals belong on the page, but it seems disingenuous to claim that Benjamin Franklin was "homeschooled," for example, since at that time such was still mostly the norm. This makes it quite distinct from the modern era, wherein homeschooling is very unusual (speaking statistically, not as a value judgment).
By the same token, I wouldn't call him "public schooled," either, naturally. But this article blurs the line between modern homeschooling (a distinct "movement" in opposition to national institutionalized public schools) and the simple sparcity of formal schooling in the centuries before government public schools. Given the fact that the owner of this site, Andy Schlafly, is a well-known homeschooling advocate, indeed even teaching homeschooling classes on the site, and his personal view is endorsed by most of the sysops on the site, I think this gives the appearance (if not the fact) of trying to deliberately smudge the dividing line between the two eras. Such an appearance or fact should be corrected.

Another criticism might be made in that the list of "homeschooled" individuals is very liberal with that assignation. I would suggest a clarifying sentence at the fore of the list, mentioning what the requirements for the list are... currently they are simply described as being "educated at home," which is a very broad statement. It should be clarified that these are individuals who have spent any portion of their youth or young adulthood being educated at home, since many of them spent years in formal education.
Please consider each of the above points separately on their own merit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments, though thoughtful, seem to reject the definition of homeschooling:

::Homeschooling is a movement in which students receive education from a parent or guardian, or instructors acting under the direction of a parent or guardian, rather than from certified teachers in a formal school setting like a public school.

:Though you implicitly seem to reject this definition, you don't propose an alternative. Note that this definition applies whenever a formal school setting existed, which goes back at least to [[ancient Greece]], before Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::As I note, there exists a generally understood distinction in most people's minds between the modern homeschooling "movement," as it is described on the page, and the previous lack of public schools. If you request a different definition, then I would suggest something such as "Homeschooling is the modern movement in which students... etc.", and then the examples of individuals "homeschooled" previous to a certain date (1850 or so would seem reasonable, as that was about when public schooling came into being in America to the best of my knowledge) could be moved to a different section. This new section could have the heading connecting the modern homeschooling movement with the tradition of home schooling which existed prior to the alternative of public schooling. This would allow all of the names and such to remain on the page, and keep that connection which reflects positively on homeschooling (the clear intent) without being quite so absurd. Would those changes satisfy you?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree with TomMoore, and am very disappointed that Andy has ignored the previous discussion on this page and reverted to terminology that was changed because of these very concerns, and after discussion. The article also says that "homeschooling began in the 1960s", and whilst I don't know the exact date, or even the exact decade, I would think that the 1960s would be about right. So people educated outside schools centuries or even millennia ago cannot properly be called "homeschooled".
::: (Actually, since writing that, I've been done a little research. "Dr. Raymond S Moore, the inspiration to many homeschoolers of recent generations" started homeschooling in the 1940s. The book "No More Public School", published in 1972, is described as a "Pioneering how-to book about homeschooling, from the days when homeschooling had a tenuous legal status and the term "homeschooling" hadn't been coined".)
::: If the article is meant to be about the modern movement, then those older examples don't belong here. If the page is meant to be about people educated outside the school system, then the title and content should be altered to reflect that, and the term "homeschooling" should be dropped for those older examples.
::: It is true that schools have existed as far back as ancient Greece (at least), but that doesn't mean that they have always existed since then, nor in all societies. For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich. In other words, for much of history, being educated at home (or etc.) was the normal way that people got educated, and was not the exception, and was certainly not called "homeschooling".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it not the case that homeschooling in the contemporary sense exists in opposition to, or any rate as distinct from, 'compulsory' state education? One can only 'opt out' of a system if that system exists in the first place; and therefore one could say homeschooling o0nly became a valid concept once education of children was made compulsory by the state. Thus in the UK 'homeschooling' would only be a realistic concept after the Education Act of 1871 which decreed that all children should receive elementary education. That is not to say, of course, that children were not educated at home before then; but the notion of 'homeschooling' as a 'political' act or act of resistance against the perceived shortcomings (educational, moral, religious) of the official education system can only date from that point. [[User:Mediaevalist|Mediaevalist]] 07:14, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.

::::: Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "Modern" schooling was begun, I believe, by Christian churches. "Sunday School" was not religious education for children while the adults listened to the sermon, but "secular" education on the only day that the children were not at work in the mines, fields, or factories. Eventually, this church-sponsored education was taken over by governments, but prior to the churches doing this, there was little if anything in the way of formal education. Ancient Greece may have been different; I don't know, but I wasn't trying to suggest that schooling started off only for the rich; I actually meant that this likely came ''later'' than Greece, although even in Greece I ''suspect'' that it was not for everyone.
:::::: But more to the point is what Mediaevalist said above, that homeschooling is an 'opting out' of the official education system, and as such ''can't'' exist until there is an official education system.
:::::: Your change to the homeschooling ''movement'' starting in the 1960s doesn't help: The first line of the article defines homeschooling ''as the movement''. Previously the article said (in effect), "Homeschooling is a movement... Homeschooling began in the 1960s" Now, it says (in effect) "Homeschooling is a movement...that began in the 1960s". So pre-1960s examples are still not "homeschooling".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Good point about the flaw in the definition. Homeschooling should not be defined as a movement, and I've deleted that reference. There is a "homeschooling movement." Just as a pacifist does not have to belong to an antiwar movement, a homeschooler need not belong to any movement.

::::::: Homeschooling does not require "opting out" and to limit the definition to that is to relegate it perpetually to the fringe. Homeschooling does typically entail rejecting a formalized and popularized schooling system, but as already noted such systems have existed at least since [[ancient Greece]]. Surely the ancient [[Hebrews]] and [[Christians]] also had church-based schooling systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I don't particularly agree with modern homeschooling and all those older examples being lumped in together, but I have to admit that the article is probably more consistent and less objectionable now.
:::::::: I guess that the answer to whether or not the ancient Hebrews and Christians had church-based schooling systems depends on what you mean by "schooling", but I think the answer is essentially "no", they didn't. That is, there might well have been ''some'' things that children learnt in church, but as far as I know, there were no formalised schools run by anyone for the most part, for thousands of years. Almost all education was done directly by parents, and even this was pretty limited, with the result that most could not even read and write. Sure, no doubt they learnt various life skills, but even this would not have been in any sort of formalised schooling in the home, let along in schools. It was probably more in the form akin to apprenticeships, that is, children learnt their parent's trade by helping their parents in their work.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I appreciate your first paragraph, but must disagree with your second. I'm sure the ancient [[Hebrews]] had schooling just as the [[ancient Greeks]] did, and probably many other ancient civilizations did also. How else could Pharisees and other members of the priestly class be trained?

::::::::: There is a modern (and [[liberal]]) tendency to look down on our ancient ancestors. All indications, however, are that they were ''smarter'' than people today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindented)
This is a minor improvement, Mr. Schlafly, but I still think the problem exists. Let me address your replies.

''Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.''

That is not necessarily true. I would argue that homeschooling as a concept, as it is understood by the vast majority of people, would be construed as the deliberate choice to teach a child at home as specifically opposed to public schooling. This latter part of the definition is the one missing from this article's approach to the matter, since most people (as indicated here) disagree with the idea that anyone in history taught at home was "homeschooled" in the sense in which the idea is understood today. I think this is the real substantive point, in fact, behind this disagreement. You should take note, I think, of that fact that both I (as liberal as they come) and PJR (as conservative as they come, and your most intelligent sysop) are neither of us opposed to homeschooling, and yet we feel that this article is misleadingly favorable to the practice, whereas you (a strong advocate) feel it is not. Perhaps you might want to step back from this one, and a few other outside opinions on the matter?

: Tom, you overrely on your perceptions of what others think (see point 11 in [[liberal style]]). Homeschooling is not defined in terms of [[public school]]. The view of homeschoolers towards public school is varied, and public schools themselves have changed throughout history and are different in different locations today. Homeschooling is a parental approach to child-rearing that would exist regardless of the form taken by public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I assume from your aspersion that you are declining to take a step back from this, despite the fact that you are extraordinarily partisan to one side in this discussion? That is somewhat disappointing.

::It seems to me that it is only reasonable to rely on "perceptions of what others think" when it comes to interpreting the meaning of words. Words mean only what they are agreed-upon to mean; this is why meanings shift over time in a sometimes-dramatic manner (such as "geek"). "Homeschooling" to you seems to mean "any alternative schooling by non-certified individuals at home." That is a very reasonable interpretation, and I am not saying it is ''wrong.'' I am just saying that the vast majority of people specifically identify homeschooling with the more modern "movement" (as it was put previously), not with your broader definition, and that should be taken into account. Or, if you want to change the way people think about it, you should specifically contradict the colloquial definition and state more explicitly the difference between the customary understanding and your usage.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Tom, you're not even quoting me correctly and still don't seem to understand the essence of homeschooling. Please expand your horizons and get to know some homeschooling families, and read about those who have homeschooled in history. Then we can chat again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I thought I was quoting you adequately, and apologize if there was some error in the above quote ("perceptions of what others think"). It was copy-and-pasted from your own words, though.

::::If the definition of homeschooling I give above is also inaccurate, that is possible, but it is not a quote, it was an attempt to sum up for use in our dialog. Please substitute your whole definition above, if that helps.

::::I am not sure what you mean about "expanding my horizons;" I was good friends with an enormous family that homeschooled all their children and then sent them to the University of Stuebenville. They were about as devout a set of devotees to homeschooling as can be imagined. I know them and their views, as well as your own, quite well. That's why I opened this conversation, to address a gross shortcoming in the article.

::::The "homeschooled in history" item is the crux of the issue here, and so I strongly urge you not to dismiss me as you have. My concerns are stated clearly and substantively several times: I feel that the article blurs the divide between the commonly-held perspective of what "homeschooling" is, and a historical although perhaps technically accurate analogue, and that this blurring is encyclopedic. It is easy to brush me aside with personal remarks about how I need to "expand my horizons," but clearly less easy to address my concerns.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:03, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Tom, I'm not going to spend all night discussing this with you, and your account will be blocked if you just talk here. You misquoted the definition of homeschooling and seem blinded by your contact with an unusual single homeschooling family. If you continue to think that people today are very different from people hundreds of years ago, and homeschool for very different reasons, you're wrong. Meet more homeschoolers and read more history; you can do both on this site. Then let's chat further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I have made substantive edits tonight, such as to [[Alice and Wonderland]], [[Beowulf]], and [[Mind/body]], so I am not worried about being blocked for "just talk[ing] here," since I am not doing so.

::::::I am sorry if it appears as though I misquoted the definition. As I said scrupulously above, you may substitute the whole of your definition if you would like, since I was simply quoting it as I referred to it, rather than suggesting it as some sort of change.

::::::Please, do not continue to speculate as to my personal knowledge of homeschooling. That is not the ''only'' homeschooling family I know, I was mentioning them only to let you know that your assertion that I was not familiar with any was entirely wrong. I am an Eagle Scout, and many of those in my troop were homeschooled. I assure you, I am fully familiar with the concepts and people involved, and it doesn't change my considered opinion of the article at all. How would it, after all?

::::::I really am only trying to get a firm conclusion on the matter to which I have referred you: the discrepancy between your definition of homeschooling, which includes all such schooling throughout history, and the common understanding which generally is understood as referring to the modern movement. Please do not block me by way of avoiding this matter, I am quite serious and think I have presented a very compelling case. If you personally do not have time (since you say you don't want to spend all night on it), you have numerous other sysops. Ordinarily, of course, I would just make the edits myself, but it is pretty clear that on topics like this no one is allowed to edit anything that might be disagreed with, without checking with an authority figure first. Perhaps one of the other active sysops - Conservative, Croicite, Ed Poor, or the like - might also weigh in, since Phillip J Rayment concurred with me earlier along with another user?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

''Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.''

But that type of decision is not being described in the article. If you want to broaden it to include that, I think it would be appropriate to do so. The key would be specificity, then; the article should be changed to reflect that this is a list of people who have "eschew[ed] common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning", very different from what most people think when they read the article currently (which presents the matter as synonymous with modern homeschooling).

: Modern homeschoolers are no different from ancient ones in rejecting formal schools. We define the term homeschooling and I doubt many would argue with it. The people listed satisfy that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::The people do satisfy the definition, but I disagree that many would not argue with the blurring between modern homeschooling and historical "homeschooling" that is engaged in. At the very least, your change in the customary usage should be acknowledged.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Consider, for example, the fact that a large proportion of wealthy children were "homeschooled" in Europe for centuries, in the sense that they were tutored in their home by professionals. This was the norm for the wealthy, yet your definition includes such as being "homeschooled," contradictory to the common perception of the matter.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 15:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: No, the definition is clear that homeschooling rejects the approach of "certified" teachers (or its equivalent). Wealthy children in Europe who were schooled in a formal setting by certified teachers (or its equivalent) should not be included; those taught by their parents, relatives, or non-certified teachers (or its equivalent) should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree, the definition is clear, but it is only natural to assume that when one is speaking of "homeschooling" that one is speaking of what most people know of with the concept, as explained above. At the very least, explicate further. Otherwise at least the appearance of an attempt to deceive exists, even if that is not the case.

::And again, I would urge you to step back from this and let other sysops handle it; it's only appropriate.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pornography ==

I'm deleting the reference to homeschooling being remedy for pornogrpahy addiction. I read a study earlier this month which showed that there was actually a higher chance of a child becoming involved in pornography and other unsavoury internet based activities if home schooled. Of course the study applied to equally supervised children, which is, of course, rarely the case in homeschooling. Still rather than promote complacancy and information which is empirically wrong I felt the need to delete the reference. I can find the name of the study if anyone needs it, but as far as I know there is no digital reference. {{unsigned|ObamaSharma}}

== To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" ==

I think one of the major disadvantages that is not mentioned in the article (though it is generally touched on) involves a certain kind of social interaction. The article, as it is right now, implies that the social development that homeschooling can stunt is more or less limited to making friends, having conversations, etc. (on top of peer pressure, bullying, intimidation, etc. as mentioned). I feel it is important to include '''Tolerance''', '''Working together in spite of differences''', and '''Compromise to accomplish like goals'''. I think it goes without saying that we all have had to work very closely with people we've disagreed with on almost everything, and elitism (which I never thought to be a characteristic of homeschooling until I came to Conservapedia) can stall progress. I think mentioning parents enrolling their kids in social organizations can satisfy compromise to accomplish like goals, but I question how much the kids would be exposed to other cultures and races, that would develop tolerance, since these organizations often have many class and moral characteristics in common. I know many of the conservative sysops on this page "Don't believe in tolerance when it compromises truth" but I think we can still agree that different races, classes, and faiths can still produce good people that certainly don't deserve being inferior to the stereotypical american WASP. Please keep in mind that I'm not talking about anything other than the physical world, so please take any arguments of what Jesus said or what will happen to their souls if they don't accept Him elsewhere. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

:If public schools were about these things, then I would agree. Unfortunately what you have is positions being forced upon children in the name of 'tolerance'. As long as you agree with them then you're fine. If you don't -- look out. Homeschooling is about allowing children to avoid having a value system pushed upon them from a "community" that has decided it already knows what is right and will tell you to accept the same -- even against your own family. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::That's a good point, and I can concede to it. Could not the argument be made that the value system that the family lives by (which could include racist, elitism, exclusivity, among other things) be more aggressively pushed onto the subordinate child? I find that I'm a little uncomfortable with people who were raised with limited exposure to different ideas and cultures, but I am no expert on the subject, as I'm sure is apparent, which is why I'm speaking here instead of trying to edit the page. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 17:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::: Anything can be misused, and certainly homeschooling ''can'' have these problems if it is not done properly, but you seem to be seeing government schools through rose-coloured glasses. When I was in primary school, there was some racism there (although I didn't understand what it was at the time), but I remember none of that from Sunday School and church. Many homeschooling families are Christians, and my point is that they can get many of these social interactions via church and church-related activities, and that's likely to be a better environment for them than a government school environment that often has undesirable values. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:11, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Perhaps I'm simply recalling my own experiences, which were better than most since I attended one of the better elementary schools in my county before finishing elementary and middle school in the fundamental system, and my high school was one of the better schools in the county as well. I suppose it all should be taken on a case by case basis, and my problem then is with the elitism (and in some cases blatant discrimination against public schools) exhibited around Conservapedia instead of having any problems with homeschooling. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 11:46, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Capolavoro046, I read as far as your absurd accusation of "elitism" above. There is nothing about homeschooling or this site that is "elitist" and I suspect that ideology is clouding your opinions here. Maybe you did have a good experience in [[public school]] at some time in the past, but without more information it is impossible to assess that. No one is claiming that every student is ruined by public school, but public school does deprive its students of classroom prayer. As a teacher, I can assure you that such deprivation does have an adverse effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Considering that one of this site's very strong focal points is trying to influence homeschooling, I would say that my "accusations" (though I would describe them as observations) of some people having an elitist view are not absurd at all. For example, the entire list of [professor values] demonstrates the elitist view, as its sole purpose is propaganda against teachers. Do not be so quick to apply a label to everyone that falls into a classification. I think they have a word for that... what is it? Oh yes, stereotyping. To address the depravity of prayer, I disagree passionately with you. Every year in school, we as students were offered a "moment of silence" following the pledge of allegiance (which did not ignore "Under [God]") for prayer, among other things. I feel that you have a very closed-minded view of things, and coming from a SysOp from a site that works so fervently against the media, I feel you use media coverage of incidences in public schools as a crutch, and choose not to look at things on a case by case basis because it could possibly hurt your arguments.

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-05-18T15:46:21Z

Capolavoro046: /* To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-05-17T21:20:21Z

Capolavoro046: /* Lapel pin */

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-05-17T21:17:51Z

Capolavoro046: /* To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" */

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-05-17T21:17:31Z

Capolavoro046: /* To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" */

[[/archive 1|Archive 1]] (20th March 2008)

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: PeterS, you may be an expert in history, but your logic does not follow. The entry does not care ''why'' someone was homeschooled in listing who was homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I think PeterS has a valid point, at least in his first line. As he points out, the article describes homeschooling as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". So for starters, how many on the list were homeschooled ''in the United States''? Clearly, however, homeschooling is not confined to the U.S., so it's the definition rather than the list that should be changed (as far as my argument goes so far).
:: I don't agree with him that it's not a movement; I think that's probably an apt term. But that raises the next problem with the list. Homeschooling ''as a movement'' is a relatively recent phenomenon, over the last forty years, I would guess. So anybody on that list who was educated at home more than around forty years ago does not fit the definition.
:: There's more that I could say, along the lines of PeterS' second paragraph, but perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Similar to my comment below, this criticism is overly literal. But to play that game, "homeschooling" is the movement, while those who were "homeschooled" is a broader category that can go beyond the movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: My immediate response to that, without thinking through it, is that that might make sense, but if it does, at the very least that distinction should be made clear in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Perhaps the opening part of the article could refer to a general, specific definition of homeschooling. That would clear up some of the conceptual difficulties that become more evident later in the article. '''Then''' you could branch out after that and comment on the "homeschooling movement" in the United States. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: An addendum to my previous post: I still think my dispute with the Dickens example stands. Just because someone does not receive a formal education at a school, it does not mean they were homeschooled. The facts are these: Dickens was educated as long as was financially possible. When his father was jailed, he was sent to work in a factory, like many financially disadvantaged young people at the time. To my knowledge (and the minutiae of the personal histories of English authors are not my strongest point), there is no evidence that his mother actively homeschooled him. Indeed, all the evidence points to his mother being firmly in favour of him working at a boot-blacking factory ''instead of'' getting an education. If you have evidential proof that this was not the case, feel free to cite it. Once again, if you think my argumentation over this is not valid, then you've got to sort out the definitional problem ASAP. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded the introduction to:
* Remove the United States as part of the definition.
* To define homeschooling as being educated "primarily at home", rather than "outside the traditional school system", as the latter could include non-traditional schools. The existing text later in the article expands on "primarily at home", to explain the parts that are not at home.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also changed references to homeschooling in the prominent people list to "educated at home" or "taught at home" (as some entries already were) for all persons whose education preceded the formation of the homeschooling movement. By the way, the entry for Leonardo doesn't actually say that he was taught at home. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nobody uses the phrase "educated at home," Philip. Have you ever heard anyone use it? An encyclopedia should use common and easily understood terminology, first and foremost. "Homeschooled" is the term that is used. Also, I'm not aware of a category that is "outside the traditional school system" but not homeschooled. Homeschooling is not dependent on the ''physical location'', but on the approach. Again, I object to the overly literal and [[materialistic]] approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "educated at home"...
::* I'm not in the habit of noting down every phrase I hear, so in one sense I couldn't say whether I've ever heard it, but I would think that I ''have'' heard it.
::* That's apart from this article, which as I said, already used it, the phrase having been included by Dpbsmith ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=16849]), Hsmom ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151194], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151212], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=155576], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=165607],[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=167430]), and NonXtianConservative ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=219041]).
::* Google returns 106,000 hits for "educated at home", so it's fairly common.
::* And even if none of that was the case, isn't Conservapedia proud of inventing [[Conservapedia terms|new terms]]?
:: "Homeschooled" is one of a number of terms that are used. Another is "taught at home", which was used by none other than one Aschlafly ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=218738])! I've used both those terms to avoid too much repetition.
:: And of course there is the ''reason'' I made those changes, that if homeschooling is defined (correctly, I believe) to be a movement that started in the 1960s, then anybody educated/taught/tutored at home prior to then cannot be said to be "homeschooled". That's not to say that their situation is necessarily quite different, but it does mean that the term itself should not be used of them.
:: "outside the traditional school system" depends on what is meant by "traditional". It could mean schools that allow the students to decide what they learn, for example, or other schools that take a non-traditional approach in any number of ways. It could include parent-controlled Christian schools, as ''traditionally'' schools have been controlled by governments or religious denominations. Yes, those examples are all schools, but they're not necessarily ''traditional'' schools.
:: If "homeschooling" is not dependent (to a fair extent) on the physical location, then why is it called "''home''schooling"? And if it's dependent on the approach, why is it not defined in terms of the approach? In any case, the previous definition was based on physical location, that being "outside ... schools".
:: How is my definition "overly literal"?
:: And how is is "materialistic"?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, you say that "Google returns 106,000 hits for 'educated at home,' so it's fairly common." But that is only about 5% of the frequency of use of "homeschooled", which generates nearly 2 million hits on Google. So "educated at home" is not "fairly common" relative to its counterpart. It is also meaningless to define ''where'' someone is taught rather than focusing on the approach.

::: It is overly literal and materialistic to define homeschooling in terms of the physical location (e.g., at home) rather than the approach (e.g., parental control). Shall we next define [[Christian]]s based on where they pray? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Googling "homeschooled" without the quotes I get 1.6 million hits (which includes variations such as ''homeschooling'' and ''homeschool''). Googling "homeschooled ''with'' the quotes, I get 1.49 million hits. So the percentage is actually about 7. But I wasn't trying to claim that it's the most common use of the term. I was pointing out that your claim that "Nobody uses the phrase" is incorrect. If 7% is "nobody", then I guess nobody gets homeschooled, as the figure there is "only" 2%. But clearly 2% still amounts to a large figure, and 7% is also quite sufficient to say that the term is commonly used, even if "homeschooled" is considerably more common.
:::: As I said, the previous definition focused on "where" and "the physical location", except for it being a positive "at home" it was a negative "not at school". So my change did not change that the definition was location-based. However, the new definition that you've now provided is a good one, and I'm reasonably happy with that (it could be tweaked a bit. For example, it links to the American definition of 'public school' rather than the broader 'school').
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some thoughts - I use the term "educated at home" quite frequently, as it can include quite a number of educational approaches, only some of which I'd call "homeschooling". In some states in the USA, various terms have very specific meaning. As an example, in Pennsylvania, students can be "privately tutored", "receiving homebound instruction", "enrolled in a cyber-charter school", or "enrolled in a home education program". All four of these kinds of students are educated at home - that is, they get much of their education in their own home. Some folks call all four kinds "homeschooled". However, in two of these cases the students are public school students (educated at taxpayer expense, with school-provided curriculum). Many people would not consider this "homeschooling", at least in the traditional sense, especially as the parents have little say in the curriculum content, which has to meet state standards. Students can be "privately tutored" by their parent or a hired tutor - for various reasons, some would consider only the former to be "homeschooling". "Home education programs" create a broad umbrella which can encompas a variety of approaches. For example, home educated students can enroll in homeschool co-ops - essentially "schools for homeschoolers", and may actually do little if any of their learning in their own home. In some other states, no one is, legally speaking, homeschooling - they are all enrolled in private schools, some of which are so small as to have only students from a single family. With the rise of publicly-run and publicly-funded internet-based schools, people are being more careful about how they use the term "homeschooling". We do not want the general public to assume that anyone who is homeschooling is doing so at significant taxpayer expense, as that could result in an unacceptable level of government oversight and control, so we must be careful with our terminology. It's tricky stuff.
:::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that the list of arguably homeschooled people stretches the definition of homeschooling beyond my recognition (as a homeschooling mom). [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] makes a good case that Dickens was not homeschooled (lack of education does not IMHO equal homeschooling, as discussed previously with George Washington Carver). I also think Joan of Arc was not homeschooled - her mother taught her prayers and household skills, as most mothers have taught their daughters for centuries, but there is no evidence she gave any academic instruction. But [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it's your sandbox, so your say goes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto ban on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The government of California has said they will not enforce it, but to have it on the books begs a time when the government may not be as friendly and could decide to crack down. They didn't allow homeschooling per se, but did it's equivalent by saying a special license was necessary to teach. Since homeschoolers score higher on standardized tests than their public school counterparts, it is especially troubling to see efforts made to curtail it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, Learn Together! I didn't read it from a primary source, I read it from someone who regurgitated it for me. They said that that they would require extensive training/licencing to be a homeschool teacher, which would essentially kill the movement. The article I read didn't say that CA wasn't going to enforce the ruling (because that would make for a significantly less interesting article for a libertarian newsletter!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, let's look at your examples, several of whom would not be described as "great mathematicians"; others in your list who were [[homeschooled]]; and still more who were schooled but achieved despite it. Spell out the schooling of each of your examples and you'll find that nearly all of them fall in one of the categories I just identified, and hence my reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That last category ("were schooled but achieved despite it") is of people who were ''not'' homeschooled. Correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, you are literally correct, but figuratively that category reinforces the thesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: How does "people who were educated in a regular shool and did well" (to rephrase it) support the thesis? (The phrase "despite it" presumes what the thesis is trying to demonstrate, so is a circular argument.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::Right, so let's have a look at the first criterion. In other words, "several of whom would not be described as great mathematicians". Actually, I don't think that's my job. I think if you want to make a statement claiming that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled, you need to prove it. '''You''' need to identify exactly who you would classify as a "great mathematician" and name them all: or have you already done that? What are your criteria for great mathematicians? Then '''you''' need to identify what percentage of those were homeschooled. '''Then''' you can assert that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. Now: "others in your list who were homeschooled". Again, it's a meaningless statement because you have never defined exactly what constitutes a homeschooled person - how many years they need to have been homeschooled - and when people have asked on this talk page, you haven't answered. Next: "still more who were schooled but achieved despite it". Hmmm... so you're making the assumption that because they were high achievers but attended school, they must have achieved '''despite''' their education? And you're using that justify the contention that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Which means that those who achieved highly did so despite their education? Which means that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Where does the circular nature of that argument end? Can I reiterate: I think that homeschooling is great if people are prepared to do it, and I think that you personally have done a lot of good things in terms of homeschooling. But I don't think it helps our conservative cause if we make silly hyperbolic statements all over the place in a futile gesture to stick it up to the liberals/atheists. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: PeterS, our list of homeschoolers includes many of the greatest mathematicians. Please read it. Your list does not disprove the statement that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. I invited you to spell out the schooling of those in your list (as I have done for those homeschooled), but so far you've declined to do so. So your objection does not persuade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Andrew, I have read the list. But "many of the greatest mathematicians" is a different statement from "nearly every great mathematician". "Many" is completely different from "nearly every". "Many" is fairly uncontroversial, because it doesn't directly imply proportionality - it could mean a majority, or it could mean a sizeable minority, or it could mean some arbitrary proportion that you specify. "Nearly every" implies a sizeable majority, probably somewhere in the region of 90-95% - I'm being arbitrary here, but "nearly every" would, in the English language, be somewhere close to 100%. Now, until you can tell us what a "great mathematician" is, and list all those that you classify as great mathematicians, you cannot say that almost 100% of great mathematicians were homeschooled. If a student came to me with an essay saying something like "nearly every person killed in the Reign of Terror was an aristocrat", I would underline the statement, ask in the page margin for a citation of the number of people killed in the Terror, ask for a citation of the number of aristocrats killed in the Terror, and ask them to justify why that may have been the case (based on a historical interpretation). Your statement does not match any of these rather non-exhaustive criteria, and it'd be interesting if you could address this. On to the second part of your question: citations for my names. It should not be my job to find citations to help to prove or disprove your unproven statement. And I ask that before you try to pick apart my examples and set arbitrary criteria, you address what I've just said in this paragraph and my previous statements. But I'll do this anyway.
:::* '''Isaac Newton''' - accounts vary, but all acknowledge that he received a formal education in at least one school. According to this source, [http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm], he was educated at King's School, Grantham. According to this source, [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] he was educated at Free Grammar School, Grantham. Despite the inconsistency in the name, we can conclude that whichever school(s) he attended, he did attend school for most of his childhood. This source [http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html] tells us that while he spent years out of school, he was not homeschooled during that time: indeed, it was felt that "he did not need an education". Without even requiring criteria, I think we can conclude that the development of Calculus is enough to make him a "great mathematician", not to mention these things called the laws of motion...
:::* '''Leonhard Euler''' - this source [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Leonhard%20Euler] tells us that he went to a low quality school, but the fact stands: he attended school during that time, even if he self-taught and received tutoring at the same time. But even if you choose to disagree with my contention, it doesn't change my objections, noted in all my above comments. Anyway, Euler = great mathematician, no contest, even without criteria.
:::* '''George Pólya''' - [http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/polya/biography.htm] says it all. Again, criteria are a problem, because you have never specified any, but Pólya is one of the world's foremost modern contributors to mathematical logic and combinatorics through elements such as the Pólya enumeration theorem and his four principles of mathematical proofs/problem solving.
:::* '''Carl Friedrich Gauss''' - this source [http://www.mathsong.com/cfgauss/Dunnington/1927/] tells us that he was educated from the age of seven. Case closed. That page also details his mathematical achievements very well in areas such as number theory in particular.
:::* '''John Venn''' - [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Venn.html]: went straight through Cholmley's and Islington. End of story. As for being a great mathematician... ever used a Venn diagram?
:::* '''Bernoulli family''' - it is much more difficult to find evidence for the Bernoulli family - it is a pattern that people would either be taught at home or sent to a local school before moving onto more prestigious pursuits in secondary school or university. Obviously it's difficult to be consistent in researching across a cross-generational family. I'll gladly ignore this one.
:::* '''Pierre de Fermat''' - he self-taught mathematics [http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Fermat-e.htm], but that came once he had already studied jurisprudence at university and become a councillor. This source [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html] tells us that he did indeed receive a primary and secondary education. This source confirms that he was probably schooled at a Franciscan monastery [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html]. And he was great; no matter what criteria you set.
:::* '''Johannes Kepler''' - this source [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kepler.html] tells us that although he helped in his grandfather's inn, he attended a local school and then a seminary. Kepler did of course achieve extraordinary things in astronomy, physics and mathematics including things such as positing the Kepler conjecture (which will probably become a theorem).
:::{{unsigned|PeterS}}

:: OK, your list of great mathematicians who were not homeschooled is dwindling fast. Working backwards, Kepler evidently was educated while helped at his relative's inn, and he isn't considered a great mathematician anyway. Fermat was self-taught in mathematics. The Bernouilli family almost certainly handed down their expertise through homeschooling, and you've conceded dropping them. Venn was not a great mathematician.

:: We're left with only four: Newton, Euler, Polya, and Gauss. I'll check them out now. It may be that a few of them were not homeschooled, which is why the claim is not that every great mathematician was homeschooled, but that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. But I'm curious to investigate the education of these four.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Newton apparently did not attend school until age 10, making him another homeschooler. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::The fact that Newton did not attend school until the age of 10 does not make him a homeschooler. Indeed the source you cited says nothing about what his education was before Free Grammar School, if he had one. A homeschooling education seems unlikely, as the source says that Newton's grandfather, whom he was living with, practically ignored Newton, and that Newton hated his mother and step-father. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 23:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Andrew Schlafly, you claim to be an expert in everything yet you are totally incapable of answering a simple request of another person is only trying to improve your encyclopaedia. I have spent several screenfuls of this discussion page trying to ask you two '''very simple questions''', which shouldn't be too difficult whether the answerer is homeschooled or not. (1) '''What is your definition of a great mathematician?''' and (2) '''What exactly constitutes homeschooling?''' Your page does neither. Under your (highly elusive) criteria, spending a couple of years at home while of primary school age is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, receiving private tutoring while simultaneously attending school daily is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, a mathematician is great only if you say so, because under your criteria, Johannes Kepler and John Venn cease to become a great mathematician. Schlafly, this encyclopaedia will only live up to its name - Conservapedia - when it becomes an accurate reflection of a conservative viewpoint. At the moment, its Schlaflipedia: if you don't want to answer a reasonable question, you block your ears. That's also why you lock Conservapedia from editing when there aren't sysops around to jump on people who are trying to improve articles. You are driving away conservatives who want to make a difference but can't because Sleep-ly (grab a German dictionary if you don't get the pun) doesn't want his personal authority challenged. I am a conservative on every issue - foreign policy, economic policy, social policy et al - but that won't keep me at Conservapedia. You are harming the good work of real conservatives who deal in facts and proofs. I should note that I don't expect this comment to be here tomorrow; I expect that it will be "archived" in the rubbish bin, along with my user account. "Godspeed" to anyone who ever tries to object to Schlafly's perverse logic and warped ideas. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: PeterS, your comments are becoming increasingly long-winded, incoherent and insulting. Get to the point succinctly and politely, and I'll respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time. By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician," nor is one necessary for such a term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you've just conceded his point. If you don't define what constitutes a "great mathematician" then you can not define the set of "great mathematicians" therefore you can not legitimately claim that "nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled" be cause it is completely unquantifiable. Like-wise, you refuse to define what constitutes "homeschooled". For you, it appears to mean anyone who ever learned anything outside of a traditional public school system education from K-12 and college... but this ignores the fact that such traditional structure has not been commonplace since the dawn of history. Many of the examples you give are from several hundred years ago when this structure was not in plaace in the manner it is to day, yet you conflate any kind of home learning in that time period with homescholling as it is today... the two are not necessarily equivalent. You want them to be, in order to push your ideology. Also, discounting any example given as either "not a great mathematician" or labelling them "homeschooled" because they have some minor period of time that they were not traditionally schooled seems a prime example of either conservative deceit or deliberate ignorance. And, in case you are actually interested in true facts, and a quantifiable definition of great mathematicians... here's at least one list of the 100 greatest per Mathematics Teacher magazine from 1962: afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~flora/100.html You might note that Kepler is among the names listed. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Taking a look at the first 10 names on the list:
*Newton - not homeschooled
*Leibnitz - not homeschooled
*Lagrange - self taught
*Euler - attended schooler and studied under Bernoulli
*Laplace - not homeschooled
*Euclid - unkown, though he did probably attend Plato's Academy
*Gauss - not homeschooled
*Archimedes - his schooling is also unknown
*Descartes - not homeschooled
*Cardano - homeschooled
:So 5 of the top 10 were definitely not homeschooled. One (Cardano) definitely was, one's (Lagrange's) status depends on how you define homeschooling, one (Euler) had both simultaneously, and two are unknown. Do you really want to continue the claim that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You don't say, but perhaps your "list" is from the 1962 ranking by "Mathematics Teacher." Nearly all the entries are (oddly) prior to the 19th century, and it's likely that most of the referenced individuals were homeschooled. I've already checked Newton, as explained above, and he did not enter a school under after age 10. So I don't find anything credible about your statements. If you want to provide details about the schooling of those to support a claim they were not homeschooled, then we can look at your detail. Otherwise, your objection is not persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::If you really count ''being schooled at home until only about fourth or fifth grade and then speding the rest of his schooling years being taught in formal schools'' as homeschooling (which seems to be a poor definition), then yes, Newton was homeschooled. However, even in modern times, alegbra isn't even taught that young, so how much math schooling Newton could have received before the age of 10 is questionable. As for the others:
::*Leibnitz: "At the age of seven, Leibniz entered the Nicolai School in Leipzig"[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html]
::*Laplace: "Laplace attended a Benedictine priory school in Beaumont-en-Auge, as a day pupil, between the ages of 7 and 16." [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Laplace.html]
::*Gauss: "At the age of seven, Carl Friedrich Gauss started elementary school" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Gauss.html]
::*Descartes: "Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Descartes.html]
:::And while we have been providing sources, you have yet to provide a source showing that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 15:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Our entry has numerous examples of great mathematicians who were homeschooled. Have you even read it yet???

:::: For all the bluster by critics, we are down to only four great mathematicians who may not have been homeschooled: Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes. But even your description of those four are not persuasive, and raise more questions than they answer. By age 7 or 8, great mathematicians are often quite a bit along already in their skills. And what did these four mathematicians do after they entered school? Laplace, for example, was apparently taught mathematics in a special way by his uncle in connection with the school. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-5572(194902)2%3A33%3A303%3C1%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::First of all, I highly resent the use of the word bluster. Second of all, you've forgotten Euler, Polya, Kepler, and Venn, mentioned above. Third, here are more of from the list of the top 100:
::::*Legendre: Went to college in Paris, before that schooling unstated [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Legendre.html]
::::*Monge: attended Oragion college before going to Lyons at 16 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Monge.html]
::::*D'Alembert: attended private school, then attended Collège des Quatre Nations [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/D'Alembert.html]
::::*Fourier: first studied at Pallais's school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier.html]
::::*Napier: homeschooled until age of 13 after (interestingly enough) his uncle sent his father a letter: "I pray you, sir, to send your son John to school; over to France or Flanders; for he cannot learn well at home" [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Napier.html]
::::*Viete: attended school in Fontenay-le-Comte [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Viete.html]
::::*Maclaurin: his family moved to Dumbarton specifically for the attendence of school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Maclaurin.html]
::::*Cavalieri: studied at a Jesuit monestary and the University of Pisa [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cavalieri.html]
::::*Wallis: attended school in Ashford and Tenterden [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wallis.html]
::::*Tartaglia: attended school from the age of four [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia.html]
::::*Poncet: attended Lycee Imperial [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Victor_Poncelet]
::::*Chasles: attended Lycee Imperial [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Chasles.html]
::::*Cremona: educated at Ginnasio in Pavia [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cremona.html]
::::*Boscovich: attended Ragusinum starting at age 9 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boscovich.html]
::::*Lambert: attended school in Mulhouse [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lambert.html]
::::*Barrow: attended Charterhouse and Felstead [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Barrow.html]
:::::These are just ones whose non-homeschooled education can be confirmed. This is also only from the top 50 of this one list. Many of the top 50 not mentioned weren't necessarily homeschooled either. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking back, others and I have listed 24 mathematicians not homeschooled (Barrow, Boscovich, Cavalieri, Chasles, Cremona, D'Alembert, Descartes, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Kepler, Lambert, Laplace, Legrende, Leibnitz, Maclaurin, Monge, Napier, Polya, Poncet, Tartaglia, Venn, Viete, Wallis). Your article lists 11 who were homeschooled (Cauchy, Chebyshev, Erdos, Fermat, Galois, Hamilton, Jacobi, Mandelbrot, Pascal, Poincare, Riemann) (though I might have missed one or two) [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 20:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Were you unable to provide details about your four mathematicians (Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes) as discussed above? It seems you're now resorting to quantity rather than quality. I've already debunked several claims among your new list of 24, and at least half of them fail to qualify as "great" mathematicians. Unless you can back up your claim with respect to the four mentioned above, I'm going to move on confident that the great mathematicians were almost all homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::"By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician,"" are your own words. So why can't I call them great mathematicians? I don't have a definition either, but I think all of them are great, and I certainly think a publication entitled "Mathematics Teacher" is more qualified than you to determine who qualifies as great. Of Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss, and Descartes, only for Laplace did you provide any evidence against formal education being their primary source of education, while I have sources that outright state that they attended a formal school of some kind. Also, I looked at your source for Laplace and I can't see beyond the first page, which states merely that Laplace's uncle was on the staff of his school and kindled his interest in mathematics, not that his uncle actually taught him in a special form. My previous citations for their education still stand. If you have any real proof that their education was still homeschooling of some sort after they entered a formal school, please enlighten me. Also, if you have debunked some of my claims, would you be so kind as to show some proof for those as well? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, ZTak, I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't provided a single mathematician with evidence that he was never homeschooled. I've provided in this entry countless examples of great mathematicians who were. I'll take a look at your other three examples, but am confident that nearly all of them were homeschooled also. A mathematician is unlikely to develop to greatness without the head start, independence, encouragement and flexibility that homeschooling uniquely provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Now you're moving the goalposts. I have to prove they were '''never''' homeschooled? That's a universal negative. I can't ever prove that. That would be like asking me to prove that none of them were ever abducted by aliens who fed knowledge directly into their brain. I can't prove that such abudctions never happened. I can prove, which I did, that their main education was at some sort of formal school. I proved that for Legendre, Monge, D'Alembert, Fourier, Napier, Viete, Maclaurin, Cavalieri, Wallis, Tartaglia, Poncet, Chasles, Cremona, Boscovich, Lambert, and Barrow. Finally, you still have yet to prove your statement that Laplace was specially educated by his uncle. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I can qualify too, eh? I wrote a theorem for [[Synthetic Division]]--which had many, many corollaries--and I was "fake schooled" up to 2nd grade mathematics to substitute for missing the preschool deadline. ("fake school" is what I called homeschooling at that age). -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFK]] 22:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Opinions ==

This article voices personal opinions more so than fact with a conservative point of view, directly in line with the Conservapedia Commandments. Opinions? I can find examples in the text if you would like. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sufiah Yusof ==

Homeschooled prodigy Sufiah Yusof, who went to Oxford at 13, has been found working as a prostitute ten years later. Will this mentioned in the article? Doubt it. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-human-cost-of-trying-to-make-geniuses/2008/04/04/1207249453810.html] [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Parents who send a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college should have their heads examined. Your link supports that decision as the cause of this tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[University of Oxford]] is a "liberal college"? I see that it is also "One of the most influential universities in history...". At least that's what the Conservapedia article says. Fancy that! Pretty good going for a mere liberal college. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:38, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes on both points, and there's no contradiction there. Hello, Oxford is [[liberal]] today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Hello. On what basis do you say that? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:07, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, time for [[liberal denial]], I see. If you can identify a half-dozen [[conservative]] professors at Oxford, then I'd be astonished. I'm confident you can't. Meanwhile, observe all the [[atheists]] and [[liberals]] there, and how students like Christopher Hitchens became Trotskyists while at Oxford. [http://www.experiencefestival.com/political_views].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Schlafly, when you become a qualified psychologist, then perhaps you will be in a position to make your insensitive and blasé judgements about this case. I challenge you to find a single reputable psychologist who will tell you that Sufiah Yusof's present condition is caused not by pushy parenting, "hot house" homeschooling, or excessive media exposure (or a combination of the three) but instead caused by attending an institution which you claim is a hotbed for "liberal deceit". Or perhaps you'd instead like to play a game of Schlafly word bingo and throw in mentions of [[homosexuality]], [[intelligent design]], [[liberal hypocrisy]], [[liberal hysteria]] and [[liberal myths]] in your next post. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Peter, you're clueless about the dangers of sending a 13-year-old girl off to a [[liberal]] college. If you think it takes a credentialed psychologist to explain that, then you have a lot to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, I can't think what came over me: for a moment, I thought that facts and evidence were actually valued in this place. The issue here isn't that she was sent to a ''liberal'' college at age 13. It is that she was sent to a college '''at all''' at age 13. It is that she was hot-housed (a form of extremely rigorous homeschooling) and driven mercilessly by a pushy and overambitious father. It is that her father also did everything he could to overwhelm her with media attention. You boast on the Homeschooling page about people who went to university at age 13 or 14 and then became great mathematicians or philosophers or whatever. But the simple fact is that large numbers of homeschooled prodigies do '''not''' reach such pinnacles and instead have their lives ruined by the reckless practices of their parents. You're right. It doesn't take a credentialed psychologist to explain this scenario: Sufiah Yusof herself describes her experience at the hands of '''her parents''' (that's right, '''not''' Oxford's oppressive liberal regime) as a living hell and says that she has "enough of 15 years of physical and emotional abuse".[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/child-prodigy-working-as-a-prostitute/2008/04/04/1207249460601.html?page=2] Happy now? (I doubt it.) [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:09, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Difficulties ==

This article looks pretty strange to me, since it includes people who lived centuries ago, such as Leonardo Da Vinci. But my understanding of the homeschooling movement indicates that it exists only in contrast to public schooling... and widespread public schooling is a much more recent innovation. In the United States, for example, public schooling began shortly before the twentieth century.
Certainly many of these individuals belong on the page, but it seems disingenuous to claim that Benjamin Franklin was "homeschooled," for example, since at that time such was still mostly the norm. This makes it quite distinct from the modern era, wherein homeschooling is very unusual (speaking statistically, not as a value judgment).
By the same token, I wouldn't call him "public schooled," either, naturally. But this article blurs the line between modern homeschooling (a distinct "movement" in opposition to national institutionalized public schools) and the simple sparcity of formal schooling in the centuries before government public schools. Given the fact that the owner of this site, Andy Schlafly, is a well-known homeschooling advocate, indeed even teaching homeschooling classes on the site, and his personal view is endorsed by most of the sysops on the site, I think this gives the appearance (if not the fact) of trying to deliberately smudge the dividing line between the two eras. Such an appearance or fact should be corrected.

Another criticism might be made in that the list of "homeschooled" individuals is very liberal with that assignation. I would suggest a clarifying sentence at the fore of the list, mentioning what the requirements for the list are... currently they are simply described as being "educated at home," which is a very broad statement. It should be clarified that these are individuals who have spent any portion of their youth or young adulthood being educated at home, since many of them spent years in formal education.
Please consider each of the above points separately on their own merit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments, though thoughtful, seem to reject the definition of homeschooling:

::Homeschooling is a movement in which students receive education from a parent or guardian, or instructors acting under the direction of a parent or guardian, rather than from certified teachers in a formal school setting like a public school.

:Though you implicitly seem to reject this definition, you don't propose an alternative. Note that this definition applies whenever a formal school setting existed, which goes back at least to [[ancient Greece]], before Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::As I note, there exists a generally understood distinction in most people's minds between the modern homeschooling "movement," as it is described on the page, and the previous lack of public schools. If you request a different definition, then I would suggest something such as "Homeschooling is the modern movement in which students... etc.", and then the examples of individuals "homeschooled" previous to a certain date (1850 or so would seem reasonable, as that was about when public schooling came into being in America to the best of my knowledge) could be moved to a different section. This new section could have the heading connecting the modern homeschooling movement with the tradition of home schooling which existed prior to the alternative of public schooling. This would allow all of the names and such to remain on the page, and keep that connection which reflects positively on homeschooling (the clear intent) without being quite so absurd. Would those changes satisfy you?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:12, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::: I agree with TomMoore, and am very disappointed that Andy has ignored the previous discussion on this page and reverted to terminology that was changed because of these very concerns, and after discussion. The article also says that "homeschooling began in the 1960s", and whilst I don't know the exact date, or even the exact decade, I would think that the 1960s would be about right. So people educated outside schools centuries or even millennia ago cannot properly be called "homeschooled".
::: (Actually, since writing that, I've been done a little research. "Dr. Raymond S Moore, the inspiration to many homeschoolers of recent generations" started homeschooling in the 1940s. The book "No More Public School", published in 1972, is described as a "Pioneering how-to book about homeschooling, from the days when homeschooling had a tenuous legal status and the term "homeschooling" hadn't been coined".)
::: If the article is meant to be about the modern movement, then those older examples don't belong here. If the page is meant to be about people educated outside the school system, then the title and content should be altered to reflect that, and the term "homeschooling" should be dropped for those older examples.
::: It is true that schools have existed as far back as ancient Greece (at least), but that doesn't mean that they have always existed since then, nor in all societies. For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich. In other words, for much of history, being educated at home (or etc.) was the normal way that people got educated, and was not the exception, and was certainly not called "homeschooling".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it not the case that homeschooling in the contemporary sense exists in opposition to, or any rate as distinct from, 'compulsory' state education? One can only 'opt out' of a system if that system exists in the first place; and therefore one could say homeschooling o0nly became a valid concept once education of children was made compulsory by the state. Thus in the UK 'homeschooling' would only be a realistic concept after the Education Act of 1871 which decreed that all children should receive elementary education. That is not to say, of course, that children were not educated at home before then; but the notion of 'homeschooling' as a 'political' act or act of resistance against the perceived shortcomings (educational, moral, religious) of the official education system can only date from that point. [[User:Mediaevalist|Mediaevalist]] 07:14, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.

::::: Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "Modern" schooling was begun, I believe, by Christian churches. "Sunday School" was not religious education for children while the adults listened to the sermon, but "secular" education on the only day that the children were not at work in the mines, fields, or factories. Eventually, this church-sponsored education was taken over by governments, but prior to the churches doing this, there was little if anything in the way of formal education. Ancient Greece may have been different; I don't know, but I wasn't trying to suggest that schooling started off only for the rich; I actually meant that this likely came ''later'' than Greece, although even in Greece I ''suspect'' that it was not for everyone.
:::::: But more to the point is what Mediaevalist said above, that homeschooling is an 'opting out' of the official education system, and as such ''can't'' exist until there is an official education system.
:::::: Your change to the homeschooling ''movement'' starting in the 1960s doesn't help: The first line of the article defines homeschooling ''as the movement''. Previously the article said (in effect), "Homeschooling is a movement... Homeschooling began in the 1960s" Now, it says (in effect) "Homeschooling is a movement...that began in the 1960s". So pre-1960s examples are still not "homeschooling".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Good point about the flaw in the definition. Homeschooling should not be defined as a movement, and I've deleted that reference. There is a "homeschooling movement." Just as a pacifist does not have to belong to an antiwar movement, a homeschooler need not belong to any movement.

::::::: Homeschooling does not require "opting out" and to limit the definition to that is to relegate it perpetually to the fringe. Homeschooling does typically entail rejecting a formalized and popularized schooling system, but as already noted such systems have existed at least since [[ancient Greece]]. Surely the ancient [[Hebrews]] and [[Christians]] also had church-based schooling systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:56, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: I don't particularly agree with modern homeschooling and all those older examples being lumped in together, but I have to admit that the article is probably more consistent and less objectionable now.
:::::::: I guess that the answer to whether or not the ancient Hebrews and Christians had church-based schooling systems depends on what you mean by "schooling", but I think the answer is essentially "no", they didn't. That is, there might well have been ''some'' things that children learnt in church, but as far as I know, there were no formalised schools run by anyone for the most part, for thousands of years. Almost all education was done directly by parents, and even this was pretty limited, with the result that most could not even read and write. Sure, no doubt they learnt various life skills, but even this would not have been in any sort of formalised schooling in the home, let along in schools. It was probably more in the form akin to apprenticeships, that is, children learnt their parent's trade by helping their parents in their work.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I appreciate your first paragraph, but must disagree with your second. I'm sure the ancient [[Hebrews]] had schooling just as the [[ancient Greeks]] did, and probably many other ancient civilizations did also. How else could Pharisees and other members of the priestly class be trained?

::::::::: There is a modern (and [[liberal]]) tendency to look down on our ancient ancestors. All indications, however, are that they were ''smarter'' than people today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindented)
This is a minor improvement, Mr. Schlafly, but I still think the problem exists. Let me address your replies.

''Homeschooling must be as old as schooling itself. There's no way around that. Just as pacifism is as old as war, and adultery is as old as marriage, and theft is as old as private property, and literacy is as old as the Bible. The modern homeschooling ''movement'' can be traced to the 1960s, just as anti-war ''movements'' can have modern beginnings. I've changed a phrase in the entry to reflect this. Thanks.''

That is not necessarily true. I would argue that homeschooling as a concept, as it is understood by the vast majority of people, would be construed as the deliberate choice to teach a child at home as specifically opposed to public schooling. This latter part of the definition is the one missing from this article's approach to the matter, since most people (as indicated here) disagree with the idea that anyone in history taught at home was "homeschooled" in the sense in which the idea is understood today. I think this is the real substantive point, in fact, behind this disagreement. You should take note, I think, of that fact that both I (as liberal as they come) and PJR (as conservative as they come, and your most intelligent sysop) are neither of us opposed to homeschooling, and yet we feel that this article is misleadingly favorable to the practice, whereas you (a strong advocate) feel it is not. Perhaps you might want to step back from this one, and a few other outside opinions on the matter?

: Tom, you overrely on your perceptions of what others think (see point 11 in [[liberal style]]). Homeschooling is not defined in terms of [[public school]]. The view of homeschoolers towards public school is varied, and public schools themselves have changed throughout history and are different in different locations today. Homeschooling is a parental approach to child-rearing that would exist regardless of the form taken by public schools.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I assume from your aspersion that you are declining to take a step back from this, despite the fact that you are extraordinarily partisan to one side in this discussion? That is somewhat disappointing.

::It seems to me that it is only reasonable to rely on "perceptions of what others think" when it comes to interpreting the meaning of words. Words mean only what they are agreed-upon to mean; this is why meanings shift over time in a sometimes-dramatic manner (such as "geek"). "Homeschooling" to you seems to mean "any alternative schooling by non-certified individuals at home." That is a very reasonable interpretation, and I am not saying it is ''wrong.'' I am just saying that the vast majority of people specifically identify homeschooling with the more modern "movement" (as it was put previously), not with your broader definition, and that should be taken into account. Or, if you want to change the way people think about it, you should specifically contradict the colloquial definition and state more explicitly the difference between the customary understanding and your usage.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Tom, you're not even quoting me correctly and still don't seem to understand the essence of homeschooling. Please expand your horizons and get to know some homeschooling families, and read about those who have homeschooled in history. Then we can chat again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I thought I was quoting you adequately, and apologize if there was some error in the above quote ("perceptions of what others think"). It was copy-and-pasted from your own words, though.

::::If the definition of homeschooling I give above is also inaccurate, that is possible, but it is not a quote, it was an attempt to sum up for use in our dialog. Please substitute your whole definition above, if that helps.

::::I am not sure what you mean about "expanding my horizons;" I was good friends with an enormous family that homeschooled all their children and then sent them to the University of Stuebenville. They were about as devout a set of devotees to homeschooling as can be imagined. I know them and their views, as well as your own, quite well. That's why I opened this conversation, to address a gross shortcoming in the article.

::::The "homeschooled in history" item is the crux of the issue here, and so I strongly urge you not to dismiss me as you have. My concerns are stated clearly and substantively several times: I feel that the article blurs the divide between the commonly-held perspective of what "homeschooling" is, and a historical although perhaps technically accurate analogue, and that this blurring is encyclopedic. It is easy to brush me aside with personal remarks about how I need to "expand my horizons," but clearly less easy to address my concerns.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:03, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Tom, I'm not going to spend all night discussing this with you, and your account will be blocked if you just talk here. You misquoted the definition of homeschooling and seem blinded by your contact with an unusual single homeschooling family. If you continue to think that people today are very different from people hundreds of years ago, and homeschool for very different reasons, you're wrong. Meet more homeschoolers and read more history; you can do both on this site. Then let's chat further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I have made substantive edits tonight, such as to [[Alice and Wonderland]], [[Beowulf]], and [[Mind/body]], so I am not worried about being blocked for "just talk[ing] here," since I am not doing so.

::::::I am sorry if it appears as though I misquoted the definition. As I said scrupulously above, you may substitute the whole of your definition if you would like, since I was simply quoting it as I referred to it, rather than suggesting it as some sort of change.

::::::Please, do not continue to speculate as to my personal knowledge of homeschooling. That is not the ''only'' homeschooling family I know, I was mentioning them only to let you know that your assertion that I was not familiar with any was entirely wrong. I am an Eagle Scout, and many of those in my troop were homeschooled. I assure you, I am fully familiar with the concepts and people involved, and it doesn't change my considered opinion of the article at all. How would it, after all?

::::::I really am only trying to get a firm conclusion on the matter to which I have referred you: the discrepancy between your definition of homeschooling, which includes all such schooling throughout history, and the common understanding which generally is understood as referring to the modern movement. Please do not block me by way of avoiding this matter, I am quite serious and think I have presented a very compelling case. If you personally do not have time (since you say you don't want to spend all night on it), you have numerous other sysops. Ordinarily, of course, I would just make the edits myself, but it is pretty clear that on topics like this no one is allowed to edit anything that might be disagreed with, without checking with an authority figure first. Perhaps one of the other active sysops - Conservative, Croicite, Ed Poor, or the like - might also weigh in, since Phillip J Rayment concurred with me earlier along with another user?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 20:32, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

''Philip says, "For much of history, there were no schools, or what ones there were, were only for the very rich." I doubt that, as schooling was often done by religions independent of wealth. I doubt that [[ancient Greece]] had a financial test for admitting students to its fine schools. But, regardless, I think that is an overly material view of the concept of homeschooling, which refers to a decision made by parents to eschew common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning that they believe is more beneficial to the child. That type of decision is as old as families and education.''

But that type of decision is not being described in the article. If you want to broaden it to include that, I think it would be appropriate to do so. The key would be specificity, then; the article should be changed to reflect that this is a list of people who have "eschew[ed] common or customary education in favor of an alternative form of learning", very different from what most people think when they read the article currently (which presents the matter as synonymous with modern homeschooling).

: Modern homeschoolers are no different from ancient ones in rejecting formal schools. We define the term homeschooling and I doubt many would argue with it. The people listed satisfy that definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::The people do satisfy the definition, but I disagree that many would not argue with the blurring between modern homeschooling and historical "homeschooling" that is engaged in. At the very least, your change in the customary usage should be acknowledged.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Consider, for example, the fact that a large proportion of wealthy children were "homeschooled" in Europe for centuries, in the sense that they were tutored in their home by professionals. This was the norm for the wealthy, yet your definition includes such as being "homeschooled," contradictory to the common perception of the matter.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 15:43, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: No, the definition is clear that homeschooling rejects the approach of "certified" teachers (or its equivalent). Wealthy children in Europe who were schooled in a formal setting by certified teachers (or its equivalent) should not be included; those taught by their parents, relatives, or non-certified teachers (or its equivalent) should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:23, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I agree, the definition is clear, but it is only natural to assume that when one is speaking of "homeschooling" that one is speaking of what most people know of with the concept, as explained above. At the very least, explicate further. Otherwise at least the appearance of an attempt to deceive exists, even if that is not the case.

::And again, I would urge you to step back from this and let other sysops handle it; it's only appropriate.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 17:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Pornography ==

I'm deleting the reference to homeschooling being remedy for pornogrpahy addiction. I read a study earlier this month which showed that there was actually a higher chance of a child becoming involved in pornography and other unsavoury internet based activities if home schooled. Of course the study applied to equally supervised children, which is, of course, rarely the case in homeschooling. Still rather than promote complacancy and information which is empirically wrong I felt the need to delete the reference. I can find the name of the study if anyone needs it, but as far as I know there is no digital reference. {{unsigned|ObamaSharma}}

== To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling" ==

I think one of the major disadvantages that is not mentioned in the article (though it is generally touched on) involves a certain kind of social interaction. The article, as it is right now, implies that the social development that homeschooling can stunt is more or less limited to making friends, having conversations, etc. (on top of peer pressure, bullying, intimidation, etc. as mentioned). I feel it is important to include '''Tolerance''', '''Working together in spite of differences''', and '''Compromise to accomplish like goals'''. I think it goes without saying that we all have had to work very closely with people we've disagreed with on almost everything, and elitism (which I never thought to be a characteristic of homeschooling until I came to Conservapedia) can stall progress. I think mentioning parents enrolling their kids in social organizations can satisfy compromise to accomplish like goals, but I question how much the kids would be exposed to other cultures and races, that would develop tolerance, since these organizations often have many class and moral characteristics in common. I know many of the conservative sysops on this page "Don't believe in tolerance when it compromises truth" but I think we can still agree that different races, classes, and faiths can still produce good people that certainly don't deserve being inferior to the stereotypical american WASP. Please keep in mind that I'm not talking about anything other than the physical world, so please take any arguments of what Jesus said or what will happen to their souls if they don't accept Him elsewhere.

:If public schools were about these things, then I would agree. Unfortunately what you have is positions being forced upon children in the name of 'tolerance'. As long as you agree with them then you're fine. If you don't -- look out. Homeschooling is about allowing children to avoid having a value system pushed upon them from a "community" that has decided it already knows what is right and will tell you to accept the same -- even against your own family. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

::That's a good point, and I can concede to it. Could not the argument be made that the value system that the family lives by (which could include racist, elitism, exclusivity, among other things) be more aggressively pushed onto the subordinate child? I find that I'm a little uncomfortable with people who were raised with limited exposure to different ideas and cultures, but I am no expert on the subject, as I'm sure is apparent, which is why I'm speaking here instead of trying to edit the page.

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-05-17T16:29:00Z

Capolavoro046: To the "Disadvantages of Homeschooling"

User:Capolavoro046

2008-05-17T00:40:25Z

Capolavoro046:

{{User Liberal}}{{User LiberalJesus}}{{User nowar}}{{User bothered}}{{User Godbigbang}}{{User evolutionScience}}{{User Theistic Evolutionist}}{{User guncontrol}}{{User ClintonFan}}{{User noBush}}{{User patriot questions authority}}{{User noracists}}{{User nobias}}

User:Capolavoro046

2008-05-17T00:38:03Z

Capolavoro046: New page: {{User Liberal}} {{User LiberalJesus}} {{User nowar}} {{User bothered}} {{User Godbigbang}} {{User evolutionScience}} {{User Theistic Evolutionist}} {{User guncontrol}} {{User ClintonFan}}...

{{User Liberal}}
{{User LiberalJesus}}
{{User nowar}}
{{User bothered}}
{{User Godbigbang}}
{{User evolutionScience}}
{{User Theistic Evolutionist}}
{{User guncontrol}}
{{User ClintonFan}}
{{User noBush}}
{{User patriot questions authority}}
{{User noracists}}
{{User nobias}}

Talk:Mysticism

2008-05-16T23:54:32Z

Capolavoro046:

For extensive insight on Mysticism, read Mysticism: The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness by Evelyn Underhill. It's a wonderful book that has become paramount to the study of Mysticism and Mystics. --[[User:Capolavoro046|Capolavoro046]] 19:54, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mysticism

2008-05-16T17:57:49Z

Capolavoro046: New page: For extensive insight on Mysticism, read Mysticism: The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness by Evelyn Underhill. It's a wonderful book that has become paramount to the study ...

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-05-16T17:50:50Z

Capolavoro046: /* Presidential campaign */

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. August 4, 1961) is the current frontrunner of the 2008 Democrat presidential primary. Obama is a member of the [[Democratic Party]] who was elected by the people of Illinois to the United States Senate in 2004. Obama is currently the only [[African American]] serving in the [[United States Senate]].
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

== Criticism and controversy ==
Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor when in actuality he only held the title of "Senior Lecturer." <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref>

Obama states that he consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" for the [[abortion]] industry.<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref>

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise [[Hillary Clinton]] refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records.{{fact}}

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref>mThe [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school, followed by an Indonesian public school, until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at the Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guide of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less [[liberal]] examples, but this list is not representative:

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the Zimbabwe government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former Liberian President Charles Taylor. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his anti-war candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

[[Image:http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/16/art.obama.pool.jpg|Thumb|Right|Senator Obama wearing the flag pin on May 16, 2008]]Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face to face meetings with two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> While he is generally considered [[liberal]] by [[America]]n standards, he could be considered a moderate [[conservative]] on an international scale.<ref>http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In Russia and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with Tony Blair, sitting UK Prime Minister.[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten day tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==
[[Daniel Pipes]] concludes that Obama was raised a Muslim,
<ref>In his autobiography, ''Dreams of My Father'', Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies, thereby revealing he was a Muslim, for Indonesian students in his day attended religious classes according to their faith.</ref>
yet in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama is described as growing up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years and a local [[Catholic]] school for two years, according to his own books.<ref>"Obama has noted in his two books, 'Dreams From My Father' and 'The Audacity of Hope,' that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10." [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]</ref> His father was a non-practicing [[Muslim]].

Obama attended a Muslim school but [[CNN]] states that it was not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. In April 2008, to advance his presidential campaign, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views.

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]

{{liberalism}}

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]