Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:AlanE

2009-04-18T15:59:31Z

Corry: /* April Contributions - continuing */

G’day.

When I was growing up, a frequent reply to a question of mine was: “Look it up”. I was fortunate to have a roomful of the wherewithal for looking “it” up; and half a century later I still have…and do.

I am a history nut, a classical music freak, a lover of American music theatre and an inveterate atlas browser. (A decent historical atlas takes me to pig’s heaven.)

I think it is time I passed on some of this “useless” knowledge (and give the family a break).

So unless I get kicked out for pushing the barrow of historical veracity a little too recklessly over someone’s toes (which has already happened once), or being somewhat sarcastic in a discussion page (I am, after all, a grumpy old man), I will attempt the following:

a) get rid of every history stub I can find and fill in the gaps – starting with medieval Britain and Western Europe because they are a particular interest – starting with 250+ word articles on the people that flavour the Age. Later I will try and come back and expand and link and source everything, but let’s get them onto the table first where they at least exist.

b) correct every historical error I come across….or at least bring it to attention if it is not in my sphere or I am in the middle of something else.

c) assist in supplying Conservapedia with core knowledge of classical music (And if my enthusiasm for the subject becomes a bit obvious you will have to excuse me…or not.)

d) be balanced in my articles – I do not care for tabloidism.

Is there anything more that is required of me here?

alan.carvel@gmail.com

==Contributions==

Contributions since 5 August. New or substantial additions (100 words or more)
:(All are in my own words - I do not copy and paste.)

*English history: Battle of Quiberon Bay - Edward III - Richard II – Henry IV – Henry V – Peasants’ Revolt – The Black Prince – John of Gaunt – Lords appellant – Charters – Froissart – Joust – Longbow – Anne of Bohemia – Stephen Langton – William II – Barons – William Marshall - Arthur of Brittany - plus thumbnail definitions of Anjou, Dauphin, Plantagenet, Angevan (''ongoing'')

*Discovery of Australia: Cook – Vancouver – Flinders – Bass - Torres – de Quiros – Janz – Hartog - Tasman (''ongoing - haven't done the French'')

*Age of Exploration: Da Gama – Portugese Exploration in West Africa – Cabral – Trade Winds ''(Sorry PJR, Trade wind’’) – Dutch East India Co. (''ongoing'' want to at least finish the Portuguese sea empire in Africa/Asia)

*Other History: Mansa Musa – Trireme – Assyrians – Ibn Battuta – Fertile Crescent etc

*Music: Paganini – Borodin – Pachelbel – Tchaikovsky – Felix Mendelssohn - Fannie Mendelssohn – Holst – Cecil Sharp – Butterworth – Chabrier – Fauré – Bizet – Richard Strauss – Leoncavallo – Mascagni – Prokofiev - Gade – Alfven - Suite (''very ongoing'')

*Other “useful” (or not) additions/ammendments: Full moon - Backyard cricket – Royal Navy – Fire Fighting – Alnwick (?) etc etc.....

*Thumbnails: Cassandra – Clytemnestra – Electra - Orestes – Leda – Ephigineia – Pylades – Roaring Forties etc

*Many dozens of edits fixing grammar, spelling - adding or amending dates – correcting small errors - and sometimes sarcastic exhortations on talk pages.....(''hopefully ongoing'')

'''I need more time!'''

==September 2008 Contributions==

Yesterday early afternoon, my time, I couldn’t get on to CP to edit. It seems us peasants were locked out for some reason. So instead of doing the editing I had intended I decided to catch up on something I have been meaning to do since I read PJR’s “essay” on aSK – that is, list and wikify the contributions for the month or so before Andrew Schafly found my work so “unimpressive”. I probably would have stuck them here without comment except for the fact than when Guarddog’s block was reverted by Andy “yesterday” he said Guarddog was only possibly wrong – that after getting on towards 100,000 words of major substantive edits it seems I am still looked upon as a “possible” threat to this site - vandal (I note also that in early October, with over 30,000 words of new info already done, I was called a “stranger”.)
:The original request for night editing rights - made purely for the good of the site; something that seemed not to occur to Andy - has disappeared. (Of course.) I do have it on Word document however and can resubmit it.

That said, I will now get about trying to remember what it was I was going to edit yesterday. A reply from Mr. Schafly would be appreciated.

[[:Category: Explorers]]: [[George Vancouver]] 241 – [[Matthew Flinders‎]] 446 - [[George Bass]] 298 – [[Trade winds]] 531 – [[Pedro Fernandez de Quiros]] 351 – [[Luis Vaez de Torres]] 180 – [[Willem Jansz]] 163 – [[Dirk Hartog]] 292

[[:Category: Composers]]: [[Alexander Borodin]] 212 - [[Johann Pachelbel‎]] 434 - [[Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky]] 599 – [[Felix Mendelssohn]] – 559 [[Fannie Mendelssohn]] 156 – [[Gustav Holst]] 565 – [[Cecil Sharp]] 134 – [[George Butterworth]] 78 – [[Emmanuel Chabrier]] 224 – [[Gabriel Faure]] 390 – [[Ruggero Leoncavallo]] 223 – [[Pietro Mascagni]] 99 – Nills Gade]] 237 – [[Hugo Alfven]] [[Sergei Prokofiev]] (works) 556.

[[:Category: Greek Mythology]]: [[Cassandra]] - [[Clytemnestra]] – [[Leda]] – [[Ephigineia]] – [[Electra]] – [[Orestes]] – [[Pylades]] – 668

[[:Category:English Monarchs]]: [[Henry IV]] 443 – [[Henry V]] 408 -

[[:Category:English History]]: [[John of Gaunt]] 310 – [[William Marshal]] 251 – [[Stephen Langton]] 243 - [[Arthur of Brittany]] 176 – [[Barons]] 159 – [[Froissart]] 152

[[:Category: British History]]:[[Battle of Quiberon Bay]] 255

Minor articles [[Dauphin]] -[[Anjou]] - [[Angevin]]-[[Plantagenet]] – [[Roaring Forties]] –

Major Additions: [[Longbow]] c150 – [[Joust]] c160 –
Other Additions: Phases of the Moon - [[Backyard cricket]] [[Alnwick]] etc
Various Historical and other corrections – many amendments and additions to composers’ work lists – fixed links, cats, defaultsorts, grammar, spelling – added or amended dates – deleted false information, etc. etc., A total of about 180 contributary edits as opposed to 70-odd talk edits, many of which were also “positive”… e.g. check out [[Talk:Jules Massenet]].

==Major contributions during October==

Anglo-Saxon kings (+queen, sorry Ethel)(18 articles – about 2800 words)
:[[Ethelred the Unready]] about 440 words
:[[Ethelwulf]], [[Ethelbald]], [[Ethelbert]], [[Ethelred I]] [[Ethelfleda]] 410
:[Edward the Elder]] 250
:[[Athelstan]] 230
:[[Elfward]] 60
:[[Edmund I]] 150
:[[Edred]] 120
:[[Edwy the Fair]] 120
:[[Edgar]] 420
:[[Edward the Martyr]] 180
:[[Harthacanute]] 90
:[[Harold Harefoot]] 70
:[[Edgar the Atheling]] 130
:[[Edmund Ironside]] 130

History and places (5 articles - about 640 words)
:[[Runnymede]] 90
:[[Maid of Norway]] 110
:[[River Dee]] 160
:[[Eleanor of Castile]] 130
:[[Berlin]] 150

Classical music. (13 articles – about 5000 words)
:[[Rachmaninov]] 750
:[[Suite (music)]] 440]]
:[[Glinka]] 250]]
:[[John Field]] 100
:[[Henry Purcell]] 410
:[[Weber]] 420
:[[Hubert Parry]]‎ 390
:[[Charles Villiers Stanford‎]] 280
:[[Serenade]] 400
:[[Arpeggione]] 320
:[[Romantic period (music)]] 560
:[[E.T.A. Hoffmann]] 200
:[[Song cycle]] 400

Misc.(4 articles- about 1290 words)
:[[Europa]] 190
:[[Prester John]] 630
:[[Carthage]] 400
:[[Alans]] 70

There were at least two more encyclopedic articles that would have been in the list (about 5-600 words I suppose, one of which I will wikify and save onto site when I finish this), but it seems that a little fit of pique by me was met by an over-the-top fit of pique by someone else and, quite frankly, I can't be bothered finishing the others at the moment. I will have to think about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:38, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

==Major November Contributions==

For what it's worth, here are the major articles for the month. About 11,000 words in 44 articles and a couple of major additions. I also spent some time on categories and continuing my ongoing "Classical Music Appreciation " course for Joaquín (g'day Joaquín) (Se my talk page for an example). I also nearly decided (twice) to give up in disgust. Most of this month's articles were activating links I had generated with the English kings and music articles.
:[[Hugo Wolf]] (300)
:[[La Perouse]] (300)
:[[D'Apres]] (150)
:[[Bruny d’Entrecasteaux]] (450)
:[[Philip IV]] of France (470)
:[[Battle of Bannockburn]] (120)
:[[Stirling Castle]] (130)
:[[Simon de Montfort]] (pére et fil) (540)
:[[Gascony]] (190)
:[[Maine (France)]] (140)
:[[Henry VI]] of England (720)
:[[Margaret of Anjou]] (200)
:[[William de la Pole]] (160)
:[[St. Albans]] (220)
:[[Towton]] (180)
:[[Wakefield]] (100)
:[[Barnet]] (130)
:[[ Tewkesbury]] (190)
:[[Berkeley Castle]] (120)
:[[Marches]] (80)
:[[Roger Mortimer]] (180) 5000
:[[Robert Curthose]] (260)
:[[Battle of Tinchebrai]] (110)
:[[New Forest]] (270)
:[[The Wash]] (220)
:[[Lewes]] (160)
:[[Evesham]] (140)
:[[Harmonica]] (180)
:[[Opera]] (1550)
:[[Oratorio]] (350)
:[[Stabat mater]] (170)
:[[Cantata]] (400)
:[[Requiem]] (300)
:[[Polyphony]] (100)
:[[Counterpoint]] (190)
:[[William Byrd]] (150)
:[[Viol]] (100)
:[[Jacobean]] (220)
:[[Tudor]] (300)
:[[Thomas Tallis]] (220)
:[[Motet]] (160)
:[[Vernacular]] (90)
:[[Inigo Jones]] (130)
:[[Robert Merrill]] (170

Major Additions:
Hesiod (110)
Bayeux Tapestry (100)

==December Contributions==
I started back in medieval England after a hint of Hungary this month….
:[[Magyars]]………………… 180 words
:[[Henry IV]]……………………480
:[[Henry V]]……………………170
:[[Richard Neville]]……………170
:[[Ludlow]]……………………340
:[[Warwick]]……………………200
:::then got waylaid by Ed on slavery (about 600) and fixed some bits and pieces (300) before going for a sail:
[[Barque]] (220) [[Brig]](240) [[Brigantine]](180) [[Ship]](100) [[Carvel]](170) [[Nao]] (170) [[Carrack]](140) [[Hulk]](160) [[Cog (ship)|Cog]](170) [[Galleon]](310) [[Galleass]](110) [[Ship of the line]](490) [[Frigate]] (140) [[Schooner]](420) [[Galley]](290) [[Xebec]](160) [[Pinnace]](180) [[Clipper]](310) [[Corvette]](140) [[Composite ship]](330).

Then, apart from a quick [[Etude]](190), I was swamped by Christmas and its preparations, including meeting airplanes and showing people the beautiful part of the world I live in (and if anyone wants my recipe for turkey (or chicken) stuffing……).

Back to late medieval England……
:[[Richard III]]………………660
:[[Battle of Bosworth]]………160
:[[Woodville]]………………320
:[[Lambert Simnel]]…………170
:[[Duchy of Lancaster]]……170
:[[House of York]]…………170
:[[Wars of the Roses]]………1350
:[[William Caxton]]…………330

I wrote a bit more than 11000 words of new information this month…nothing really compared to those who whip off a 20 word “insight” or two, or a couple of “great blocks”. (I played a bit of beach volleyball a decade or four ago and I know how it feels.) Still, what I try and give is good ol' information like they used to have in encyclopedias with pages.

I also added or changed over 100 categories, fixed numerous links and generally kept my room tidy…not leaving a lot of red links lying around.

I wish all Conservapedians a happy and satisfying 2009.

==January Contributions==

As usual, the following are almost entirely new entries, mostly brought about by the need to put life into red links engendered by my previous articles. It just goes on and on.

Not including Talk Pages, Category changes, minor amendments and the like, I did up to about 12,000 words this month. I was fortunate in that I had saved the word documents in which I compose my articles, so I was able to replace those lost in “The Great Crash” with only a few hours work. My heart goes out to those of you who lost the fruits of their time and efforts during that week.

*[[:Category:English History]] [[Catherine Swynford]] 110 - The [[Beaufort]] family 610

*[[:Category: United Kingdom Cities and Towns]]: [[Cinque Ports]] 170 ([[Romney UK|Romney]] 140, [[Hythe]] 80, [[Sandwich UK|Sandwich]] 160, [[Dover]] 410, [[Winchelsea]] 170, and [[Rye]] 110) plus [[Folkestone]] 110.

*Scotland the grave: [[Lothian]] 120 – [[East Lothian]] (including replacing the ancient parody on 13 East Lothian towns) 590 – [[Malcolm II]] 150 – [[Duncan I]] 130 [[Strathclyde]] 110 – [[Elgin]] 140 – [[Dumbarton]] 220 - [[River Clyde]] 170

*[[:Category: Composers]]: [[William Walton]] 350 – [[Francis Poulenc]] 350 – [[Arnold Schoenberg]] 260 – [[Anton Webern]] 110 – [[Alban Berg]] 140 – [[Arthur Honegger]] 170 – [[Darius Milhaud]] 220 – [[Michael Tippett]] 320 – [[Carlo Gesualdo]] 160 – [[Claudio Monteverdi]] 360 – [[Gluck]] 370 – [[Niccolo Piccinni]] 150 – [[John Dowland]] 180 – [[Thomas Campion]] 80 – [[Thomas Morley]] 330 – [[Lully]] 270 – [[Scarlatti]]( A. and D.) 370

*[[:Category: Sacred Music]]: [[Te Deum]] 110 – [[Gregorian chant]] 100 – [[Antiphon]] 110 – [[Anthem]] 230 – [[Mass (music)|Mass]] 380 – [[Kyrie eleison]] 80 – [[Gloria]] 150 – [[Passion (music)]] 220 – [[Chorale]] 200 – [[Canticle]] 120 – [[Magnificat]] 140

*[[:Category: Musical forms]]: [[Overture]] 470 – [[Madrigal]] 520 – [[Frottola]] 110 – [[Lute song]] 240

*[[:Category: String Instruments]]: [[Lute]] 430

==February Contributions==

Not as much new information this month for one reason or another….

[[:Category: Composers]]: - [[John Ireland]] (430)

Various musical categories: - [[Chanson]] (280) – [[Melodie]] (170) – [[Impromptu]] (110) – [[Partita]] (150) – [[Capriccio]] (120) – [[Glockenspiel]] (100) – [[Fantasia]] (450) – [[Rhapsody]] – [[Horatius Bonar‎]] (270) – [[Plainchant]] (130) – [[Prelude]] (330) and of course the song (hymn, anthem – it is any or all of those) additions to [[And Did those Feet]] (What larks, Pip old chap!)

[[:Category: Sailing ship types]] – [[Lateen]] (250) – [[Spanker]] (50) – [[Dhow]] (410) –[[Junk]] (410)

[[:Category: Ships]] - [[Pentekonter]] (70).

[[:Category: Explorers]] – [[Willem Cornelisz Schouten‎]] (200)

[[:Category: Civilizations]] [[Indus Valley Civilization]] (1000+)

[[:Category: Dictionary]] [[Guddle]] (170) Love that word!

A few red links turned blue eg [[Burwash]], [[Tees-Exe line]] and the abovementioned Pentekonter. (Which reminds me – why do people decide to add red links to an article then wander off without making any effort to actually turn those links blue?)

I have enlivened or created many scores of links, (nearly all Blue! - but give me time.), made a few dozen minor changes and/or small additions to articles, reverted a number of vandalisms, opened redirects, done defaultsorts, added or changed many categories, attempted a few times to maintain historical accuracy (to very little avail – it seems I have a closed mind, am an atheist, and know nothing at all about history!)

I spend days thinking about leaving. I probably won’t – what I wrote in my opening spiel above still applies – but it would not take much of a push.

Submitted 07:51 2nd March, my time [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:51, 1 March 2009 (EST)

==March Contributions==

Instruments: [[Alto flute]] 150 – [[Transposing instrument]] 170 - [[Saxophone]] 190 – [[Oboe]] 520 – adds to [[bassoon]], [[Tuba]] etc 100 – [[Psaltery]] 110 - [[Dulcimer]] 170 [[Virginal]] 280 - [[Spinet]] 140 – [[Harpsichord]] 400 - [[Clavichord]] 200 – [[Piano]] (history) 500 – [[Xylophone]] 160 .

Composers: [[Couperin]] 170 – [[Leos Janacek|Janacek]] 410 – [[Frederick Delius|Delius]] 580 – [[Mussorgsky]] 400 – [[Luigi Boccherini|Boccherini]] 310 – [[Palestrina]] 220 – [[Lassus]] 170 – [[Tomas Luis de Victoria‎|Victoria]] 120 – [[Arcangelo Corelli|Corelli]] 160 – [[Max Bruch]] 180 – [[Henri Duparc]] 220 – [[Cesar Franck]] 220 – [[Ernest Chausson]] 220 – [[Vincent D'Indy]] 140 – [[Arnold Bax]] 370.

Sacred Music: [[Psalms]] 250 – [[Nunc dimittis]] – 130

Musical forms etc: [[Villanella]] 60 - [[Trio sonata]] 130 – [[Concerto grosso]] 190 – [[Ballad]] 420 – [[Chamber music]] 1150.

Miscellaneous: [[Kingdom of Kush]] 230 – [[Kushan Empire]] 190 – [[Virtuoso]] 210

There have been the usual fixing of links, categories and sorts, minor additions and amendments, some talk, talk, talk (positive I hope) Nearly all the above articles were to remove red links. One thing seems to lead to another.

The above amount of work, about 40 substantive edits totalling about 10,000 words of new information, is less than September’s additions to the site, which, it seems, were considered “unimpressive” by the owner. He didn’t tell me that of course.

==April Contributions - continuing==

[[St. Matthew Passion]] – partnership with [[User:JDWpianist]] – my share about 1440 words; his share - well over a thousand words of superior knowledge and expertise on he actual music..

New articles, all of them enlivening previously red links: [[Pontefract]] 350 – [[Heinrich Schutz]] 184 – [[Orlando Gibbons]] 178 – [[Robert Grosseteste]] 120 – [[Sir Thomas Malory]] 100 – [[Teutonic Knights]] 259 – [[Order of the Garter]] 244 – [[Order of the Thistle]] 121 – [[Battle of Crecy]] 304 – [[Battle of Poitiers]] 448 – [[Bordeaux]] 179 – [[Navarre]] 76 – [[Battle of Najera]] 127 – [[Themistocles]] 358 – [[Charles VI, king of France]] 214 - [[Bury St Edmunds]] 159

Rewrite of existing article: [[Tournament]] 280

==Your efforts==

Your considerable efforts might be more appreciated at www.astorehouseofknowledge.info. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:59, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Ten

2009-04-16T14:21:31Z

Corry: /* Malaria */ new section

*''Earlier the abolition movement, which was motivated mostly by Christianity rather than by non-Christian reform movements, wiped out slavery and slave trade worldwide by 1888. ''
There was a slave market at Taif, about 40 miles outside Mecca, which was not shut down until 1962. ([http://www.thedailystar.net/2004/07/27/d40727150297.htm] and [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a7.html footnote-18]) People who came from all over the world on their journey to Mecca but didn't have the fare for a round trip often fell afoul of the local authorities once the festivities ended. A penniless pilgrim from far away may resort to stealing food for example, which would end up placing him on the auction block at Taif. And a rich pilgrim, before returning home could pick up a bargain-basement wife or man slave at Taif before departing. This is a line of investigation I've been following for some time, as it appears the Saudi regime agreed to ending this millenium-plus old Islamic practice in exchange for increased cooperation with the West, but it's difficult to find a source document with the exact language for closing the slave market.

Upon deeper investigation what is revealed is the trip to Mecca has long been a cover for the worldwide slave trade, and may infact still be practiced to some extent. Islamic societies did not build jails or prisons. Local troublemakers, and the "shiftless unemployed", so to speak, were often sold to slave caravans making the journey to Mecca where the highest prices could be commanded.

Bin Laden's anger at the West is in large part due to Islamic regimes, such as the House of Saud, caving in to Western pressures and breaking long held Islamic traditions and Islamic societies methods of dealing with common social problems. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's another source,
[http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/78.php ''Islam and Slavery: The Concealed Truth''], Srdja Trifkovic, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, November 14, 2003.

== Preliminary corrections ==

I might make a thorough and detailed list if I have time, but upon glancing through the part on Africa so far I have picked up on two aspects that stood out to me, both rather minor:

*The explorer's name is David Livingstone not Livingston as it is listed on at least one occasion.
*The suggestion that the Nile is unusual in flowing north is rather ambiguous. This idea that it is unusual is simply due to human perception, in that modern maps have north at the top and so it seems counter-intuitive that 'up river' would be 'down south'.
[[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 09:42, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== A World War I Thought ==

This is a thought I've had on the Great War; feel free to use it if you like. While the war itself was dull from a military standpoint, it was of immense political importance. World War I was a huge factor in the Russian Revolution, which, of course, led to Soviet Communism. Further, the conditions that Germany was left in after World War I were a key factor in the ride to power of Hitler and Nazism. (I think that there probably would have been some kind of Russian Revolution without World War I, though the results might have been radically different. I doubt Hitler could have risen to power if Germany wasn't left in abysmal shape after the war.) I'd argue that the two great international conflicts of the 20th Century were World War II and the Cold War. Nazi Germany was a key player in World War II (Japan gets "credit" too, of course), and Soviet Russia was, similarly, a key player in the Cold War. Thus, the two great conflicts of the 20th Century were largely defined by nations that, arguably, would not have existed if not for World War I. I realize this is pretty simplistic, but I'm sure you could expand on it. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 11:04, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== Time Line ==

I'm a little bit irritated by the time line. You write ''England attempted to hide and conceal the secrets of its industrial revolution from continental Europe, but the revolution spread anyway. The first European nation to follow England was Belgium in 1807, then France in 1848, and then Germany in 1870. ''
How do you get these precise dates for the beginning of the industrial revolution in the different nations? The one for Germany seems to be wrong: for instance, the steel foundry of the Krupps was founded in 1810.

Could you share your sources?

''The Red Cross society was founded in Switzerland by Jean Henri Dunant, and was used in America during the Civil War.''

The Red Cross was established in 1863. I'm under the impression that the great [[Clara Barton]] started to organize the American chapter in the 1870th, that is, after (and under the impression of) the Civil War.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Technology and Marconi ==
The lecture currently states the Marconi invented the radio where as even the Supreme Court stated in June of 1943 (Marconi Wireless Telegraph co. of America v. United States) that Nikola Tesla was the inventor the the radio. [[User:WillB|WillB]] 15:34, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

== Malaria ==

I realize that this lecture has come and gone, but this could be corrected for next year. This is nitpicky, but "Malaria was historically a problem in Africa (and still is today), but the antidote quinine was discovered that immunized Europeans against contracting it." is not entirely accurate. Quinine is a treatment for malaria (although many strains are now resistant) and can be given preemptively to help prevent contraction of the disease, but it is not an antidote and it doesn't immunize people, and if it did, it wouldn't be just Europeans (I don't think you mean to imply that, but it comes across). A more accurate statement would be: "Malaria was historically a problem in Africa (and still is today), but the discovery of quinine, which can be used for both the prevention of and treatment of malaria, made European activity in Africa possible." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 10:21, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

User talk:TerryH

2009-04-15T15:59:50Z

Corry: /* Guard Dog */ new section

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== 66.212.16.194 ==

I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Reply ==

Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==

I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Explain what? Do you deny it?
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Schlafly ==
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Help!==
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== CreationWiki ==

Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:: For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/guess2much.html this] page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html this article], which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Headline text ==
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hai ==

Terry,

Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!

In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.

Also, consider archiving those two pages.

You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.

By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.

Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.

Regards,
-Hojimachong

== CreationWiki ==

Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
==[[Io]]==
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Comment ==

In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhoenixWright&diff=397970&oldid=397934 threatening tone, here.] In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==The horror...==
Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I second to that, look at Recent Page. Someone stop the idiot that living his own shell

Edit- By the way, good job for defense, Jellyfish.
--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 12:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I got him. Thanks again Jellyfish. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops ==

(blush) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

300.2 million > 3.2 million [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=436643&oldid=436641] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== bamboozled ==

Why don't you think Fox News is a major media organization? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:The edit isn't about size - it is about liberal bias. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I replied to your planet suggestion and would be most happy to review the material and provide any input that I think I would be beneficial. I also sent you an important email. I am hoping to get things rolling as soon as possible and would appreciate your input in regards to my proposal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Regarding removal of my articles==

Is there any person I can contact regarding removing my articles? I see you reverted my deletion notices. Regards. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 10:22, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

#No need to spam the wiki like this. You are heard.
#They are not "your" articles; you donated them without any strings attached.
#I deleted a couple already. Your article on [[Machiavellianism]] was worthless drivel. I can't believe a professor would use such material as course notes.
#If (by some awkward chance) you are really a professor, email me your credentials and we can talk by phone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:They weren't course notes; they were introductory articles. Quite a difference. I have nothing to prove to you, I don't care if you think I am a professor or not (I amn't by they way, I was a lecturer who taught in England and Ireland for many years, and never attained the title of 'professor') and am not going to Email you and am most certainly not going to let a random person on the internet ring me. What aspect of the Machiavelli article didn't you like? Was it above you? [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 11:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Redheads ==

Why does it need to be deleted? Sure, the first article I posted was intended to be sarcastic (not against Conservapedia, but against the cruel views with which Redheads are looked upon in England (a trend that stems from bigotry against the Scots, Irish, and Scandinavians).

This has manifested itself in the following forms:

-The Chapman family in Newcastle was forced to move MULTIPLE TIMES due to taunts directed to both parents and children

-We have been beaten up, and one man was stabbed in an alley

-Skinheads are organizing against us

-A waitress was harassed on multiple occasions

-Some of us (though not me, personally) are brought to indignation upon hearing the word "ginger", which isn't much when compared to things like "Firecrotch"

-Countless men, women, and children have been taunted, often resulting in suicide attempts

-Over here in Texas, I, along with a few people I know, have also been the target of obsceneties

-This issue has gained the attention of the press from Austin to Aberdeen, along with being the focal topic of an episode of Southpark, along with countless British media and recent literature.

(pardon my bad spelling; I'm only 16)

My second post sought to explain this. It did not have any liberal bias- only pro-ginger bias (my own). It does not concern conservatism or liberalism*. Besides, I thought this is the place to be biased... isn't it?

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Liberalism traditionally refers to free-market capitalism and relaxed social restrictions similar to Libertarianism. Only in recent years has it been misconstrued to refer to left-wing politics.

{{unsigned|GLA}}

==== Vaccines ====
Why did you revert my edits? The article that's cited as a source explicitly states that it has not been conclusively proven that Gardasil caused or was even implicated in those deaths. -- Aaronp

==Principal's Resignation?==

Terry,

Thought you might be interested in this story.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/458733.html

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Aggrieved's Talk Page Debate==

Terry, you came to my Talk page and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggrieved&diff=prev&oldid=474283 demanded] that I "had better: 1) Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them; 2) Retract your last comment and apologize to me; and 3) Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration."

My response:

1) - Multiple citations provided. It is duly noted you never provided a single citation to back up your own false claim; 2) - Not a chance; 3) - No problem. This dialog will be in the record and your willingness to disregard fact, remain uninformed about current affairs, and aggressively police your own mistruths will be duly noted. Martyrdom in the name of truth can be my legacy.

In response to your failure to prove your case, and my success in proving mine, I now demand you:
1. Withdraw your claim on Main:Talk Page that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", publicly.
2. Apologize to me, publicly, for your aggressive tone and ill-informed opinion.

Thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 21:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

==Hi==
Just pointing out, you accidentally blocked Leda for a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ALeda month] instead of a day. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:No accident, neighbor. She'd already been blocked a number of times before, so she rated what she got.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:58, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Delete and protect ==

I believe the new policy/custom is to use actual salting instead of using some "deletedpage" placeholder. You should be able to protect non-existent pages (or specify protection during deletion, I don't know for sure). See also [[Special:Protectedtitles]] for a list of what has been salted already. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:12, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

PS: Thanks a lot for the unblock. I'm still struggling with the mail confirmation, so I had to rely on somebody seeing my block. :) --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==My talk page==

Thanks for sweeping up around my castle when the moat overflowed. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Looks like someone had a friend show up ==

*shrug* Thanks. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Lsit ==

Thanks for the correction. [[User:Memory|Memory]] 15:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives==
Terry, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under your name so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== News suggestions ==

Terry, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the News suggestions. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the suggestion archives. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.

Please review the suggestions. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on [[Template:Mainpageright]] and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== rhea article ==

Hi, great article. Now the bad news :) I came across this as a Random page search and I noticed the first bit with the picture is spread beyond the normal article edge on the left. It would be a bit neater if it could be sized a fraction narrower. I have no idea on how that would be done. If you disagree thats fine ;-) [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

: The problem was with the template that puts a box of information on the right. Somebody duplicated the size, and that duplicate size was uninterpretable and thus the image came through at its original size, which was ''not'' what I intended. You'll notice that the images are back to the proper size now.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:: yes thats even better [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:37, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
::: That error was in there since July last year! Obviously the previous version of MediaWiki somehow coped with it, but the latest version is stricter. It would also explain why the info box in the Earth article was so big the other day. And there's another size duplication in the template, which I'll fix now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== A. Schlafly's talk page ==

Could you repair it, too? I couldn't do so. Thanks --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Parolees==

I noticed we had a [[:category:Parolees]] a few weeks ago when I was browsing the [[Conservapedia:Maintenance]] page. Since [[User:Saxplayer]] is now on parole, I thought I'd use that as a chance to revive the formal parole system. Please let me know if you object. If you don't, how long is Saxplayer's parole for? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Slightly amused but no offense meant... ==

I'm sorry for bugging you, if you don't write [[Project:Guard dog|Guard dog]], but this block reason just cracked me up:
::''Blocked for vandalism with assistance of Conservapedia:Guard dog''
Can you tell whoever writes it they probably ought to reword that summary? When I first saw it, before I clicked the link to the page about Guard dog, I thought you were saying that the vandal was using Guard dog to ''vandalize''.

Again, sorry for bugging ''you'', but I saw you using it, and I don't know who develops it.

Thanks, and have a good day!

[[User:Samd|Samd]] 10:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, I wrote that. Now that you point it out, I see your point. I wonder what would be best: A comma after "vandalism"?
: And just to be overly pedantic, why would you think that the vandal was using Guard Dog to ''vandali'''z'''e'' when it actually says "vandali'''s'''m"?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::Because I'm a stupid American? :P I don't know. I've always spelled it like that. Why do I spell my name s-a-m? (pedantics in calculus class - uuggghhhh...) A comma would probably be good. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 11:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::: I won't make any nasty cracks about "stupid American" containing a redundancy. I provided the default text, but TerryH will have to change it on his settings if he wishes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== Don't get it.... ==

''From now on, I'll have to trust you implicitly. DO NOT ABUSE MY TRUST.''

Thanks for your trust? Don't shout at me? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Please, believe me, a block-notice is enough to get my attention :-)
I was editing [[Philipp Lenard]], when this bizarre ''Hitlermania'' started. I got a little bit annoyed as I'd thought that the guard-dog would act a little bit earlier - and without biting me ;-)
But I fully understand that you had no time to check my contributions to see that I'm a legit editor --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==New wave==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:BlockIP/NicStory this], although I am faintly disappointed that you beat me to it. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Navboxes ==

Terry, I think that the text in the navboxes would look better if it was centered. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Recent Vandalism==
I'm not sure how to undo a page back 2 edits, but in the most recent vandalism spree, ForReal edited [[Talk:Main Page]] twice and [[Talk:Barack Obama]] was edited by ForReal and then another user just after that. When you undid that last edit, it took it back to ForReal's 'contribution'. Could you take care of this, or I can do it if shown how. Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==[[The Simpsons]]==

Should we provide a conservative analysis of the characters on the Simpsons? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Thanks!==

Looks like BrandonF was going to be persistent with his idea of "humor." I was going to revert him again, but you beat me to it. Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==AddisonDM block==

TerryH, I was given just now a 5 year autoblock by the Guarddog attributed to you, for suspected vandalism. I was actually installing a new template approved by Mr. Schlafly called [[Template:Bible Versions]] on all the Bible pages. I was told this was a good thing to do. Please immediately unblock me, and for proof I am not a vandal, see the 10+ new pages I have added at [[User:AddisonDM]]. 29 December 2008

== Happy New Year, Terry! ==

'''Glory to God in highest heaven,'''
'''Who unto man His Son hath given;'''
'''While angels sing with tender mirth,'''
'''A glad new year to all the earth.''' 
'''~Martin Luther''' 
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:38, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Help ==

Hi, thanks for helping out with that other editor earlier. I was just wondering how/where I can suggest new articles for creation? Many Thanks. --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 22:49, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== [[Subacute myelo-optic neuropathy]] ==

Would you mind taking a look at this and see what the "big dispute" is? Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== please check your email ==

Please check your email [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandals==
It seems that there have been a lot of vandals with "bob" in their name. Could you edit the software to autoblock anyone with "bob" in their name for at least the next month? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:47, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== help would be appreciated ==

Any help you could offer as far as this article [[Creation vs. evolution debate]] would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:56, 1 March 2009 (EST)

==Music article talk page==
Hi TerryH! I've left a long, substantial review of the popular vs. classical issue on the [[music]] talk page. I'd appreciate starting a constructive dialogue about this issue in order to strengthen this aspect of the article. Thanks! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Guard Dog ==

The bot is going berserk. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:59, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Resurrection Sunday

2009-04-09T22:32:43Z

Corry: /* Origin of the name 'Easter' */ See talk page

'''Resurrection Sunday''' (also known as '''Easter''') is the [[Christian]] holiday marking the [[resurrection of Jesus Christ]] three days after His crucifixion on [[Good Friday]], and is the most important festival of the [[liturgical year]].

== Date of Resurrection Sunday ==

In 325, the [[Nicaean Council]] declared that the Resurrection Sunday holiday would be celebrated on the first Sunday after the [[full moon]] of the vernal equinox.

Resurrection Sunday doesn't fall on a fixed date in the calendar. Instead, it is based on a lunar calendar like that used by the Jews. At the [[Nicaean Council]] in 325 AD it was decided that Resurrection Sunday would be celebrated on the Sunday after the first full moon on or after the day of the vernal equinox. The date of the [[full moon]] was to be determined by using the [[Metonic Cycle]]. Eastern Orthodox Churches still use the Julian calendar when determining the date of Resurrection Sunday and thus have a different date for the celebration.

== Lent ==
[[Image:Konrad Witz – Petri fiskafänge.jpg|thumb|The Miraculous Draught of Fishes by Konrad Witz.]]
Resurrection Sunday marks the end of the 46 days of [[Lent]], a period of fasting and penitence in preparation for Resurrection Sunday, which begins on [[Ash Wednesday]] and ends on Resurrection Sunday. However, Lent really only comprises 40 days since the 6 Sundays during this period are excluded from the Lenten fast, and are days that are set apart to commemorate Resurrection Sunday and Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead, defeated the grave and guaranteed eternal life to those who believe.

The days before Resurrection Sunday also are special in the Christian tradition: the Sunday before is [[Palm Sunday]], and the last three days before Resurrection Sunday are [[Holy Thursday]], [[Good Friday]] and [[Silent Saturday]]. These days commemorate Jesus' entry into [[Jerusalem]], the [[Last Supper]] and the [[Crucifixion]].

== Pentecost ==

[[Pentecost]] is seven weeks after Resurrection Sunday. Those seven weeks are celebrated as the Season of Easter in the [[Catholic Church]].

== Origin of the name 'Easter' ==

Many suggest that the term "Easter" is derived from ''Eastre,'' the pagan goddess of fertility and spring. [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5695/#easter Others suggest] that the word comes from the anglo-saxon word for "passover". In biblical times the Jewish [[Passover]], which commemorates the sparing of the [[Hebrew]] firstborns, was celebrated at roughly the same time as the [[vernal equinox]] or this “Eastre” festival. The theory of pagan origin surmises that while the Gospel was being spread to the pagans, the celebration of Eastre and the celebration of the resurrection became combined and the Christians adopted the name that the pagans had used for their festival.

==The Name Resurrection Sunday==
This name is used in [[Mexico]]: "Domingo de Resurrección," which translates as Resurrection Sunday. It is also used in the [[United States]], in response to the possibly pagan origins of the name "Easter."<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Ascension of Christ]]
*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Observances]][[category:Holidays]]

Talk:Resurrection Sunday

2009-04-09T14:28:33Z

Corry:

How is this the "proper" term when you acknowledge on CP Terms article that you just made it up? I now declare that "Christmas" is now properly known as "Fuglehorn Day", a term I just created.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:40, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't know why it's listed on [[Conservapedia terms]]. The footnote for this article makes it clear that the term was not coined on Conservapedia. I guess it's just that it's not in widespread use, so Conservapedia is trying to increase how much it's used. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

What's wrong with calling it Easter? [[User:DM|DM]] 11:32, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

This page is outrageous. Even if the name easter was taken from a pagan holiday doesn't mean that the name is pagan. It was adapted by christians and is accepted by almost every christian group. Are you going to call those christians pagans. That's a little much conservapedia --[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 11:49, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Church usage of "Resurrection Sunday" instead of "Easter" ==
Are there any examples of actual churches using Resurrection Sunday instead of Easter? I Googled the term and didn't find much, certainly not enough to convince me that the term Easter is becoming denigrated. The christiananswers.net source is weak in that it doesn't give any actual examples of churches changing terms. I have found plenty of churches that still use the term Easter, though. Saddleback Church[http://www.saddleback.com/index.html#], the United Methodist Church[http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2514885/k.63E6/Lent_and_Easter_Resources.htm], at least one Catholic congregation[http://parishcalendar.com:8080/93/19811] (example taken from a pretty conservative part of the US), Thomas Road Baptist Church[http://home.trbc.org/index.cfm?PID=18511] (of Jerry Falwell fame) all use the term Easter, not Resurrection Sunday. (Please note that the links will likely not be relevant after this coming Easter.) I propose that we change the wording so that it doesn't suggest that eschewing the term Easter has become mainstream or even close to it. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 10:28, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Bypass Surgery

2009-03-16T21:58:07Z

Corry: doh!

'''Bypass Surgery''', or '''Coronary artery bypass grafting''' (CABG), is a type of surgery called revascularization (re-VAS-kyu-lar-i-ZA-shun), used to improve blood flow to the heart in people with severe coronary artery disease (CAD).

CAD occurs when the arteries that supply blood to the [[heart]] muscle (the coronary arteries) become blocked due to the buildup of a material called plaque (plak) on the inside of the blood vessels. If the blockage is severe, chest pain (also called angina), shortness of breath, and, in some cases, [[heart attack]] can occur.

CABG is one treatment for CAD. During CABG, a healthy artery or vein from another part of the body is connected, or grafted, to the blocked coronary artery. The grafted artery or vein bypasses (that is, it goes around) the blocked portion of the coronary artery. This new passage routes oxygen-rich blood around the blockage to the heart muscle. As many as four major blocked coronary arteries can be bypassed during one surgery.
Overview

CABG is the most common type of open-heart surgery in the United States, with more than 500,000 surgeries performed each year. Doctors called cardiothoracic (KAR-de-o-tho-RAS-ik) surgeons perform this surgery.

CABG isn’t used for everyone with CAD. Many people with CAD can be treated by other means, such as lifestyle changes, medicines, and another revascularization procedure called angioplasty.

CABG may be an option if you have severe blockages in the large coronary arteries that supply a major part of the heart muscle with blood—especially if the heart’s pumping action has already been weakened.

CABG may also be an option if you have blockages in the heart that can’t be treated with angioplasty. In these situations, CABG is considered more effective than other types of treatment.

If you’re a candidate for CABG, the goals of having the surgery are to:

* Improve your quality of life and decrease angina and other symptoms of CAD
* Resume a more active lifestyle
* Improve the pumping action of the heart if it has been damaged by a heart attack
* Lower the chances of a heart attack (in some patients, such as those with diabetes)
* Improve your chance of survival

Repeat surgery may be needed if grafted arteries or veins become blocked, or if new blockages develop in arteries that weren’t blocked before. Taking medicines as prescribed and making lifestyle changes that your doctor recommends can lower the chance of a graft becoming blocked.

In people who are candidates for the surgery, the results are usually excellent, with 85 percent of people having significantly reduced symptoms, less risk for future heart attacks, and a decreased chance of dying within 10 years following the surgery.

== Sources ==

* [http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Index/b.html NIH Glossary]
[[category:medicine]]
[[Category:Medical Terms]]

Bypass Surgery

2009-03-16T21:57:15Z

Corry: wikilink

'''Bypass Surgery''', or '''Coronary artery bypass grafting''' (CABG), is a type of surgery called revascularization (re-VAS-kyu-lar-i-ZA-shun), used to improve blood flow to the heart in people with severe coronary artery disease (CAD).

CAD occurs when the arteries that supply blood to the [[heart]] muscle (the coronary arteries) become blocked due to the buildup of a material called plaque (plak) on the inside of the blood vessels. If the blockage is severe, chest pain (also called angina), shortness of breath, and, in some cases, [heart attack] can occur.

CABG is one treatment for CAD. During CABG, a healthy artery or vein from another part of the body is connected, or grafted, to the blocked coronary artery. The grafted artery or vein bypasses (that is, it goes around) the blocked portion of the coronary artery. This new passage routes oxygen-rich blood around the blockage to the heart muscle. As many as four major blocked coronary arteries can be bypassed during one surgery.
Overview

CABG is the most common type of open-heart surgery in the United States, with more than 500,000 surgeries performed each year. Doctors called cardiothoracic (KAR-de-o-tho-RAS-ik) surgeons perform this surgery.

CABG isn’t used for everyone with CAD. Many people with CAD can be treated by other means, such as lifestyle changes, medicines, and another revascularization procedure called angioplasty.

CABG may be an option if you have severe blockages in the large coronary arteries that supply a major part of the heart muscle with blood—especially if the heart’s pumping action has already been weakened.

CABG may also be an option if you have blockages in the heart that can’t be treated with angioplasty. In these situations, CABG is considered more effective than other types of treatment.

If you’re a candidate for CABG, the goals of having the surgery are to:

* Improve your quality of life and decrease angina and other symptoms of CAD
* Resume a more active lifestyle
* Improve the pumping action of the heart if it has been damaged by a heart attack
* Lower the chances of a heart attack (in some patients, such as those with diabetes)
* Improve your chance of survival

Repeat surgery may be needed if grafted arteries or veins become blocked, or if new blockages develop in arteries that weren’t blocked before. Taking medicines as prescribed and making lifestyle changes that your doctor recommends can lower the chance of a graft becoming blocked.

In people who are candidates for the surgery, the results are usually excellent, with 85 percent of people having significantly reduced symptoms, less risk for future heart attacks, and a decreased chance of dying within 10 years following the surgery.

== Sources ==

* [http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Index/b.html NIH Glossary]
[[category:medicine]]
[[Category:Medical Terms]]

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-12-16T21:11:41Z

Corry: /* Unwarranted 90/10 block */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive2|2]]

== [[Axiom of Choice]] ==

Foxtrot blocked two users (AndyJM for five years, BRichtigen for three days) and threatened to block me over a content dispute in [[Axiom of Choice]] (which I'll just call AC).

Brief summary:
*AndyJM removed a claim about the AC being equivalent of another claim involving certain subsets of the real line and made a post on the talk page explaining his reasoning.
*Foxtrot reverted both posts and banned AndyJM.
*BRichtigen then went to Foxtrot's talk page to point out that AndyJM was apparently correct.
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Foxtrot&oldid=571141#AndyJM Full conversation] - permalink because Foxtrot deleted the entire conversation with his next edit, calling it "senseless talk".
*BRichtigen was blocked for not dropping the issue.
*I looked up the issue myself and found a source that shows that the claim (AC equivalent to the subset issue) is wrong. I then reverted Foxtrots reverts.
*Foxtrot handwaves the issue away, saying that he "reinserted valuable information that was lost by an editor intent to misrepresent the Axiom". Apparently, removing wrong information about the AC misrepresents it. Somehow.
*When I confronted Foxtrot about the blocks and how he inserted wrong information (and wrongly asserted on his talk page that the claim is true), I got an implied block warning ("If you persist in misrepresnting my actions in this matter, you may find yourself as the third Musketeer.").
The last point is what drove me here. I need a few more eyes on this issue because I think it classifies as abuse. Foxtrot blocked users over a content dispute and then threatens anybody who questions his behavior. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Foxtrot is a valued editor whose work here has contributed greatly to the success of Conservapedia. I should be wary of getting into a 'my word against his' situation, as my experience is that he is a trustworthy and doughty member of this project. Can you find it in your heart that you might be mistaken? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:27, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not questioning Foxtrot's history. I did, however, find a source that apparently proves him wrong in this issue. If Foxtrot can show that I made a mistake, that's cool. It's what content discussions are all about. I'm man enough to admit that I made a mistake once proof is produced. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well, it seems I can't even enjoy my Thanksgiving evening in peace. Alan, you're once again misrepresenting my actions. The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified. Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble, using an article that a limited number of editors (esp. sysops) would have expertise with. He denied my knowledgeable directive that the non-Lebesgue measurable real subsets belonged in the article, and the ban reflected his denial. And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it. Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance - considering Andy had been replying on the Axiom of Choice page, I think there was a very important set of eyes on the issue. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:32, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Apologies for the late reply, but Bugler forgot to unblock my IP, so I had to endure yet another unfair block even if he meant to undo it. Which means that it's now too late for me to effectively continue this discussion tonight, but let's see what happens.
::::*''The material removed by AndyJM was important to the Axiom of Choice article and a wholesale removal was thoroughly unjustified.''
::::His edit to [[Axiom of Choice]] corrected a factual mistake, and you reverted it. He even gave an explanation, which you ''also'' reverted. It's possible that the information could have been inserted in a rephrased way, but punishing somebody for only improving an article halfway through is madness.
::::*''Another editor, who has had a history of troublemaking, saw an opportunity to stir up trouble''
::::Bold accusation. I saw and still see somebody who tried to improve an article after you inserted a (then likely, now confirmed) wrong claim.
::::*''And now you are following his initiative in removing a valid criticism of AC and then downplaying it after I reinstated it.''
::::"Valid criticism"? The claim was ''wrong''. That's the definition of "invalid". And even then, it wouldn't have been criticism. Showing that X can be proven with Y doesn't criticize Y. Especially not when X can also be proven by other means. So where is the "downplaying"? I just provided sourced information - I can't help it if that information doesn't fit into the view the article apparently tries to push.
::::*''Your wish to bring it here to have "more eyes on this issue" is another step of defiance''
::::I only came here because you already blocked two people for disagreeing with whatever you think is right and because you issued a block threat at me, too. It's not my fault that you apparently can't have a content discussion without using your block rights! --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:49, 27 November 2008 (EST)

A five year block of a new user ''without any warning'' for removing information he thought (and which seems to be) incorrect? Are we ''trying'' to shut down Conservapedia? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:14, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I think this is just ''bad style'':
# 14:49, 28 November 2008 Foxtrot (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)

*looking at the list of his contributions, AlanS hasn't violated the 90/10 guideline
*granted, he was involved in some discussions: it took a while to show that Foxtrot was wrong
*for the record: AlanS was right, Foxtrot was wrong, and AlanS is blocked...

Is this the way we want to perform discussions to improve the quality of our articles?
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:40, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::Ceaseless arguments like this only help the enemies of Conservapedia. For the benefit of the project, please all drop this matter and get back to making more substantive contributions. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:44, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:::I suppose that AlanS would like to do so. He hasn't done anything wrong, as far as I can see. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Range Blocks==
TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:
* ''Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy''

My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the ''anon proxy'' part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable.
Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Chiming in, these quite recent blocks:
:# 04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany )
:# 03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places)
:# 02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy)
:# 00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites)
:# 21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy )
:# 20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.)
:lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate. I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::I'll unblock the IP range that you're in, BRichtigen, but I'll wait and check the others and see if any "decent" contributors are in those ranges. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 15:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:59, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Thanks for your concern for those Poles and others who might be range blocked, those using a proxy, and wishing to not give there whereabouts, gentlemen. We do not discuss, nor do we answer about site security, per Mr. Schlafly. If you are blocked from your own home ISP, simply provide me with verification, and I will unblock you. I am sure two obviously intelligent and Internet savvy people, such as you, can understand why we don't discuss site security, nor allow questioning or "debate" about it. Jallen, I wouldn't get into this without discussion with Geo and Andy. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Dear TK, I emailed your earlier my current IP and a link to my provider. What else do you want? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::*Well, that's the problem with assumptions. Your email was in with the spam. In the future, you might consider actually making a post to a person's talk page, if you don't hear back, as anyone should, getting a question. I will respond to your email in a few minutes, or perhaps Justine would prefer me to forward it to her? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::I didn't assume anything. I use e-mail only as a last resort, i.e., when I'm blocked, as it was the case - I've this idea that one should try to produce at least the modicum that any discussion takes place in the open on a medium like this :-)
:::I'm now used to be an editor at CP, so I take some effort to be able to edit - which you can't expect from a casual visitor. These /16 blocks are - at least - bad PR.
:::Of course, I care for ''the Poles and others'', as I'm one of them. I know that CP is American-centered, but I resent this high-handed approach to us few foreigners.
:::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:11, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::I too am non-American and have nothing but praise for the way that we are accommodated within the welcoming bounds of this fundamentally American project. I would add, BRichtigen, that this page is for issues to be noted, whereupon sysops will decide on the action to be atken. [Inappropriate remark removed by Administrator] [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::As I understand the range blocking system here, if you block a /16 range (81.210.0.0 to 81.210.255.255), you cannot go and unblock single IP's within that range. As I see the situation, you'd have to unblock the range and then finely tune a few block ranges that will not interfere with contributors. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::*Justine, I know you know my email, and I also think you can tell what was done was in consult with others, including Geo. As I stated above, taking my queue directly from Andy and other Senior Administrators, we should not be discussing particulars here, but rather privately. Conservapedia does not now, nor has it ever, discussed security issues on the wiki, nor blocks. That is what the wiki email system is. I think it violates peoples privacy to be discussing such things here. you go right ahead and unilaterially take whatever action you feel is justified in regard to blocks. You are, after all, one of our most senior and trusted administrators! I just thought given all the unilaterial arguments going on, this was something better dealt with directly among those of us who can block,is all. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:I'll consult Andy with these range blocks asap. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:38, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Isn't that what ''should'' have been done, anyway? Blocking 65k IPs to get a proxy that uses maybe... ten of them is massive overkill, no matter how often you scream "<s>Terrorists!</s> Vandals!". Also see below for some actual numbers. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

We're talking about a form of security trade-offs here. In other terms: This site would be (quasi-)perfectly safe if we blocked every IP in existence. It would be very safe if every user had to go to Andy's house and personally apply (while hooked up to a lie detector) for the right to edit anything on CP. But if we did that, then practically nobody would join. The cost to join would be too high. If we leave the gates open or at least make our blocks a lot more precise to avoid splash damage, we scare off fewer people who could become valuable assets to us.
Likewise, if somebody signs up and finds out his IP was blocked and that he can't edit, he will likely move on instead of, oh, I don't know... ''share his knowledge''.
But I could almost swallow the "Protect CP against Internet Terrorists" argument if it was applied with more precision. For example, the 207.58.0.0/16 block covers 65,536 IPs. The [http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.htm URL] you gave shows that the ''network'' this proxy is operating in (which doesn't even mean that the proxy uses the entire network!) only uses 16,384 IPs (if I didn't miscalculate). That's ''a fourth''. This means that ''at least'' 75% of the range you blocked never had anything to do with the proxy. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I authorized every single block that TK made. We discovered some sockholes and decided to close them up as we found several campaigns of vandalism. I believe that we used 6 month and 1 year blocks due to the fluctuation of proxies, therefore we aren't locking up IPs forever. I believe that the holes should be plugged up, and we should see if the IPBlock Exempt flag is available. If anyone has a cleaner range block, please share it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 21:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::In the future, I think that the range blocks should be performed by you, Geo (an actual administrator). The thought that I actually had to run checkuser over the IP's blocked and finding a seemingly legitimate contributor worries me. Block ranges need to be sharply defined. The larger the range, the shorter the block. I'd prefer to see a /24 range (256 IP's) for infinite duration rather than a /16 range for 1 year. I don't think we will worry Andy with the ipblock-exempt right as the problem can be prevented by using better range blocking methods. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 22:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:::I don't have time to perform every single block. It is for that reason that I authorized TK to perform these rangeblocks. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 23:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)
It's better not to discuss range blocks. If '''you''' can't access CP because of a range block, contact a sysop via email. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:It seems to me that it's better not to ''perform'' range blocks. What if the "you" in question is a new user? When I first started at CP I didn't know what a sysop was, let alone how to contact one. How many complaints a month do we get from people who don't understand that "night editing" being turned off doesn't mean that they are blocked? The fact remains that it doesn't make sense to block 4 times more people than you intend to, unless your intent is to shut down editing on this site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==Interference and Collusiveness==
AlanS received the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAlanS&year=&month=-1 block]:
*20:00, 2 December 2008 Bugler (Talk | contribs) blocked AlanS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Interference)

The ''interference'' seems to be the following [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RodWeathers&diff=prev&oldid=575891 edit] on a talk-page:
:Well, the information is freely available, so there is no need to invade anybody's privacy: The user was blocked for "Evolutionist Vandalism", and only one of his/her edits has been reverted: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575825&oldid=572439 This] one for being made by a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Race&diff=575827&oldid=575825 "liberal evolutionist"] --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 19:44, 2 December 2008 (EST)

So, he answered a question of another editor in a civil manner. How is this interference? And what is bad about interference, anyway?

When the ''administrator'' HenryS lifted the block, the ''editor with blocking rights'' Bugler blocked AlanS again, stating the same reason.

To use the terminology Bugler had introduced: we common grunts are interested in what's happening here at CP and want to be dealt with fairly. And why don't the sergeants follow the orders of the officers, but expect us to be obedient to them, not allowing us to raise even simple questions - because that's what AlanS's block is about?

Another troubling tendency in the last days was that frequently the instruction to use email or other non-public venues of information popped up, more often than in the months before.

As this is a board where high-school pupils and elder women and men communicate, A. Schlafly has rightly tried to provide an environment where any idea (how misguided ever) of ''creepiness'' is ruled out. As any teacher knows, one should try to stick to the ''open door'' policy and refrain from contacting pupils via email, IM or such.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:Simple questions are always okay. Rhetorical questions might not be. Using "simple questions" as a disguise for opening a debate about the rules is strictly out. Next time I see someone doing this - other than in the [[Debate Topics]] - he's gone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::Personally I find the actual block the least important issue here. The most important issues are the flagrant breaches of the chain of command, the total lack of recourse on the off chance that abuse occurrs, and the likelyhood of an encouragement of off-site communication (which, to me, seems counter to the idea of having a wiki anyway; why else would the software include talk pages?) leading to an increased likelyhood of placing minors in an inapropriate position. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==Is (was) Tolkiendil a Vandal?==
Ed Poor blocked [[User:Tolkiendil|Tolkiendil]], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page=User%3ATolkiendil&year=&month=-1 stating]:

* 08:48, 12 December 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked Tolkiendil (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Inserting nonsense or gibberish into pages or edit comments)

I don't regard Tolkiendil as a vandal, and elaborated this on Ed Poor's talk page:

::As far as I can see, He '''wasn't''' vandalizing the Tolkien articles - most of which he had created. There is - a minor - quibble of interpretation over the role of [[Eowyn]]. When I tried to find a resolution in the internet, I found much of debate instead, nothing clear cut, IMO (and nothing to important). I understand both positions Tolkiendil's and Ed Poor's , but Ed Poor enforces his view via his blocking rights.

::And then there are other minor points. For instance, have a look [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Middle-earth_objects&diff=584641&oldid=581816 here]:

::Tolkiendil had written:'''Herugrim''' was the sword of King [[Théoden]] of [[Lôgrad|Rohan]]. It had been given to Gríma Wormtongue for safekeeping, but was returned to Théoden when he rode to war.

::Ed Poor changes this to: '''Herugrim''' was the sword of King [[Théoden]] of [[Lôgrad|Rohan]]. It had been kept by [[Gríma]] Wormtongue along was "many other things that men had missed", but was taken back to Théoden when he rode to war.

::Ed Poor claims in his edit comment: ''No record that Grima was "given" this sword - or anything else for that matter''

::In '''Book III, Chapter VI''', "''The King of the Golden Hall''". we read:

::
::[...] At the moment Háma came again from the hall. Behind him cringing between two other men, came Gríma the Wormtongue. His face was very white. His eyes blinked in the sunlight. Háma knelt and presented to Théoden a long swarod in a scabbard clasped with gold and set with green gems.

::'Here, lord, is Herugrim, your ancient blade', he said. 'It was found in his chest. Loth was he to render up the keys. Many other things are there which men have missed.'

::'You lie,' said Wormtongue. 'And this sword your master himself gave into my keeping.'

::'And he now requires it of you agaian,' said Théoden.'Does this displease you?'[...]

::So Grima - as thief and a liar - claimed in front of Théoden that he was given the sword, and Théoden doesn't deny this. Unnecessary quibble in my opinion: I think that Tolkiendil is right, but Ed Poor's version isn't wrong, altogether. But I think that Ed Poor is very wrong in the way he tries to enforce his version.

::Tolkiendil has made countless edits on the '''Lord of the Ring'''. I daresay that he knows more about Tolkien than any of us, including Ed Poor. But perhaps that's the rub: Maybe Ed Poor doesn't like the idea that someone has a greater knowledge of this subject than he does.

::Of course, there may be a few honest mistakes made by Tolkiendil. The ''infinite'' ban because Ed Poor dislikes some of his interpretations, or because he added to many details, seems to be absolutely unjustified - and the instantaneous deletion of Tolkiendil's user page just undignified!
::OTOH, I don't think that one should take the whole ''middle-earth'' universe to serious, it should be fun!

::BTW, Tolkiendil seems to be right with his categorization of the Eskimo-Aleut languages, too.

::I have said this a couple of times: This high-handed approach to us common editors destroys the spirit which is necessary to be a volunteer on this project. Here, the work of months was disregarded in seconds!

::Therefore, I appeal to Ed Poor to lift the block of Tolkiendil. Though I don't know whether this action is futile, but I hope that Tolkiendil rejoins us editors though he was treated in such a capricious way.

::--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:17, 13 December 2008 (EST)

For this, I got a block of one day.

Tolkiendil made more than 1000 edits on CP. Most of these regard Tolkien's ''The Lord of the Ring''. This is - of course - not a central part of CP, but nonetheless, it is nice to have it on board: The book - and the movies- impressed millions of teenagers around the world, and perhaps, one or the other finds via Tolkien to CP.
As far as I can see were Tolkiendil's edits careful and diligent. But we shouldn't forget that we are talking about a piece of fiction, so, there are always different interpretations possible. The examples Ed Poor gave for Tolkiendil's vandalism are examples for such different interpretations: was Éowyn recognized when she was under disguise? Tolkien himself attributed her the male pronouns, so she was shielded from the eyes of the readers. And as no one in Tolkien's needs the loo, why should she be discovered? It's futile to debate about this point (there are endless debates on the net), but it is worse to decree a point of view.

Tolkiendil described ''Rivendall'' as a city. Well, it's more of a village, or a hamlet. But is this chose of wording '''vandalism'''? I don't think so.

As I stated above, this is a discussion at the fringe of CP. Most of us don't take that much interest in ''The Lord of the Rings''. Tolkiendil did, and he put quite an effort in his posts. To disesteem such an effort is to disappoint the editor badly. To destroy his user page within minutes after his block means to add insult to injury.

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:34, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Unwarranted 90/10 block ==

Does my [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/BRichtigen history] violate the 90/10 guideline ''at any time''? Or is the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:BRichtigen block reason] ''"Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk"'' just a handy tool to quell inconvenient questions? Frankly, for me this seems less than ''administrator's discretion'' but ''administrator's caprice'' --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:33, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:Frankly, if others sysops think I have made a mistake I'm inclined to trust their judgment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:36, 16 December 2008 (EST)

{{cquote|'''It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.''' The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

'''Theodore Roosevelt''', "Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 14:01, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:So, you concur that Ed Poor made a mistake. But shouldn't your post be in the quote-of-the-day section? Here, I'd expect the arguments to be closer to the point. Thanks, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:16, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:*No you would be incorrect. The quote posted here, in this case, was a polite way of telling you that its extremely easy to criticize, find fault. And since this is an encyclopedia project, not a debate forum, it would be wrong of you to think anyone is so valuable that their constant argument and dissent will be allowed forever. Our Commandments and Guidelines are not a suicide pact, something we will allow to be used or argued against us, in order that a user may distract and waste our time with endless questions the answers to which are then argued over endlessly. As Teddy Roosevelt succinctly said, the man in the arena, he will make mistakes, errors in judgment, but that is incidental to at least trying, instead of sitting on the sidelines hurling criticism and pointing out where others are wrong. It is a lesson you will not learn, it seems. Please take your vacation to reflect on the manner of your ways, or not. God's speed to you. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:40, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::Ed used the block option to win an argument and used it again to shut up an abuse complaint. How is this OK? Why not just delete this page? Everybody that brings up abuse just gets blocked. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Politics of personal destruction

2008-12-11T20:08:16Z

Corry: /* Inappropriate Image */

==Inappropriate Image==

The use of the "Looney Left" image on this page is childish, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Unless it can be justified, it will be removed. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 11 December 2008 (EST)

*And in your humble opinion, Dinsdale, just who are you to threaten removal of anything? Do you dispute the ''fact'' that the radical (looney) left practices the politics of personal destruction, as documented by hundreds of media sources and political observers? I will ignore your harsh and threatening incivility this once. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 11:24, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::Is the image meant to be ironic? -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:26, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:::Perhaps so, Doctor. Tragic Irony, or Dramatic Irony. The (lack of) logic employed by the left towards Bork and Lieberman is so stunning, as only to be explained by lunacy, conservatives feel. This article is a stub, and as more examples are added, I am sure even liberal editors will see the use for the image. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 11:39, 11 December 2008 (EST)

::::I apologize for appearing harsh, TK - I was following the rules by bringing this up on the Talk page first, instead of doing something ''truly'' uncivil like removing it without discussion. I don't feel it's my place to add opinions to encyclopedia articles myself, but posting a cartoon that involves namecalling doesn't appear appropriate or professional for the encyclopedic section of CP. Frankly, I'm seeing many of these Politics of personal destruction tactics used here on CP to attack Barack Obama, but these are sanctioned by the leadership because of Obama's positions. I don't dispute what happened to Bork at all, but the use of the cartoon seems unnecessary and lowers the credibility of this article. If you insist on it remaining, this will be my last word on the subject. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:44, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:::::Well, thanks DinsdaleP. Encyclopedia's, especially on line ones, have to provide facts and readability. If a catchy graphic draws the attention of our users, and makes a conservative point (here on this self-labeled conservative encyclopedia) than it has a purpose. Conservatives don't draw back from the truth, obfuscate language to sugar-coat the obvious facts. The examples cited are indeed nutty or looney, if you will. I do want you to know, reading your work, I don't consider you to be a part of the "looney left" as characterized by the examples so far! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 11:53, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Ah, lastwordism. Yet another tool in the liberal avoiding-debate arsenal. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:52, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::I believe that Dinsale wasn't firing some kind of Parthian shot, but saying that he doesn't intend to keep debating this into the ground. That's not last-wordism at all. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 15:08, 11 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Continue to debate - blocked. Acknowledge the authority of TK to have it as he wants it - engaging in last wordism. Awesome. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Debate: Rank Communist Regimes in Order of Grimness

2008-12-11T19:51:50Z

Corry: /* The debate! */

==Introduction==
Stimulated by an earlier discussion, I thought it would be an idea to try and work out a 'ranking of awfullness' here. Of course, all Communist regimes are evil, but it would be playing into the hands of our enemies by pretending that they are identical and that there are no nuances of oppression and wickedness.

This applies to Communist regimes that still exist and those that are defunct. To keep debate within reasonable bounds, please restrict yourself to regimes of the 20th/21st centuries.

==The ranking==
Where number 1 is the worst/most totalitarian/most oppressive

1. [[North Korea]]
2. [[Soviet Union]]
3. [[China]]
4. [[Romania]]
5. [[East Germany]]
6. [[Bulgaria]]
7. [[Poland]]
8. [[Cuba]]
9. [[Hungary]]
10.[[Venezuela]]

==The debate!==
China is problematic, combining a brutally oppressive political system with an amount of economic freedom which has allowed a certain percentage to prosper.

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Cambodia==
I think the Khmer Rouge would top any list. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:51, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Debate: Rank Communist Regimes in Order of Grimness

2008-12-11T00:04:58Z

Corry: /* The debate! */

Resurrection Sunday

2008-12-11T00:01:53Z

Corry: /* Date of Easter */ re: Eastern Orthodox calendar

'''Easter''', also known as "[[Resurrection Sunday]]," is the [[Christian]] holiday marking the [[resurrection of Jesus Christ]] three days after His crucifixion on [[Good Friday]], and is the most important festival of the [[liturgical year]].
== Date of Easter ==

In 325, the [[Nicaean Council]] declared that the Easter holiday would be celebrated on the first Sunday after the [[full moon]] of the vernal equinox.

Easter doesn't fall on a fixed date in the calendar. Instead, it is based on a lunar calendar like that used by the Jews. At the [[Nicaean Council]] in 325 AD it was decided that Easter would be celebrated on the Sunday after the first full moon on or after the day of the vernal equinox. The date of the [[full moon]] was to be determined by using the [[Metonic Cycle]]. Eastern Orthodox Churches still use the Julian calendar when determining the date of Easter and thus have a different date for the celebration.

== Lent ==

Easter marks the end of the 46 days of [[Lent]], a period of fasting and penitence in preparation for Easter, which begins on [[Ash Wednesday]] and ends on Easter Sunday. However, Lent really only comprises 40 days since the 6 Sundays during this period are excluded from the Lent fast, and are days that are set apart to commemorate Easter Sunday and Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead, defeated the grave and guaranteed eternal life to those who believe.

The days before Easter also are special in the Christian tradition: the Sunday before is [[Palm Sunday]], and the last three days before Easter are [[Holy Thursday]], [[Good Friday]] and [[Silent Saturday]]. These days commemorate Jesus' entry into [[Jerusalem]], the [[Last Supper]] and the [[Crucifixion]].

== Pentecost ==

[[Pentecost]] is seven weeks after Easter. Those seven weeks are celebrated as the Season of Easter in the [[Catholic Church]].

== Origin of the name ==

Many suggest that the term "Easter" is derived from ''Eastre,'' the pagan goddess of fertility and spring. [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5695/#easter Others suggest] that the word comes from the anglo-saxon word for "passover". In biblical times the Jewish [[Passover]], which commemorates the sparing of the [[Hebrew]] firstborns, was celebrated at roughly the same time as the [[spring equinox]] or this “Eastre” festival. The theory of pagan origin surmises that while the Gospel was being spread to the pagans, the celebration of Eastre and the celebration of the resurrection became combined and the Christians adopted the name that the pagans had used for their festival.

[[Category:Observances]][[category:Holidays]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-10T23:08:46Z

Corry: /* Muslim Votes */

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

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I think this article doesn't go far enough. I think there should be a picture of Hitler as the top photo, just like the Evolution page.

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

Why does it say he MAY be the first Muslim President (a horrible, false claim) and he MAY use the Koran to be sworn in

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

I removed the mention of the 57 states, since the article later refers to a source that says that it was probably a misstatement as he has in fact visited 47 states. unsigned JohnFA

This statement has been here for some time. It stays for now.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Jpatt - Why should it? It's repeated later on in the article where it is also explained. This statement is redundant since it doesn't even have a source.

I added the fact that there were not 57 states when he went to school in indonesia, if we are going to mention that he went to an islamic school we are implying that that is where he learned about the 57 states, this is impossible and that should be noted. People will reference conservapedia and if they reference that he visited the 57 islamic states or that he learned about there being 57 islamic states in islamic school they will look like fools.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::Right now, the implication made about Obama's gaff and "57 Islamic states" indicates the United States. If it's about Indonesia, then state Indonesia, as well as prove that Indonesia is divided into 57 states. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:12, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I double-checked the references provided, one of which has a video of Obama himself doing the gaff; it may have been a minor slip of the tounge or a minor mistake, but not once was there a reference to visiting Islamic states or countries. He specified visiting 57 ''U.S. states''. The article was changed to reflect that fact, and the speculation on Islamic states was removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I wanted to do that but I figured I would just get reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'll let you take credit then for the fixing, or at least getting it started :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya ==

The definition of Taqiyya in this article (''(allowed if) ... it advances the cause of Islam'') is incorrect for the Sunni Muslims. Taqiyya is only allowed when it will danger their lives otherwise.
Also, even with this allowance, many chose instead a honorable death.

Shi'ites (shia) is the one who practices this (taqiyya) in almost any situation that will cause discomfort to them otherwise.

Sunni muslim and some branches of Shi'ite, because of their extreme stances, are pretty much a different religion. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

The single photo lacked context, and the writer of this article, unfortunately, chose to translate it negatively. A more balanced discussion is available on Snopes : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 10:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

:See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== First Muslim President ==

I found this claim quite amusing at first, especially with Snopes already had it debunked quite extensively : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Then I remember that we, Indonesian, also got the wrong information. We thought Obama is a muslim, and we rejoiced.
We found out later that (1) clearly his parents are quite liberal on religions (2) the context at that time in Indonesia is that most Muslims were not religious. We were pretty laid back then. My parents drink alcohol and misses their obligatory religious duties.

So even if (again, IF) Obama was a Muslim, there's no way he's enrolled in a "radical Wahabi school". It just didn't exist back then.

Anyway, if we, Indonesians, were wrong about Obama at his time in Indonesia, it's quite understandable if others were also mistaken. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".
The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]

:The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== Barack raises the bar ==

The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

: ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)
: Wow. I have no idea of what to say to that.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== A hypothetical article ==

The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.

Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.

== Birth Certificate Controversy ==

The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==
Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}
:::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.
:::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM

Obama attending his Grandma's funeral? No mention from the O-MSM! --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 01:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)

==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==
Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.

Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.

Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...

: Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.

::: I have decided the same thing, though maybe not to that extent.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Is going to be the next president==
Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America==
Article should be updated accordingly
: President-''Elect'', technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:: Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -[[User:Rfreeman|Rfreeman]] 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== What happening with the muslim section? ==

I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.

Also some points that really stand out to me,
*''Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.''
In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me
*'' Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."'' You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)
*''On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.'' If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.
*''Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.'' Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.

I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Copyediting needed ==

I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:

"Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."

is not a sentence... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim? ==

That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--[[User:Newguy123|Newguy123]] 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets.
Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is ''unprofessional'' at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A Muslim President-elect! ==

Since the article assures us the Barack is a secret Muslim and would if elected become the first Muslim President of the United States, for consistency's sake, it should now be updated by something like the following:

"Now that the unthinkable has occurred and Obama has duped the American People and stolen the election, he will become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and will probably use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office."

and:

"It is widely believed that now he is President-elect, Obama will drop the tiresome pretence of being a Christian and produce his other wives from hiding, don a turban and a scimitar, pray buns-up five times a day on a Persian carpet while facing Mecca, have a minaret built on top of the White House from which he will personally play the role of the muezzin and call the faithful to prayer, will establish policy recommending that “the Zionist entity be driven into the sea”, and put bin Laden’s face on the American dollar. The week after that will probably be even worse." If no one objects, I will make some such interpolations in the article proper. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== "70's terrorist" ==

I object to Ayers being referred to as a "terrorist from the 70's"

he is a "terrorist" end of story. once a terrorist, always a terrorist

we won't call Bin Laden a "2000's terrorist" in 2050

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 00:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Good point, [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]]. Thanks for the edit. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The man is a functioning member of society, an educator, a family man, who has condemns his past actions, and has worked greatly towards improving the lives of others through charity work. He was a part of a group that destroyed ''property'', which doesn't make him a terrorist because that would imply he did random acts of terror on ''people''. Blowing up statues and parts of buildings was wrong but they did not go after people, and no one was hurt or killed. To compare him to Bin Laden is ''despicable''. And to put a section about this man at the top of the page of Presidential-elect Obama who worked with him in an organization to help reduce poverty levels is neither well thought out or ''tactful''. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 08:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Except that the Weather Underground did in fact kill people - 3 of their own, in a bomb-making accident. Sometimes that happens when you set off bombs, even if it's not what you had in mind. I would put other property-destruction crimes such as cross burning in the terror category as well. I do agree that Obama's association with Ayres is minimal, at best, and I have huge issues with all the guilt-by-association tactics employed by the McCain campaign. I'm not taking a stand on the content of this article one way or another. I'm just trying to organize it and cite it as best I can. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::I don't believe an accidental death of their own people should be considered "terror" though. People could technically die while making signs for a normal type of protest, not as likely, but an accident is an accident. Although I do think that some property destruction like cross burning could be argued to be terroristic because it is done in order to terrify a group of people and incite violence against that group. However I still think that what the weather underground did does not quite carry that same connotations. They were protesting a war, and doing so by costing the government money and drawing attention to their cause, at no time was a group of people targeted in a way that would indicate that they were in danger directly from a hostile organization, unless you were an office desk or a public statue/monument. To use the word "terrorist", especially nowadays, in the case of Bill Ayers is misleading, and it is a word that should not be tossed around lightly. It seems that people believe that Ayers = Terrorist, so therefore he must have killed people or tried to kill people, and this article does little to correct this misconception. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== MInd Control? Really now? ==

The people who published this lost what little credibility they had when they published this. Repeating it on this page just makes you look bad. I mean an O looks like a crystal ball? First of all it also looks like an orange or a penny or anything else that is round and circular. Also, I think that crystal balls are the favorite of ''fortune tellers'' so unless Obama can predict the future (which I think might make him a ''better'' president) this doesn't mean much. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:I agree. I am a practicing stage hypnotist (practicing because I still need work :) and I can tell you that most hypnotists use nothing but their voices and physical presence, and those who do use props traditionally use a pencil. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 13:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== Absence of Dancing ==

Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is [[Barack Obama]] rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest?

One explanation is that the Islamic [[sharia]] disfavors dancing.[http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/islamic-scholars-denounce-dancing-say.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:When's the last time you went dancing, Andy? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::um, lol?
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpxJQABkSsQ Dancing in Puerto Rico]
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axH9bhwI8os Dancing to Snoop Dogg]

::so there it is... at least three different places where he's seen dancing. Here's my question: lets see you find videos of Mccain dancing! xP your Islamic assumption thingy holds no water since you can say the same for McCain! [[User:Ema|Ema]] 11:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::Ah! Ema, don't be fooled by this [[deceit]], he might secretly be a [http://www.dankphotos.com/whirling/ whirling dervish!] They're members of [[Sufi]] Islam, by the way. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

:::: I took a look at the Puerto Rico video. It proves my point. I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that. Have you?

:::: It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is. Judging by the determined objections above, it may be quite a while for some of his supporters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Your argument is that he is a bad dancer so he must be a Muslim? Seriously Andrew, take a deep breath and relax, proving him to be a Muslim is not going to get him impeached, he has the presidency and that is that. In four years it might matter, but that means you have poor years to find less circumstantial evidence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: No, Brendanw, it is obviously not my argument that he is a "bad dancer." I think you understand my argument perfectly well and won't admit it. Suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Brendan's right about one thing at least. All the evidence listed is either circumstantial or draws illogical conclusions. The one about him when he says he joins a church after a suggestion does not in any way imply him as a muslim, though it might imply him as a disingenuous Christian. The two are mutually exclusive. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Well please explain it to me differently, initially you said he didn't dance, and now that we have three videos of it you say that he "dances with out dancing" what does that mean if not bad dancer? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Andy's saying that, in those three videos, Obama isn't really ''dancing'', in the sense of crossing a line of Muslim (im)morality. It's like being against swearing, but recognizing that words like "heck" and "geez" don't really cross that line. That said, however, I did run across a video where [http://splicd.com/wzyT9-9lUyE/31/52 Obama dances] by anyone's definition.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:25, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::RossC, this video is obviously faked. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point. (see: Berg) [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:In some Islamic traditions dancing is not allowed, in some christian traditions dancing is not allowed, some people regardless of religion just don't dance with enthusiasm (was he supposed to be [dancing inappropriately with] Ellen? While Barrack is a hottie I'm not sure she would let him do that) I was raised catholic and as a result I am a very quiet person who does not raise his arms in celebration. This is just such a far stretch that it doesn't mean anything. Heck if he were keeping his faith hidden and not praying to meca and not following the rules of Islam in order to complete the 35 year long mission that was trained in to him at a public school in indonesia at the age of 10 don't you think he would dance anyways? And his wife is a great dancer, in Islam men have a whole lot more freedom than women. this just doesn't add up to anything but crazy. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:30, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I love to dance. For what it's worth, I have seen an Obama campaign button with a picture of him dancing, and the words "Dance Yes We Can" on it. It caught my eye because I take dance lessons. See here [http://www.zazzle.com/obama_dance_button-145707809176961889] for a picture of the button. Over the years, I have met homeschooling moms of various faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) who are careful about their children dancing for modesty reasons. Not everyone enjoys dancing, of course, particularly men. While it's an interesting facet of Obama, to be honest I don't see it as a strong indicator of his religious beliefs. When weaker arguments are included, it detracts from the stronger ones, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't dance, and I can assure you that I'm not a Muslim. I'm a lousy dancer, and self-conscious about it. I also don't have a tinfoil hat, which might be why this whole conversation seems ludicrous to me. Godspeed.[[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 21:40, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::The very conservative former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, did not dance in public. This is despite the fact that his treasurer, Peter Costello, and his rival and current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, both danced on national television. Is this evidence that John Howard is a Muslim? Certainly not. There is a much less sinister and blatantly obvious explanation for Obama's lack of dancing - he isn't good at it. Just have a look at the videos posted, he has clearly received minimal dance instruction and is evidently self conscious.

And just out of curiosity, has anyone actually seen John McCain dance? How about Palin or Biden? If these three have not then why should the explanation for their lack of participation not be extended to Obama? [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Not to mention the fact that Spectral Evidence was outlawed in America back in the 1600's after 19 people were murdered for being accused of witchcraft. Get with the times, Schlafly. [[User:DRuss|DRuss]] 08:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:What is different about Obama that makes it unusual for him to not be much of a dancer? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 09:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Still waiting on an answer, Andy. When'd you last hit the dance floor? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 15:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)

: Though irrelevant to the issue, I dance in times of celebration, and have also arranged for the availability of dancing by attendees at such events. Pursue this irrelevancy further and your account will be blocked, per my comment on your talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:41, 7 November 2008 (EST)
:: He does somewhat have a point, even if his methods of conveying it are a little childish. He's pretty much pointing out that your accusation opens up a big can of worms. If I was to say that Obama's lack of dancing must mean he is Muslim due to Islamic Sharia, I could also say that if I saw you sitting on the floor you must be a Muslim who is kneeling to Mecca. [[User:St0dad|St0dad]] 09:09, 8 November 2008 (EST)

== Anti Americanism ==

Many points in this article could be summarized into a section called "Anti Americanism"

I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. Anti Americanism should be a given a very prominent place in this article.

: I like this idea because I feel the article is too fragmented and not organized. People are adding self contained ideas in various points in the article, especially at the top, which disrupts the flow and readablity. I cleaned up the first paragraph, but I can't smooth up everything [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

If I make such an edit will I be banned? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== "Muslim Faith" comment ==

I believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or at least more sympathetic to them than Christians, but the "Muslim Faith" statement is taken out of context. I removed it as part of the evidence of him being Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't like that video btw, I only posted it to show the full context [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:: On a side note, the entire section, for accuracy's sake, should be called "Why Barack Obama is not a Christian" since the only parts that are not circumstantial are in regard to disingenuous Christianity. Beyond that the idea of him not changing his name making him muslim is ridiculous. He was named for his Father. Example from reality: my middle name is Paul. I received it fromt he name of my grandfather. I'm no longer Christian. But I don't change my middle name because I no longer believe Paul's words. I keep it because I love and respect my grandfather. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::: I partially agree. Maybe there should be two sections. One detailing Anti-Christian facts and one for Pro-Muslim [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

: Schlafly reverted my change ... Why? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 14:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::Because you don't agree with him.[[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 15:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::So it's Schlaflypedia then? I had high hopes for Conservapedia [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I reverted your change because you deleted factual information. That reason should be obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Socialistic==
It is interesting to note that the MSM has buried the exact phrase and can only be found on blogs. The media will use the third person term, e.g. "Obama responds to McCains allegations of Socialistic." The quote itself is relevent. A play on words to blunt its' true impact. Actual charges of 'Socialism' or of being a 'Socialist'. Nobody uses "Socialistic"--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Wait==

Can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama is a Muslim? Thanks. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 23:12, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:Clearly someone's not paying attention. Not that I endorse the, uh, theory, but there's a whoooooole big section about it in the article. And several discussions on this talk page. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)

At this point the very thought that he's a Muslim is preposterous. No Muslim would willingly put Rahm Emmanuel, someone so notably Jewish and pro israel in such a powerful position (chief of staff). All in all though, a pretty good choice from the pool. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 23:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Obama isn't a muslim. He doesn't have the character we see on the trail to do so. I think Obama will be an awful President, is not a christian (it's too liberal), supports infanticide and sodomy, and won't do almost ''any'' of the thigs he has promised. That aside I don't think he's a muslim. Alot of the proof is probably just part of his warped view of multi-culturism, which includes the so-called ''peaceful'' religion of Allah and Muhammed. This should be placed on a different page and other more certain information placed on this page (e.g. a better photo should be placed on the top, not a picture of him which tries to accuse his patriotism.) He is going to be President, a bad one, but one nonetheless. Please, let us respect the authority of our time. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 07:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Think about this: If I had told you on September 12 2001, that in 6 years we'd ellect a liberal, socialist muslim named Barack Hussein Obama, who has terrorist friends, you call me crazy. But here we are. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

==Connections with Irish Terrorists==

I note that a liberal contributor has seen fit to add a line stating that The Republic of Ireland refused to extradite Rita O'Hare -- the IRA terrorist who Obama met last year -- for one of several alleged offences. Why is this of any interest? She served time in the Republic for smuggling explosives. So that country's legal authorities were in no doubt as to her status. Does Wikipedia regard shooting British soldiers in Northern Ireland as a "political offence"? If so, then should we regard killing American soldiers in Iraq the same way? I don't think so. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 18:29, 7 November 2008 (GMT)
:Well spoken Keith! I intend to contact the Irish Embassy in Washington and ask that they make a clear statement condemning our Marxist Terrorist President-Elect's meeting with these vile killers. I would encourage ASchlafly to perhaps make a television appearance about this? As a lawyer, I'm sure he can speak to the international law aspects of this very serious matter. What's next I wonder - how soon are Nobama's Shining Path, Khmer Rouge, Sandanista, and Red Brigade friends going to crawl their way from their terrorist swamps into the halls of Washington power?! Not long I'll bet! [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 13:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:Nodanca was was probably a member of the [[FLQ]], too! [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 18:38, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, it was the High Court in the Republic of Ireland that regarded her case as falling under the exemptions for 'political offences'. That is why they refused to extradite her to N. Ireland. Also, Arnie S., if you truly are indignant about the "vile killer" Rita O'Hare, why don't you call your members of Congress to condemn the fact that she is the duly appointed Sinn Fein Representative to the US. [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 18:37, 7 November 2008 (EST)

::: I don't understand. I genuinely don't understand. My edit to the Obama page on this subject has been deleted as being "inappropriate and silly". What is the distinction between a link with the Weather Underground and a link with the IRA? Why are inverted commas placed around “terrorism” (like this) when discussing the latter organisation and not when deriding Bill Ayres's mob. I suppose it's different -- and less significant -- when Obama's pals are blowing up Irish folk rather than Americans. Would it be different if he were pictured grinning next to some PLO hoodlum? --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 02:42, 8 November 2008 (GMT)

:::: Tordenvaer (if that is your real name), I already HAVE called my member of Congress about the matter - I don't mess around! The Sinn Feiners are a terrible organization with deep terrorist roots who killed many British soldiers and people over a hundred years in Ireland. I'm as surprised as Keith is about the removal of his well-referenced material. [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 21:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Guys, grind your ax about Irish "terrorism" somewhere else. Obama has no plausible connection with it and I'm not going to waste any more time on this silliness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:Andy, why do you place quote marks around the word terrorism? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 22:08, 7 November 2008 (EST)

<- I'm not going to get involved in any discussion here, but it appears a lot of you know a fair bit about [[Rita O'Hare]]. I have started her article, please contribute and spread your knowledge. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:13, 7 November 2008 (EST)

::: If the site administrator does not think this worthy of inclusion then there is no point arguing the case. But I must again ask -- the question is reiterated above by Ferret -- why this site puts inverted commas around terrorism when discussing the IRA, but not when discussing the Weather Underground. The slaughter of innocent Northern Irish people may seem "silly" to you. It does not to us. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 12:36, 8 November 2008 (GMT)
:::: Could be because Irish terrorism was largely funded by US "Irish" Catholics? [[User:GeorgeK|GeorgeK]] 07:48, 8 November 2008 (EST)

== Inciting hatred ==

Wow, have you ever asked yourselves "What would Jesus do?". I hardly think He would write such a biased and bigoted "factual" article. Real Christians don't need this sort of tripe. People are worked up over fundamentalist muslims, but it is writing like this that brings hatred on Christians and Americans and makes you just as bad, if not worse, than them. This was the first article I have ever read on Conservapedia and it will be http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.pngthe last. WWJD?

: Jesus came to tell the truth, no one can deny that. And many people hated Him for it, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 9 November 2008 (EST)

::"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi

::Now who's the ONE? [[User:Wikified|Wikified]] 10:41, 9 November 2008 (EST)

::: Gandhi deserves much respect, but I've never heard Christians cite him as an authority on Christianity. I wouldn't expect a Christian to interpret Gandhi's religion for him either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==Trust, but verify; then get an eight day block==

Trust, but verify. Though he was not the originator of this quote, it was one of Ronald Reagan's favorites. He quoted it when signing treaties with the Soviet Union and it's a useful concept in today's society. It was in the spirit of this quote that I first read and edited at this encyclopedia.

The commandments and guidelines appear to support Reagan's idiom, yet some of the people in charge feel they can rule with an iron fist and pick and choose which rules they want to follow. I experienced it first hand when I edited this article. I first made several comments about the shortcomings of this article on the talk page so anyone could give me their opinion of my thoughts. These comments highlighted various portions of the article that were factually incorrect, contained partisan sniping, unsupported assertions, gossip or deception by omission. The response I got from Aschlafly was not encouraging, yet he didn't say I was prohibited from making any changes. In fact, the pages that govern this encyclopedia say a lot about how articles must be sourced, placement of citation tags, how facts must to true and verifiable, etc. Based on reading the guidelines, I made several changes that I thought reflected well on conservatives and Conservapedia. Yet alas, I was blocked by Aschlafly for eight days. The reason given was for 'inappropriate edits', that's very vague but I was unable to get any more information because Aschlafly doesn't provide contact information for people that have questions about their block. This says a lot about a person's integrity if they refuse to follow the rules and then block other people because they made an 'inappropriate edit' that followed the spirit and intent of the commandments and guidelines.

Since this encyclopedia is being used an educational resource for home-schooled children, I'd like to think the information contained within would be factual and verifiably true. I'd feel very embarrassed for my child if she read some of the inaccurate content of this encyclopedia and then repeated it to an informed person that was educated on the true and verifiable facts of Barack Obama or others. It is my honest opinion that this encyclopedia is a long way from earning respectability; and blocking editors for making true and verifiable edits is not going to help. The administrators should clean up their act because there are a lot of people out there that will follow Reagan's advice; trust, yet verify.

In conclusion, I will continue to make the same edits proposed by the commandments and the guidelines. If an admin feels they can do without another conservative editing this encyclopedia in an ethical and trustworthy manner, it is their loss.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 16:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference 29 ==

Under the "Obama is a Muslim" section there is a point about his name, and following that there is a reference. That reference includes a big chunk of argument and then a few references of its own and some examples and its just a mess. I am about to go through and trim the fat, that means I'm going to take off the examples, and I'm going tot take off the parts that say that it is common to change your name of conversion (Obama never claims to have converted from Islam, so it doesn't really stand out as an inconsistency in his story, some might even claim its a [[straw man]]) and I am going to move the reference to the fact with in the bullet point that it supports and put up a fact tag. I am not taking down the bullet point which I would dispute. I would encourage any one who has a problem with this to go out and find a real reference that shows that most christians would not maintain their fathers name if it were tied to another religion. Please don't block me for a good faith factual edit. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:12, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim, Koran, ''redux'' ==

I removed the silly Muslim and Koran references in the first paragraph for two reasons - one, they are completely unfounded statements with no basis in reality, and two, they are repeated ''ad nauseum'' in the first "section", which is apparently intentionally placed above a TOC tag. Let's leave the panicky POV-pushing to sections, at least, in the desperate attempt for this site to resemble an encyclopedia. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:30, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama is not a muslim nor a person who embraces biblical Christianity because the evidence contradicts this matter ==

Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)

: I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:: Okay, a couple questions. 1) Where are you getting this 1% figure from? 2) How was he raised muslim? Countless acquaintances of mine who were 'raised catholic,' spending ample time learning about Catholicism in school are nothing of the sort. 3) Why would a 1% conversion rate even matter? A person's religion isn't probabilistically determined. By that logic, since 0% of previous Presidents were black, it's unlikely that Obama is president. I don't like this guy or his policy, but real criticism seems to be the way to go, not pointless claims about his religion. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 10:50, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, as he is the president now, wouldn't it be far more constructive to work on things about his articulated agenda, and how it will affect Americans, write about how to influence our Congress people to stand up to agenda, and how to work with him to reflect what real Americans want - rather than report on unproven and unsupported claims? It would be beyond comprehension if something said by panicked conservatives (not specifically here, just in genera) caused someone to think the right answer is to assassinate him. Far better to focus on what we CAN do to remind our government who they serve - themselves or us.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::There are several points wrong with youe assertion. 1) He is not the president now, George W. Bush is. 2) His muslim faith is not unsupported and is far from irrelivant. It will effect his leadership (shiria law anyone?) and his cabinet choices. It is a very big deal seeing as he is the first non-Christian president ever elected. Are we suppose to just stick our heads in the sand??[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 12:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Andy, you say that less than one percent of people raised as Muslims convert to another religion and use that percentage as if it is not a significant number. It is. Let us assume that there are one billion Muslims in the world today- this is a conservative estimate, using numbers from [http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html www.adherents.com]. Let us then assume that, for the sake of a conservative estimate, that 0.1% of Muslims convert to other religions. That means that out of the one billion Muslims alive today, one million would convert. That's more than the population of San Jose, California. This is not an insignificant number of people.

:::::My point here, Andy, is that your use of this statistic is not a good argument. Less than one percent is a far cry from none. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Statistical evidence is relevant and compelling. But it does not stand alone here. There are at least a dozen other compelling evidentiary items, and the list is growing. Supporting a ruler who has an agreement to convert the country to Islam, for example, is persuasive evidence also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::::Fist of all, I think you mean Sh'''a'''ria, but seeing as how you misspelled some English words, I can't really blame you for getting that wrong. To think that just because you believe he is a Muslim (and I emphasize ''believe'', but there are already multiple sections on this page saying why he is not) he would somehow be able to implement Sharia law in the U.S. is silly. The First Amendment prevents religious laws from being able to be made from ''any'' religion. So even if he was Muslim, that doesn't mean it would make pass some sort of Muslim laws, although I'm not exactly sure what ones you are worried about anyway, no intoxicants perhaps? You may be interested in hearing that the U.S. legal system may have been founded in part on ideas from Sharia law. And last but not least, what makes you think every president was Christian? The majority were to be sure, but as far as we know Jefferson was a deist whose ideas were closest to unitarianism, and Grant, Lincoln, Johnson, and Hayes had no religious affiliation and could have ranged from anything such as some sort of personal Christianity, simple theism, agnosticism, or even atheism. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Maybe he wouldn't be able to push sharia law (although the liberals have a majority now), but that doesn't not mean that he wouldn't like to, or introduce pieces of it little by little using deceit. Liberals love to use "what if's" and draw conclusions using their "feelings" about someone or something, but to me it's a matter of facts: As Mr. Schlafly has pointed out, less than 1% of people raised as muslims ever leave the religion. In other words, 99% of those raised muslim stay that way for the rest of their lifes. Whether or not Obama is a muslim at this time is contested, but it is a fact that he was RAISED with muslim beliefs. Which means there is a 99% chance that he still holds those beliefs. Those are tough odds. The US is engaged in a war on terror against muslim extremeists, and there is a 99% chance that our soon to be commander and chief is himself a muslim. Now, no rational person believes that he shares the views of radical muslims or would wish harm on the country, but it is a connection that is difficult to ignore. Especially given his relationship with an unrepentive domestic terrorist. The issue is not that he has a religion other than Christianity, it's that his religion may lead him to sympathize with the very people trying to kill us. Just as if a presidential nominee had had fuzzy ties to the USSR during the cold war. People would, and should, look at those ties closely.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim Votes==
Wondering if the following should be added to Why barack is a Muslim. "90 Percent of American Muslims Voted for Obama." [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39031] They voted in such numbers because he is Jewish? No, because he is Muslim. They voted for him because he is a convert to Christianity from Islam? Nope, they voted for a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Correlation does not equal causation. A lot of other demographics were won over by Obama too, it doesn't make him an hispanic, a young white college student, a Native American, or a resident of California. I think a stronger reason why Muslims voted for Obama may be more of a problem with McCain's and Palin's treatment of certain minorities during the campaign such as the "he's not an Arab, he is a good family man" comment, as well as what other groups these Muslims belonged too such as their overall economic status. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::Often correlation is indicative of causation. Can you cite any other voting pattern as high as 90% that is not based on religion or ethnicity? Not your other examples of Hispanic and young white college student, that's for sure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::::With the greatest of respect, what an extraordinary thing to say! Are you suggesting that Muslim voters can somehow read Obama's mind and see that he is really a Muslim? The most that such a correlation could indicate is that Muslim voters might ''think'' that Obama is a Muslim. And frankly, it doesn't even show that because you cannot know what was in their minds when they voted (possibly any number of different things). Talk about clutching at straws! --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 16:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::78% of Jewish people voted for Obama, and I doubt they want to convert to either Christianity or Islam. 70% of people who live in urban areas > 500,000 voted for him. Just two examples, from the excellent [http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/11/09/weekinreview/20081109_CONNELLY_GRFK.html National Election Pool synopsis], [http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html tables] and [http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html data]. There's plenty of information there, so any trends should be visible. But one does need to be careful about correlation and causation, clearly. Famously, the population of penguins at the North Pole is supposed to correlate perfectly with the number of sitting MP's in the UK Labour Party. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 16:07, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::::So what? Big cities are notorious cesspools of subversion and licence - just the sort of people to be attracted by a chancer like Obama. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:17, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::The point he was making before you blocked him is that while Obama received a high percentage of the Muslim votes, he also received high percentages from numerous other demographics. Clearly Obama does not belong to all of these demographics, and as such it is a misuse of the data to pick the one group you want to tie Obama to and declare him a part of it.

:::::An interesting idea to consider is the possible circularity or self-fulfillment of this argument. Some people say that Obama is a Muslim, and hence a bad guy. Voting Muslims generally take offense and vote for Obama, giving him a high percentage of their vote. Some people then claim that receiving most of the Muslim vote further indicates that Obama is a Muslim. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:44, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Excellent find. This should help put to rest any doubts that remain about Obama's muslim faith. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Gays overwhelmingly voted for Obama, cleary this is because this married man is a flaming homosexual. If Obama is a socialist, why do you guys silence any mention that Americans VOTED FOR a socialist president?--[[User:MichaelMo|MichaelMo]] 16:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Deniers, you strike out. Nothing approaches the 90% statistic cited by Jpatt, and for obvious reasons. Go somewhere else to try to fool people. You're not fooling anyone here, particularly when you look at the even more compelling evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:55, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:It doesn't matter how strong the correlation is, it still doesn't prove causation. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::The real question should be: why are you arguing with facts on this website? We argue with feelings here. I ''feel'' that Obama is a Muslim, so it's true.--[[User:AshleyB|AshleyB]] 17:02, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::Andy, none of this evidence is compelling- it's all weak at best, and when strung together and passed off as proof it just doesn't work. 90% of Muslim votes. Less than 1% of Muslims convert. The list goes on. This "evidence" amounts to a wobbly house of cards, and I'm looking forward to it falling over and people discussing facts and positions, not resorting to religious persecution. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:04, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::Not persecution, Corry. Discussion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::::The argument is that if Obama were Muslim that would be a reason not to vote for him. I don't know what else to call that. Also, I would recommend you don't Google what AshleyB advised you to Google on your talk page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:10, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::: This suggestion by ASchlafly is worse than weak, it's nonsensical. ASchlalfy talks about correlation being indicative of causation. How can there be any '''causation'''? In order for there to be causation the Muslim voters would have to have ''known'' that Obama was a Muslim. Is there some vast secret conspiracy going on? Have the Muslim voters been given contacted and given the secret "Obama is a Muslim" information by the Obama campaign? Are the rest of us being kept in the dark? How many Muslim voters are we talking about? This is just plain silly.--[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 17:14, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Be aware, all commenters above, that your accounts will be blocked if you misrepresent what someone else says (as in Corry claiming that "[T]he argument is that if Obama were Muslim that would be a reason not to vote for him" or HGridley pretending this is about some "secret conspiracy.") You won't be warned again. Be respectful and truthful in this discussion, or you'll be ranting in the future on a different site.

No one else can come up with anything close to a 90% voting correlation except where there is religious or ethnic identity. Scientifically and objectively, that is noteworthy. There are a dozen more compelling pieces of evidence, but that does not mean this data point is not suggestive also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:I have been utterly truthful in what I have said. You appear to have missed the point.

:In order for there to have been causation (i.e. Obama's being a Muslim caused Muslims to vote for him) the Muslims would necessarily have to ''know'' (not just suspect) that Obama is a Muslim. In order for that to be the case there would need to be a vast conspiracy.

:Pretty simple really. Can you tell us what you know about this secret conspiracy? --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 17:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::And how am I misrepresenting you, Andy? Are you trying to convince people that Obama is a Muslim for purely academic reasons? I stand by my statement. This article, in the collection of "evidence" that Obama may be a Muslim, reads that "Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam." So we have the premise that Muslims lie to advance Islam, and Obama is part of this. I would also like to point out you comment in a different section that "It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is." That definitely sounds like it'd be a pretty bad thing if Obama was a Muslim. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 18:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-10T22:10:59Z

Corry: /* Muslim Votes */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-10T22:04:57Z

Corry: /* Muslim Votes */

Talk:Gay violence

2008-11-10T21:55:59Z

Corry:

The top six male serial killers in America are/were not all gay, as claimed in this article. See: Gary Ridgway, Ted Bundy, and H.H. Holmes as counterexamples.
----
The top six U.S. male serial killers were all gay:

• Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky;

• John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago, burying them under his house and in his yard;

• Patrick Kearney accounted for 32, cutting his victims into small pieces after sex and leaving them in trash bags along the Los Angeles freeways;

• Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys in Illinois;

• A gay sex-murder-torture ring (Corll-Henley-Brooks) sent 27 Texas men and boys to their grave; and

• Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he "made love" with their corpses).

So you're saying your three killed more people, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:They're hardly 'my three', but yes: Ridgway claimed 71 but pled guilty to killing 48; Bundy confessed to 30 although estimates range up to 100 with 35 being the majority view; Holmes confessed to 27 with potentially up to 200; Charles Cullen claimed to have killed 45 - convicted of 19, I believe; Coral Eugene Watts plead guilty to 12 but the total is probably closer to 100. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Then put them in the article. What's with all the debate? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:07, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:So you know, he just got blocked. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:55, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-10T21:44:44Z

Corry: /* Muslim Votes */

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

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I think this article doesn't go far enough. I think there should be a picture of Hitler as the top photo, just like the Evolution page.

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

Why does it say he MAY be the first Muslim President (a horrible, false claim) and he MAY use the Koran to be sworn in

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

I removed the mention of the 57 states, since the article later refers to a source that says that it was probably a misstatement as he has in fact visited 47 states. unsigned JohnFA

This statement has been here for some time. It stays for now.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Jpatt - Why should it? It's repeated later on in the article where it is also explained. This statement is redundant since it doesn't even have a source.

I added the fact that there were not 57 states when he went to school in indonesia, if we are going to mention that he went to an islamic school we are implying that that is where he learned about the 57 states, this is impossible and that should be noted. People will reference conservapedia and if they reference that he visited the 57 islamic states or that he learned about there being 57 islamic states in islamic school they will look like fools.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::Right now, the implication made about Obama's gaff and "57 Islamic states" indicates the United States. If it's about Indonesia, then state Indonesia, as well as prove that Indonesia is divided into 57 states. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:12, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I double-checked the references provided, one of which has a video of Obama himself doing the gaff; it may have been a minor slip of the tounge or a minor mistake, but not once was there a reference to visiting Islamic states or countries. He specified visiting 57 ''U.S. states''. The article was changed to reflect that fact, and the speculation on Islamic states was removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I wanted to do that but I figured I would just get reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'll let you take credit then for the fixing, or at least getting it started :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya ==

The definition of Taqiyya in this article (''(allowed if) ... it advances the cause of Islam'') is incorrect for the Sunni Muslims. Taqiyya is only allowed when it will danger their lives otherwise.
Also, even with this allowance, many chose instead a honorable death.

Shi'ites (shia) is the one who practices this (taqiyya) in almost any situation that will cause discomfort to them otherwise.

Sunni muslim and some branches of Shi'ite, because of their extreme stances, are pretty much a different religion. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

The single photo lacked context, and the writer of this article, unfortunately, chose to translate it negatively. A more balanced discussion is available on Snopes : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 10:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

:See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== First Muslim President ==

I found this claim quite amusing at first, especially with Snopes already had it debunked quite extensively : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Then I remember that we, Indonesian, also got the wrong information. We thought Obama is a muslim, and we rejoiced.
We found out later that (1) clearly his parents are quite liberal on religions (2) the context at that time in Indonesia is that most Muslims were not religious. We were pretty laid back then. My parents drink alcohol and misses their obligatory religious duties.

So even if (again, IF) Obama was a Muslim, there's no way he's enrolled in a "radical Wahabi school". It just didn't exist back then.

Anyway, if we, Indonesians, were wrong about Obama at his time in Indonesia, it's quite understandable if others were also mistaken. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".
The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]

:The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== Barack raises the bar ==

The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

: ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)
: Wow. I have no idea of what to say to that.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== A hypothetical article ==

The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.

Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.

== Birth Certificate Controversy ==

The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==
Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}
:::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.
:::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM

Obama attending his Grandma's funeral? No mention from the O-MSM! --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 01:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)

==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==
Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.

Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.

Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...

: Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.

::: I have decided the same thing, though maybe not to that extent.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Is going to be the next president==
Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America==
Article should be updated accordingly
: President-''Elect'', technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:: Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -[[User:Rfreeman|Rfreeman]] 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== What happening with the muslim section? ==

I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.

Also some points that really stand out to me,
*''Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.''
In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me
*'' Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."'' You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)
*''On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.'' If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.
*''Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.'' Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.

I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Copyediting needed ==

I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:

"Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."

is not a sentence... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim? ==

That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--[[User:Newguy123|Newguy123]] 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets.
Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is ''unprofessional'' at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A Muslim President-elect! ==

Since the article assures us the Barack is a secret Muslim and would if elected become the first Muslim President of the United States, for consistency's sake, it should now be updated by something like the following:

"Now that the unthinkable has occurred and Obama has duped the American People and stolen the election, he will become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and will probably use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office."

and:

"It is widely believed that now he is President-elect, Obama will drop the tiresome pretence of being a Christian and produce his other wives from hiding, don a turban and a scimitar, pray buns-up five times a day on a Persian carpet while facing Mecca, have a minaret built on top of the White House from which he will personally play the role of the muezzin and call the faithful to prayer, will establish policy recommending that “the Zionist entity be driven into the sea”, and put bin Laden’s face on the American dollar. The week after that will probably be even worse." If no one objects, I will make some such interpolations in the article proper. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== "70's terrorist" ==

I object to Ayers being referred to as a "terrorist from the 70's"

he is a "terrorist" end of story. once a terrorist, always a terrorist

we won't call Bin Laden a "2000's terrorist" in 2050

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 00:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Good point, [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]]. Thanks for the edit. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The man is a functioning member of society, an educator, a family man, who has condemns his past actions, and has worked greatly towards improving the lives of others through charity work. He was a part of a group that destroyed ''property'', which doesn't make him a terrorist because that would imply he did random acts of terror on ''people''. Blowing up statues and parts of buildings was wrong but they did not go after people, and no one was hurt or killed. To compare him to Bin Laden is ''despicable''. And to put a section about this man at the top of the page of Presidential-elect Obama who worked with him in an organization to help reduce poverty levels is neither well thought out or ''tactful''. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 08:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Except that the Weather Underground did in fact kill people - 3 of their own, in a bomb-making accident. Sometimes that happens when you set off bombs, even if it's not what you had in mind. I would put other property-destruction crimes such as cross burning in the terror category as well. I do agree that Obama's association with Ayres is minimal, at best, and I have huge issues with all the guilt-by-association tactics employed by the McCain campaign. I'm not taking a stand on the content of this article one way or another. I'm just trying to organize it and cite it as best I can. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::I don't believe an accidental death of their own people should be considered "terror" though. People could technically die while making signs for a normal type of protest, not as likely, but an accident is an accident. Although I do think that some property destruction like cross burning could be argued to be terroristic because it is done in order to terrify a group of people and incite violence against that group. However I still think that what the weather underground did does not quite carry that same connotations. They were protesting a war, and doing so by costing the government money and drawing attention to their cause, at no time was a group of people targeted in a way that would indicate that they were in danger directly from a hostile organization, unless you were an office desk or a public statue/monument. To use the word "terrorist", especially nowadays, in the case of Bill Ayers is misleading, and it is a word that should not be tossed around lightly. It seems that people believe that Ayers = Terrorist, so therefore he must have killed people or tried to kill people, and this article does little to correct this misconception. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== MInd Control? Really now? ==

The people who published this lost what little credibility they had when they published this. Repeating it on this page just makes you look bad. I mean an O looks like a crystal ball? First of all it also looks like an orange or a penny or anything else that is round and circular. Also, I think that crystal balls are the favorite of ''fortune tellers'' so unless Obama can predict the future (which I think might make him a ''better'' president) this doesn't mean much. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:I agree. I am a practicing stage hypnotist (practicing because I still need work :) and I can tell you that most hypnotists use nothing but their voices and physical presence, and those who do use props traditionally use a pencil. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 13:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== Absence of Dancing ==

Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is [[Barack Obama]] rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest?

One explanation is that the Islamic [[sharia]] disfavors dancing.[http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/islamic-scholars-denounce-dancing-say.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:When's the last time you went dancing, Andy? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::um, lol?
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpxJQABkSsQ Dancing in Puerto Rico]
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axH9bhwI8os Dancing to Snoop Dogg]

::so there it is... at least three different places where he's seen dancing. Here's my question: lets see you find videos of Mccain dancing! xP your Islamic assumption thingy holds no water since you can say the same for McCain! [[User:Ema|Ema]] 11:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::Ah! Ema, don't be fooled by this [[deceit]], he might secretly be a [http://www.dankphotos.com/whirling/ whirling dervish!] They're members of [[Sufi]] Islam, by the way. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

:::: I took a look at the Puerto Rico video. It proves my point. I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that. Have you?

:::: It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is. Judging by the determined objections above, it may be quite a while for some of his supporters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Your argument is that he is a bad dancer so he must be a Muslim? Seriously Andrew, take a deep breath and relax, proving him to be a Muslim is not going to get him impeached, he has the presidency and that is that. In four years it might matter, but that means you have poor years to find less circumstantial evidence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: No, Brendanw, it is obviously not my argument that he is a "bad dancer." I think you understand my argument perfectly well and won't admit it. Suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Brendan's right about one thing at least. All the evidence listed is either circumstantial or draws illogical conclusions. The one about him when he says he joins a church after a suggestion does not in any way imply him as a muslim, though it might imply him as a disingenuous Christian. The two are mutually exclusive. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Well please explain it to me differently, initially you said he didn't dance, and now that we have three videos of it you say that he "dances with out dancing" what does that mean if not bad dancer? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Andy's saying that, in those three videos, Obama isn't really ''dancing'', in the sense of crossing a line of Muslim (im)morality. It's like being against swearing, but recognizing that words like "heck" and "geez" don't really cross that line. That said, however, I did run across a video where [http://splicd.com/wzyT9-9lUyE/31/52 Obama dances] by anyone's definition.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:25, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::RossC, this video is obviously faked. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point. (see: Berg) [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:In some Islamic traditions dancing is not allowed, in some christian traditions dancing is not allowed, some people regardless of religion just don't dance with enthusiasm (was he supposed to be [dancing inappropriately with] Ellen? While Barrack is a hottie I'm not sure she would let him do that) I was raised catholic and as a result I am a very quiet person who does not raise his arms in celebration. This is just such a far stretch that it doesn't mean anything. Heck if he were keeping his faith hidden and not praying to meca and not following the rules of Islam in order to complete the 35 year long mission that was trained in to him at a public school in indonesia at the age of 10 don't you think he would dance anyways? And his wife is a great dancer, in Islam men have a whole lot more freedom than women. this just doesn't add up to anything but crazy. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:30, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I love to dance. For what it's worth, I have seen an Obama campaign button with a picture of him dancing, and the words "Dance Yes We Can" on it. It caught my eye because I take dance lessons. See here [http://www.zazzle.com/obama_dance_button-145707809176961889] for a picture of the button. Over the years, I have met homeschooling moms of various faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) who are careful about their children dancing for modesty reasons. Not everyone enjoys dancing, of course, particularly men. While it's an interesting facet of Obama, to be honest I don't see it as a strong indicator of his religious beliefs. When weaker arguments are included, it detracts from the stronger ones, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't dance, and I can assure you that I'm not a Muslim. I'm a lousy dancer, and self-conscious about it. I also don't have a tinfoil hat, which might be why this whole conversation seems ludicrous to me. Godspeed.[[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 21:40, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::The very conservative former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, did not dance in public. This is despite the fact that his treasurer, Peter Costello, and his rival and current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, both danced on national television. Is this evidence that John Howard is a Muslim? Certainly not. There is a much less sinister and blatantly obvious explanation for Obama's lack of dancing - he isn't good at it. Just have a look at the videos posted, he has clearly received minimal dance instruction and is evidently self conscious.

And just out of curiosity, has anyone actually seen John McCain dance? How about Palin or Biden? If these three have not then why should the explanation for their lack of participation not be extended to Obama? [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Not to mention the fact that Spectral Evidence was outlawed in America back in the 1600's after 19 people were murdered for being accused of witchcraft. Get with the times, Schlafly. [[User:DRuss|DRuss]] 08:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:What is different about Obama that makes it unusual for him to not be much of a dancer? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 09:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Still waiting on an answer, Andy. When'd you last hit the dance floor? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 15:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)

: Though irrelevant to the issue, I dance in times of celebration, and have also arranged for the availability of dancing by attendees at such events. Pursue this irrelevancy further and your account will be blocked, per my comment on your talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:41, 7 November 2008 (EST)
:: He does somewhat have a point, even if his methods of conveying it are a little childish. He's pretty much pointing out that your accusation opens up a big can of worms. If I was to say that Obama's lack of dancing must mean he is Muslim due to Islamic Sharia, I could also say that if I saw you sitting on the floor you must be a Muslim who is kneeling to Mecca. [[User:St0dad|St0dad]] 09:09, 8 November 2008 (EST)

== Anti Americanism ==

Many points in this article could be summarized into a section called "Anti Americanism"

I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. Anti Americanism should be a given a very prominent place in this article.

: I like this idea because I feel the article is too fragmented and not organized. People are adding self contained ideas in various points in the article, especially at the top, which disrupts the flow and readablity. I cleaned up the first paragraph, but I can't smooth up everything [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

If I make such an edit will I be banned? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== "Muslim Faith" comment ==

I believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or at least more sympathetic to them than Christians, but the "Muslim Faith" statement is taken out of context. I removed it as part of the evidence of him being Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't like that video btw, I only posted it to show the full context [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:: On a side note, the entire section, for accuracy's sake, should be called "Why Barack Obama is not a Christian" since the only parts that are not circumstantial are in regard to disingenuous Christianity. Beyond that the idea of him not changing his name making him muslim is ridiculous. He was named for his Father. Example from reality: my middle name is Paul. I received it fromt he name of my grandfather. I'm no longer Christian. But I don't change my middle name because I no longer believe Paul's words. I keep it because I love and respect my grandfather. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::: I partially agree. Maybe there should be two sections. One detailing Anti-Christian facts and one for Pro-Muslim [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

: Schlafly reverted my change ... Why? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 14:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::Because you don't agree with him.[[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 15:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::So it's Schlaflypedia then? I had high hopes for Conservapedia [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I reverted your change because you deleted factual information. That reason should be obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Socialistic==
It is interesting to note that the MSM has buried the exact phrase and can only be found on blogs. The media will use the third person term, e.g. "Obama responds to McCains allegations of Socialistic." The quote itself is relevent. A play on words to blunt its' true impact. Actual charges of 'Socialism' or of being a 'Socialist'. Nobody uses "Socialistic"--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Wait==

Can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama is a Muslim? Thanks. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 23:12, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:Clearly someone's not paying attention. Not that I endorse the, uh, theory, but there's a whoooooole big section about it in the article. And several discussions on this talk page. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)

At this point the very thought that he's a Muslim is preposterous. No Muslim would willingly put Rahm Emmanuel, someone so notably Jewish and pro israel in such a powerful position (chief of staff). All in all though, a pretty good choice from the pool. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 23:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Obama isn't a muslim. He doesn't have the character we see on the trail to do so. I think Obama will be an awful President, is not a christian (it's too liberal), supports infanticide and sodomy, and won't do almost ''any'' of the thigs he has promised. That aside I don't think he's a muslim. Alot of the proof is probably just part of his warped view of multi-culturism, which includes the so-called ''peaceful'' religion of Allah and Muhammed. This should be placed on a different page and other more certain information placed on this page (e.g. a better photo should be placed on the top, not a picture of him which tries to accuse his patriotism.) He is going to be President, a bad one, but one nonetheless. Please, let us respect the authority of our time. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 07:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Think about this: If I had told you on September 12 2001, that in 6 years we'd ellect a liberal, socialist muslim named Barack Hussein Obama, who has terrorist friends, you call me crazy. But here we are. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

==Connections with Irish Terrorists==

I note that a liberal contributor has seen fit to add a line stating that The Republic of Ireland refused to extradite Rita O'Hare -- the IRA terrorist who Obama met last year -- for one of several alleged offences. Why is this of any interest? She served time in the Republic for smuggling explosives. So that country's legal authorities were in no doubt as to her status. Does Wikipedia regard shooting British soldiers in Northern Ireland as a "political offence"? If so, then should we regard killing American soldiers in Iraq the same way? I don't think so. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 18:29, 7 November 2008 (GMT)
:Well spoken Keith! I intend to contact the Irish Embassy in Washington and ask that they make a clear statement condemning our Marxist Terrorist President-Elect's meeting with these vile killers. I would encourage ASchlafly to perhaps make a television appearance about this? As a lawyer, I'm sure he can speak to the international law aspects of this very serious matter. What's next I wonder - how soon are Nobama's Shining Path, Khmer Rouge, Sandanista, and Red Brigade friends going to crawl their way from their terrorist swamps into the halls of Washington power?! Not long I'll bet! [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 13:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:Nodanca was was probably a member of the [[FLQ]], too! [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 18:38, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, it was the High Court in the Republic of Ireland that regarded her case as falling under the exemptions for 'political offences'. That is why they refused to extradite her to N. Ireland. Also, Arnie S., if you truly are indignant about the "vile killer" Rita O'Hare, why don't you call your members of Congress to condemn the fact that she is the duly appointed Sinn Fein Representative to the US. [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 18:37, 7 November 2008 (EST)

::: I don't understand. I genuinely don't understand. My edit to the Obama page on this subject has been deleted as being "inappropriate and silly". What is the distinction between a link with the Weather Underground and a link with the IRA? Why are inverted commas placed around “terrorism” (like this) when discussing the latter organisation and not when deriding Bill Ayres's mob. I suppose it's different -- and less significant -- when Obama's pals are blowing up Irish folk rather than Americans. Would it be different if he were pictured grinning next to some PLO hoodlum? --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 02:42, 8 November 2008 (GMT)

:::: Tordenvaer (if that is your real name), I already HAVE called my member of Congress about the matter - I don't mess around! The Sinn Feiners are a terrible organization with deep terrorist roots who killed many British soldiers and people over a hundred years in Ireland. I'm as surprised as Keith is about the removal of his well-referenced material. [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 21:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Guys, grind your ax about Irish "terrorism" somewhere else. Obama has no plausible connection with it and I'm not going to waste any more time on this silliness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:Andy, why do you place quote marks around the word terrorism? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 22:08, 7 November 2008 (EST)

<- I'm not going to get involved in any discussion here, but it appears a lot of you know a fair bit about [[Rita O'Hare]]. I have started her article, please contribute and spread your knowledge. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:13, 7 November 2008 (EST)

::: If the site administrator does not think this worthy of inclusion then there is no point arguing the case. But I must again ask -- the question is reiterated above by Ferret -- why this site puts inverted commas around terrorism when discussing the IRA, but not when discussing the Weather Underground. The slaughter of innocent Northern Irish people may seem "silly" to you. It does not to us. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 12:36, 8 November 2008 (GMT)
:::: Could be because Irish terrorism was largely funded by US "Irish" Catholics? [[User:GeorgeK|GeorgeK]] 07:48, 8 November 2008 (EST)

== Inciting hatred ==

Wow, have you ever asked yourselves "What would Jesus do?". I hardly think He would write such a biased and bigoted "factual" article. Real Christians don't need this sort of tripe. People are worked up over fundamentalist muslims, but it is writing like this that brings hatred on Christians and Americans and makes you just as bad, if not worse, than them. This was the first article I have ever read on Conservapedia and it will be http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.pngthe last. WWJD?

: Jesus came to tell the truth, no one can deny that. And many people hated Him for it, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 9 November 2008 (EST)

::"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi

::Now who's the ONE? [[User:Wikified|Wikified]] 10:41, 9 November 2008 (EST)

::: Gandhi deserves much respect, but I've never heard Christians cite him as an authority on Christianity. I wouldn't expect a Christian to interpret Gandhi's religion for him either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==Trust, but verify; then get an eight day block==

Trust, but verify. Though he was not the originator of this quote, it was one of Ronald Reagan's favorites. He quoted it when signing treaties with the Soviet Union and it's a useful concept in today's society. It was in the spirit of this quote that I first read and edited at this encyclopedia.

The commandments and guidelines appear to support Reagan's idiom, yet some of the people in charge feel they can rule with an iron fist and pick and choose which rules they want to follow. I experienced it first hand when I edited this article. I first made several comments about the shortcomings of this article on the talk page so anyone could give me their opinion of my thoughts. These comments highlighted various portions of the article that were factually incorrect, contained partisan sniping, unsupported assertions, gossip or deception by omission. The response I got from Aschlafly was not encouraging, yet he didn't say I was prohibited from making any changes. In fact, the pages that govern this encyclopedia say a lot about how articles must be sourced, placement of citation tags, how facts must to true and verifiable, etc. Based on reading the guidelines, I made several changes that I thought reflected well on conservatives and Conservapedia. Yet alas, I was blocked by Aschlafly for eight days. The reason given was for 'inappropriate edits', that's very vague but I was unable to get any more information because Aschlafly doesn't provide contact information for people that have questions about their block. This says a lot about a person's integrity if they refuse to follow the rules and then block other people because they made an 'inappropriate edit' that followed the spirit and intent of the commandments and guidelines.

Since this encyclopedia is being used an educational resource for home-schooled children, I'd like to think the information contained within would be factual and verifiably true. I'd feel very embarrassed for my child if she read some of the inaccurate content of this encyclopedia and then repeated it to an informed person that was educated on the true and verifiable facts of Barack Obama or others. It is my honest opinion that this encyclopedia is a long way from earning respectability; and blocking editors for making true and verifiable edits is not going to help. The administrators should clean up their act because there are a lot of people out there that will follow Reagan's advice; trust, yet verify.

In conclusion, I will continue to make the same edits proposed by the commandments and the guidelines. If an admin feels they can do without another conservative editing this encyclopedia in an ethical and trustworthy manner, it is their loss.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 16:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference 29 ==

Under the "Obama is a Muslim" section there is a point about his name, and following that there is a reference. That reference includes a big chunk of argument and then a few references of its own and some examples and its just a mess. I am about to go through and trim the fat, that means I'm going to take off the examples, and I'm going tot take off the parts that say that it is common to change your name of conversion (Obama never claims to have converted from Islam, so it doesn't really stand out as an inconsistency in his story, some might even claim its a [[straw man]]) and I am going to move the reference to the fact with in the bullet point that it supports and put up a fact tag. I am not taking down the bullet point which I would dispute. I would encourage any one who has a problem with this to go out and find a real reference that shows that most christians would not maintain their fathers name if it were tied to another religion. Please don't block me for a good faith factual edit. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:12, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim, Koran, ''redux'' ==

I removed the silly Muslim and Koran references in the first paragraph for two reasons - one, they are completely unfounded statements with no basis in reality, and two, they are repeated ''ad nauseum'' in the first "section", which is apparently intentionally placed above a TOC tag. Let's leave the panicky POV-pushing to sections, at least, in the desperate attempt for this site to resemble an encyclopedia. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:30, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama is not a muslim nor a person who embraces biblical Christianity because the evidence contradicts this matter ==

Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)

: I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:: Okay, a couple questions. 1) Where are you getting this 1% figure from? 2) How was he raised muslim? Countless acquaintances of mine who were 'raised catholic,' spending ample time learning about Catholicism in school are nothing of the sort. 3) Why would a 1% conversion rate even matter? A person's religion isn't probabilistically determined. By that logic, since 0% of previous Presidents were black, it's unlikely that Obama is president. I don't like this guy or his policy, but real criticism seems to be the way to go, not pointless claims about his religion. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 10:50, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, as he is the president now, wouldn't it be far more constructive to work on things about his articulated agenda, and how it will affect Americans, write about how to influence our Congress people to stand up to agenda, and how to work with him to reflect what real Americans want - rather than report on unproven and unsupported claims? It would be beyond comprehension if something said by panicked conservatives (not specifically here, just in genera) caused someone to think the right answer is to assassinate him. Far better to focus on what we CAN do to remind our government who they serve - themselves or us.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::There are several points wrong with youe assertion. 1) He is not the president now, George W. Bush is. 2) His muslim faith is not unsupported and is far from irrelivant. It will effect his leadership (shiria law anyone?) and his cabinet choices. It is a very big deal seeing as he is the first non-Christian president ever elected. Are we suppose to just stick our heads in the sand??[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 12:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Andy, you say that less than one percent of people raised as Muslims convert to another religion and use that percentage as if it is not a significant number. It is. Let us assume that there are one billion Muslims in the world today- this is a conservative estimate, using numbers from [http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html www.adherents.com]. Let us then assume that, for the sake of a conservative estimate, that 0.1% of Muslims convert to other religions. That means that out of the one billion Muslims alive today, one million would convert. That's more than the population of San Jose, California. This is not an insignificant number of people.

:::::My point here, Andy, is that your use of this statistic is not a good argument. Less than one percent is a far cry from none. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Statistical evidence is relevant and compelling. But it does not stand alone here. There are at least a dozen other compelling evidentiary items, and the list is growing. Supporting a ruler who has an agreement to convert the country to Islam, for example, is persuasive evidence also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::::Fist of all, I think you mean Sh'''a'''ria, but seeing as how you misspelled some English words, I can't really blame you for getting that wrong. To think that just because you believe he is a Muslim (and I emphasize ''believe'', but there are already multiple sections on this page saying why he is not) he would somehow be able to implement Sharia law in the U.S. is silly. The First Amendment prevents religious laws from being able to be made from ''any'' religion. So even if he was Muslim, that doesn't mean it would make pass some sort of Muslim laws, although I'm not exactly sure what ones you are worried about anyway, no intoxicants perhaps? You may be interested in hearing that the U.S. legal system may have been founded in part on ideas from Sharia law. And last but not least, what makes you think every president was Christian? The majority were to be sure, but as far as we know Jefferson was a deist whose ideas were closest to unitarianism, and Grant, Lincoln, Johnson, and Hayes had no religious affiliation and could have ranged from anything such as some sort of personal Christianity, simple theism, agnosticism, or even atheism. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim Votes==
Wondering if the following should be added to Why barack is a Muslim. "90 Percent of American Muslims Voted for Obama." [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39031] They voted in such numbers because he is Jewish? No, because he is Muslim. They voted for him because he is a convert to Christianity from Islam? Nope, they voted for a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Correlation does not equal causation. A lot of other demographics were won over by Obama too, it doesn't make him an hispanic, a young white college student, a Native American, or a resident of California. I think a stronger reason why Muslims voted for Obama may be more of a problem with McCain's and Palin's treatment of certain minorities during the campaign such as the "he's not an Arab, he is a good family man" comment, as well as what other groups these Muslims belonged too such as their overall economic status. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::Often correlation is indicative of causation. Can you cite any other voting pattern as high as 90% that is not based on religion or ethnicity? Not your other examples of Hispanic and young white college student, that's for sure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::78% of Jewish people voted for Obama, and I doubt they want to convert to either Christianity or Islam. 70% of people who live in urban areas > 500,000 voted for him. Just two examples, from the excellent [http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/11/09/weekinreview/20081109_CONNELLY_GRFK.html National Election Pool synopsis], [http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html tables] and [http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html data]. There's plenty of information there, so any trends should be visible. But one does need to be careful about correlation and causation, clearly. Famously, the population of penguins at the North Pole is supposed to correlate perfectly with the number of sitting MP's in the UK Labour Party. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 16:07, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::::So what? Big cities are notorious cesspools of subversion and licence - just the sort of people to be attracted by a chancer like Obama. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:17, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::The point he was making before you blocked him is that while Obama received a high percentage of the Muslim votes, he also received high percentages from numerous other demographics. Clearly Obama does not belong to all of these demographics, and as such it is a misuse of the data to pick the one group you want to tie Obama to and declare him a part of it.

:::::An interesting idea to consider is the possible circularity or self-fulfillment of this argument. Some people say that Obama is a Muslim, and hence a bad guy. Voting Muslims generally take offense and vote for Obama, giving him a high percentage of their vote. Some people then claim that receiving most of the Muslim vote further indicates that Obama is a Muslim. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:44, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-10T17:46:11Z

Corry: /* Obama is not a muslim nor a person who embraces biblical Christianity because the evidence contradicts this matter */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-07T14:45:22Z

Corry: /* Absence of Dancing */

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

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

Why does it say he MAY be the first Muslim President (a horrible, false claim) and he MAY use the Koran to be sworn in

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

I removed the mention of the 57 states, since the article later refers to a source that says that it was probably a misstatement as he has in fact visited 47 states. unsigned JohnFA

This statement has been here for some time. It stays for now.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Jpatt - Why should it? It's repeated later on in the article where it is also explained. This statement is redundant since it doesn't even have a source.

I added the fact that there were not 57 states when he went to school in indonesia, if we are going to mention that he went to an islamic school we are implying that that is where he learned about the 57 states, this is impossible and that should be noted. People will reference conservapedia and if they reference that he visited the 57 islamic states or that he learned about there being 57 islamic states in islamic school they will look like fools.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::Right now, the implication made about Obama's gaff and "57 Islamic states" indicates the United States. If it's about Indonesia, then state Indonesia, as well as prove that Indonesia is divided into 57 states. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:12, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I double-checked the references provided, one of which has a video of Obama himself doing the gaff; it may have been a minor slip of the tounge or a minor mistake, but not once was there a reference to visiting Islamic states or countries. He specified visiting 57 ''U.S. states''. The article was changed to reflect that fact, and the speculation on Islamic states was removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I wanted to do that but I figured I would just get reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'll let you take credit then for the fixing, or at least getting it started :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

:See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== First Muslim President ==

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".
The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]

:The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== Barack raises the bar ==

The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

: ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)
: Wow. I have no idea of what to say to that.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== A hypothetical article ==

The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.

Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.

== Birth Certificate Controversy ==

The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==
Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}
:::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.
:::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM

==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==
Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.

Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.

Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...

: Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.

::: I have decided the same thing, though maybe not to that extent.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Is going to be the next president==
Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America==
Article should be updated accordingly
: President-''Elect'', technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:: Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -[[User:Rfreeman|Rfreeman]] 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== What happening with the muslim section? ==

I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.

Also some points that really stand out to me,
*''Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.''
In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me
*'' Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."'' You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)
*''On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.'' If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.
*''Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.'' Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.

I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Copyediting needed ==

I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:

"Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."

is not a sentence... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim? ==

That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--[[User:Newguy123|Newguy123]] 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets.
Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is ''unprofessional'' at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A Muslim President-elect! ==

Since the article assures us the Barack is a secret Muslim and would if elected become the first Muslim President of the United States, for consistency's sake, it should now be updated by something like the following:

"Now that the unthinkable has occurred and Obama has duped the American People and stolen the election, he will become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and will probably use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office."

and:

"It is widely believed that now he is President-elect, Obama will drop the tiresome pretence of being a Christian and produce his other wives from hiding, don a turban and a scimitar, pray buns-up five times a day on a Persian carpet while facing Mecca, have a minaret built on top of the White House from which he will personally play the role of the muezzin and call the faithful to prayer, will establish policy recommending that “the Zionist entity be driven into the sea”, and put bin Laden’s face on the American dollar. The week after that will probably be even worse." If no one objects, I will make some such interpolations in the article proper. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== "70's terrorist" ==

I object to Ayers being referred to as a "terrorist from the 70's"

he is a "terrorist" end of story. once a terrorist, always a terrorist

we won't call Bin Laden a "2000's terrorist" in 2050

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 00:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Good point, [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]]. Thanks for the edit. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The man is a functioning member of society, an educator, a family man, who has condemns his past actions, and has worked greatly towards improving the lives of others through charity work. He was a part of a group that destroyed ''property'', which doesn't make him a terrorist because that would imply he did random acts of terror on ''people''. Blowing up statues and parts of buildings was wrong but they did not go after people, and no one was hurt or killed. To compare him to Bin Laden is ''despicable''. And to put a section about this man at the top of the page of Presidential-elect Obama who worked with him in an organization to help reduce poverty levels is neither well thought out or ''tactful''. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 08:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Except that the Weather Underground did in fact kill people - 3 of their own, in a bomb-making accident. Sometimes that happens when you set off bombs, even if it's not what you had in mind. I would put other property-destruction crimes such as cross burning in the terror category as well. I do agree that Obama's association with Ayres is minimal, at best, and I have huge issues with all the guilt-by-association tactics employed by the McCain campaign. I'm not taking a stand on the content of this article one way or another. I'm just trying to organize it and cite it as best I can. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::I don't believe an accidental death of their own people should be considered "terror" though. People could technically die while making signs for a normal type of protest, not as likely, but an accident is an accident. Although I do think that some property destruction like cross burning could be argued to be terroristic because it is done in order to terrify a group of people and incite violence against that group. However I still think that what the weather underground did does not quite carry that same connotations. They were protesting a war, and doing so by costing the government money and drawing attention to their cause, at no time was a group of people targeted in a way that would indicate that they were in danger directly from a hostile organization, unless you were an office desk or a public statue/monument. To use the word "terrorist", especially nowadays, in the case of Bill Ayers is misleading, and it is a word that should not be tossed around lightly. It seems that people believe that Ayers = Terrorist, so therefore he must have killed people or tried to kill people, and this article does little to correct this misconception. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== MInd Control? Really now? ==

The people who published this lost what little credibility they had when they published this. Repeating it on this page just makes you look bad. I mean an O looks like a crystal ball? First of all it also looks like an orange or a penny or anything else that is round and circular. Also, I think that crystal balls are the favorite of ''fortune tellers'' so unless Obama can predict the future (which I think might make him a ''better'' president) this doesn't mean much. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:I agree. I am a practicing stage hypnotist (practicing because I still need work :) and I can tell you that most hypnotists use nothing but their voices and physical presence, and those who do use props traditionally use a pencil. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 13:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== Absence of Dancing ==

Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is [[Barack Obama]] rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest?

One explanation is that the Islamic [[sharia]] disfavors dancing.[http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/islamic-scholars-denounce-dancing-say.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:When's the last time you went dancing, Andy? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::um, lol?
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpxJQABkSsQ Dancing in Puerto Rico]
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axH9bhwI8os Dancing to Snoop Dogg]

::so there it is... at least three different places where he's seen dancing. Here's my question: lets see you find videos of Mccain dancing! xP your Islamic assumption thingy holds no water since you can say the same for McCain! [[User:Ema|Ema]] 11:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::Ah! Ema, don't be fooled by this [[deceit]], he might secretly be a [http://www.dankphotos.com/whirling/ whirling dervish!] They're members of [[Sufi]] Islam, by the way. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

:::: I took a look at the Puerto Rico video. It proves my point. I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that. Have you?

:::: It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is. Judging by the determined objections above, it may be quite a while for some of his supporters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Your argument is that he is a bad dancer so he must be a Muslim? Seriously Andrew, take a deep breath and relax, proving him to be a Muslim is not going to get him impeached, he has the presidency and that is that. In four years it might matter, but that means you have poor years to find less circumstantial evidence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: No, Brendanw, it is obviously not my argument that he is a "bad dancer." I think you understand my argument perfectly well and won't admit it. Suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Brendan's right about one thing at least. All the evidence listed is either circumstantial or draws illogical conclusions. The one about him when he says he joins a church after a suggestion does not in any way imply him as a muslim, though it might imply him as a disingenuous Christian. The two are mutually exclusive. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Well please explain it to me differently, initially you said he didn't dance, and now that we have three videos of it you say that he "dances with out dancing" what does that mean if not bad dancer? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Andy's saying that, in those three videos, Obama isn't really ''dancing'', in the sense of crossing a line of Muslim (im)morality. It's like being against swearing, but recognizing that words like "heck" and "geez" don't really cross that line. That said, however, I did run across a video where [http://splicd.com/wzyT9-9lUyE/31/52 Obama dances] by anyone's definition.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:25, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::RossC, this video is obviously faked. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point. (see: Berg) [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:In some Islamic traditions dancing is not allowed, in some christian traditions dancing is not allowed, some people regardless of religion just don't dance with enthusiasm (was he supposed to be [dancing inappropriately with] Ellen? While Barrack is a hottie I'm not sure she would let him do that) I was raised catholic and as a result I am a very quiet person who does not raise his arms in celebration. This is just such a far stretch that it doesn't mean anything. Heck if he were keeping his faith hidden and not praying to meca and not following the rules of Islam in order to complete the 35 year long mission that was trained in to him at a public school in indonesia at the age of 10 don't you think he would dance anyways? And his wife is a great dancer, in Islam men have a whole lot more freedom than women. this just doesn't add up to anything but crazy. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:30, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I love to dance. For what it's worth, I have seen an Obama campaign button with a picture of him dancing, and the words "Dance Yes We Can" on it. It caught my eye because I take dance lessons. See here [http://www.zazzle.com/obama_dance_button-145707809176961889] for a picture of the button. Over the years, I have met homeschooling moms of various faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) who are careful about their children dancing for modesty reasons. Not everyone enjoys dancing, of course, particularly men. While it's an interesting facet of Obama, to be honest I don't see it as a strong indicator of his religious beliefs. When weaker arguments are included, it detracts from the stronger ones, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't dance, and I can assure you that I'm not a Muslim. I'm a lousy dancer, and self-conscious about it. I also don't have a tinfoil hat, which might be why this whole conversation seems ludicrous to me. Godspeed.[[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 21:40, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::The very conservative former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, did not dance in public. This is despite the fact that his treasurer, Peter Costello, and his rival and current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, both danced on national television. Is this evidence that John Howard is a Muslim? Certainly not. There is a much less sinister and blatantly obvious explanation for Obama's lack of dancing - he isn't good at it. Just have a look at the videos posted, he has clearly received minimal dance instruction and is evidently self conscious.

And just out of curiosity, has anyone actually seen John McCain dance? How about Palin or Biden? If these three have not then why should the explanation for their lack of participation not be extended to Obama? [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Not to mention the fact that Spectral Evidence was outlawed in America back in the 1600's after 19 people were murdered for being accused of witchcraft. Get with the times, Schlafly. [[User:DRuss|DRuss]] 08:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:What is different about Obama that makes it unusual for him to not be much of a dancer? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 09:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)

== Anti Americanism ==

Many points in this article could be summarized into a section called "Anti Americanism"

I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. Anti Americanism should be a given a very prominent place in this article.

: I like this idea because I feel the article is too fragmented and not organized. People are adding self contained ideas in various points in the article, especially at the top, which disrupts the flow and readablity. I cleaned up the first paragraph, but I can't smooth up everything [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

If I make such an edit will I be banned? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== "Muslim Faith" comment ==

I believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or at least more sympathetic to them than Christians, but the "Muslim Faith" statement is taken out of context. I removed it as part of the evidence of him being Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't like that video btw, I only posted it to show the full context [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:: On a side note, the entire section, for accuracy's sake, should be called "Why Barack Obama is not a Christian" since the only parts that are not circumstantial are in regard to disingenuous Christianity. Beyond that the idea of him not changing his name making him muslim is ridiculous. He was named for his Father. Example from reality: my middle name is Paul. I received it fromt he name of my grandfather. I'm no longer Christian. But I don't change my middle name because I no longer believe Paul's words. I keep it because I love and respect my grandfather. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::: I partially agree. Maybe there should be two sections. One detailing Anti-Christian facts and one for Pro-Muslim [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

: Schlafly reverted my change ... Why? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 14:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::Because you don't agree with him.[[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 15:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::So it's Schlaflypedia then? I had high hopes for Conservapedia [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I reverted your change because you deleted factual information. That reason should be obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Socialistic==
It is interesting to note that the MSM has buried the exact phrase and can only be found on blogs. The media will use the third person term, e.g. "Obama responds to McCains allegations of Socialistic." The quote itself is relevent. A play on words to blunt its' true impact. Actual charges of 'Socialism' or of being a 'Socialist'. Nobody uses "Socialistic"--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Wait==

Can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama is a Muslim? Thanks. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 23:12, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:Clearly someone's not paying attention. Not that I endorse the, uh, theory, but there's a whoooooole big section about it in the article. And several discussions on this talk page. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)

At this point the very thought that he's a Muslim is preposterous. No Muslim would willingly put Rahm Emmanuel, someone so notably Jewish and pro israel in such a powerful position (chief of staff). All in all though, a pretty good choice from the pool. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 23:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Obama isn't a muslim. He doesn't have the character we see on the trail to do so. I think Obama will be an awful President, is not a christian (it's too liberal), supports infanticide and sodomy, and won't do almost ''any'' of the thigs he has promised. That aside I don't think he's a muslim. Alot of the proof is probably just part of his warped view of multi-culturism, which includes the so-called ''peaceful'' religion of Allah and Muhammed. This should be placed on a different page and other more certain information placed on this page (e.g. a better photo should be placed on the top, not a picture of him which tries to accuse his patriotism.) He is going to be President, a bad one, but one nonetheless. Please, let us respect the authority of our time. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 07:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Africa

2008-11-07T14:32:23Z

Corry: /* Misconception */ fix sig

== Um, was anyone planning to talk about Africa other than to refer to colonization? ==

Like, maybe you'd talk about it being full of nations of people? Or the fact that American slaves came from there? previous unsigned comment added by [[User:SmartChristian]]
:Or the fact that Turkey took slaves from there? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 20:58, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, its open for constructive editing :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:01, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Come On People==

Africa is South-EAST of Asia? That's been in this entry since November of last year? This does not make me think highly of this site.

'''Trring to justify colonialism'''

I have a hard time understanding why contributors to this page a trying to put a pretty face on the colonial episode - thrying to paint abusive labor practices as thouh they gave "idle Africans" something to do and a wage, when none of the proceeds went to the benefit of the people whose land it was before the Euros pushed them off it. Colonialism was and remains evil and went against basic conservative ideas like freedom of ownership, control of one's own property and controlling one's own economic destiny. -Sevenstring

==Garden of Eden location?==

I heard Eden was in Iraq, probably.... claim is in Ethiopia seems false [[User:ChineseChristian|ChineseChristian]] 03:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, most claims about the location of [[Eden]] base it in the Iraq/Iran/Eastern Turkey area. Still, The claim should stand if it was made by some authoritative person or body, rather than by (eg) the Ethiopian Tourism department!

==Pre-colonial History Omitted==
This entry manifests the racist idea that no relevant history occurred in Africa prior to European colonization of the continent.

== Misconception ==

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think there is a "very common misconception" that the continent of Africa is one entire country. It seems a little far fetched to me. Do you have any examples of people not knowing that the entire continent is made up of tiny countries? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:09, 6 November 2008 (EST)
: It was recently revealed that Sarah Palin had this misconception, and if a vice presidential candidate had it, then certainly it must be common. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 23:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::I can't help but think that somehow this claim was taken out of context, honestly misspoken, or something in that vein. I am no Palin fan, believe me, but some of these claims by "top aides" seem hard to swallow. How could she not know that Africa consists of multiple countries? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 09:32, 7 November 2008 (EST)
:::A user was also blocked for two weeks simply for posting a link to said event... [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:24, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Africa

2008-11-07T05:03:51Z

Corry: /* Misconception */

Debate: Who will win the 2008 presidential election?

2008-11-04T18:13:42Z

Corry: commented table example no longer needed.

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

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

Add your prediction to the table.

[[Category:Debate]]

Debate: Who will win the 2008 presidential election?

2008-11-04T18:06:56Z

Corry:

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

{| class="wikitable"
|+
|- bgcolor=#dedede
|-
! User
! Electoral Winner
! Votes
! Popular Winner
! Percent Margin
! Comments
|-
| [[User:Corry|Corry]]
| Obama
| 326
| Obama
| 6%
| Obama carries PA, VA, OH, and loses FL and NC.
|-
| [[User:Jpatt|Jp]]
| McCain
| 285
| Obama
| 2%
| Hillary supporters are the difference, OH, FL, [[Bradley effect]].

|-
| [[User:TGeary|Tgeary]]
| McCain
| 271
| McCain
| 0.5%
| Looking increasingly unlikely, but I cannot give up my confidence in my country yet.
|-
| [[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]]
| Obama
| 338
| Obama
| 4%
| Obama carries PA, VA, OH, and NC. Loses FL and MO., Sen. 60-seat margin, Ca. no on 8, Co. no on 48.
|-
| [[User:DRamon|DRamon]]
| McCain
| 271
| McCain
| 0.5%
| You gotta have hope!
|-
| [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
| ?
| ?
| Obama
| 4%
| Polls show Obama is going to get the popular easily - but as this seems to be from making the blue states even bluer, it might not translate to electoral collage votes. I don't know enough to call that one, sorry.
|-
| [[User:DRamon|DRamon]]
| McCain
| 271
| McCain
| 0.5%
| You gotta have hope!
|-
| [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]]
| Obama
| 400
| Obama
| 10%
| Tsunami today. Obama outspent McCain by 3-1 and has 3x or 4x as many volunteers phoning to get out the vote. GOP folks are depressed and big losses in Senate and House races--will drag McCain down.
|-

Add your prediction to the table.

[[Category:Debate]]

Debate: Who will win the 2008 presidential election?

2008-11-04T05:02:14Z

Corry:

Debate: Who will win the 2008 presidential election?

2008-11-04T04:42:55Z

Corry: Make your prediction!

Template talk:Homosexuality

2008-11-03T17:02:58Z

Corry:

I've created this following the discussion on the Homosexuality talk page. Some points:
*Clearly it's too long - at the moment I've put in most of the pages from Category:Homosexuality, but it should be pared down to just the most important pages before it's used anywhere.
*Ideally there would be a better picture - suggestions welcome.
*And as ever, any improvements to design or organisation will be much appreciated.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:10, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I've also added it to [[Homosexual rights advocacy]] temporarily, so we can see how it looks ''in situ''.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:That's long, long, long. Maybe you don't need to shoehorn in all of Conservative's "homosexuality and ____" pages. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 10:03, 3 November 2008 (EST)

::Completely agree, but I haven't read many of them so would rather someone else cut down the list. Would you be able to do it?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:05, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::I think most of my opinions on these articles might not be appreciated. Try this- pick out what seem to be the main articles and link to those. If an article only consists of a quotation or two, then don't link it. If you go through Conservative's body of work you can probably quickly separate them- a number of these articles are short blurbs consisting only of a few quotations or advertisements for blogs he has quid pro quo linking agreements with (although I think some of these might be deleted). [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:02, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Template talk:Homosexuality

2008-11-03T15:03:05Z

Corry:

State v. Naramore

2008-11-03T04:04:12Z

Corry: bold

In '''''State v. Naramore''''', 25 Kan. App. 2d 302, 322 (1998), the Supreme Court of [[Kansas]] overturned a conviction of Dr. Stan Naramore for administering large quantities of painkillers to two patients who subsequently died. It found that where there is a bona fide dispute in the medical community, then reasonable doubt about criminal intent exists as a matter of law. “[T]here is a reason why there has yet to be in Anglo-American law an affirmed conviction of a physician for homicide arising out of medical treatment based on such highly controverted expert evidence as here.” ''Id.''

The Tenth Circuit adhered to the Naramore ruling in reversing a conviction for involuntary manslaughter of a physician in connection with the death of a patient. ''United States v. Wood'', 207 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2000). “Well-intentioned but inappropriate medical care, standing alone, does not raise an inference that a killing was deliberate, willful, and premeditated.” ''Id.'' at 1232.

[[Category:Law]]

Voice

2008-11-03T03:57:01Z

Corry:

A '''voice''' is the [[sound]] or sounds projected by creatures, mainly [[human]]s, in the form of speaking, singing, screaming, shouting, etc. A voice is necessary for all spoken [[language]]s.

Voice also refers to a form of a [[verb]]. The ''[[active voice]]'' indicates that the subject is acting (e.g., "I ate the sandwich"), whereas the ''[[passive voice]]'' indicates that the subject is being acted on (e.g., "The sandwich was eaten").<ref>[http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_vmood.html Verbs: Voice and Mood]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Music]]
[[Category:Languages]]

Down syndrome

2008-11-03T03:53:08Z

Corry: orly?

'''Down syndrome''' (also written as '''Down's syndrome''') is a genetic disorder caused by an extra copy of [[chromosome]] 21. The greatest risk factor for having a child with Down syndrome is increased maternal (and, to a lesser extent, paternal) age.

The name comes from [[British]] [[physician]] [[John Langdom Down]], who described the syndrome in [[1862]]. Down named the condition '''mongolism''' because the external appearance of its sufferers resembled that of the [[Mongolian]] race (one of the five racial classifications commonly used at the time). Currently, the terms "mongolism" and "mongoloid" are considered offensive.

The most important medical aspect of Down syndrome is [[mental retardation]]. Individuals with Down syndrome have mild to severe mental retardation. It is impossible to reliably predict what the eventual level of function of a child with Down syndrome will be.

Other characteristics of Down syndrome (not all of which affect every individual who has Down's) are :
* Single [[transverse palmar crease]]
* Epicanthic folds and oblique eye opening
* Smaller limbs
* Weak muscle tone
* Enlarged, protruding [[tongue]]
* [[Congenital heart defect]]
* [[Gastroesophageal reflux disease]]
* [[Otitis]] and hearing deficits
* [[Sleep apnea]]
* [[Thyroid]] hormone problems
* [[Leukemia]]
* Early onset [[Alzheimer's disease]]

There is evidence that people with Down syndrome have higher resistance to [[cancer]]{{fact}}.

Down syndrome is an universal phenomenon, affecting all nationalities. Although the greatest risk factor is increased maternal age, the majority of children with Down syndrome are born to mothers under the age of 35, because the vast majority of children as a whole are born to younger mothers. Most people who support abortion support the abortion of children with Down's Syndrome{{fact}}.

[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Diseases]]

Down syndrome

2008-11-03T03:47:18Z

Corry: fact tag

'''Down syndrome''' (also written as '''Down's syndrome''') is a genetic disorder caused by an extra copy of [[chromosome]] 21. The greatest risk factor for having a child with Down syndrome is increased maternal (and, to a lesser extent, paternal) age.

The name comes from [[British]] [[physician]] [[John Langdom Down]], who described the syndrome in [[1862]]. Down named the condition '''mongolism''' because the external appearance of its sufferers resembled that of the [[Mongolian]] race (one of the five racial classifications commonly used at the time). Currently, the terms "mongolism" and "mongoloid" are considered offensive.

The most important medical aspect of Down syndrome is [[mental retardation]]. Individuals with Down syndrome have mild to severe mental retardation. It is impossible to reliably predict what the eventual level of function of a child with Down syndrome will be.

Other characteristics of Down syndrome are (not all of them affect every individual):
* Single [[transverse palmar crease]]
* Epicanthic folds and oblique eye opening
* Smaller limbs
* Weak muscle tone
* Enlarged, protruding [[tongue]]
* [[Congenital heart defect]]
* [[Gastroesophageal reflux disease]]
* [[Otitis]] and hearing deficits
* [[Sleep apnea]]
* [[Thyroid]] hormone problems
* [[Leukemia]]
* Early onset [[Alzheimer's disease]]

There is evidence that people with Down syndrome have higher resistance to [[cancer]]{{fact}}.

Down syndrome is an universal phenomemon, affecting all nationalities. Although the greatest risk factor is increased maternal age, the majority of children with Down syndrome are born to mothers under the age of 35, because the vast majority of children as a whole are born to younger mothers.

[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Diseases]]

Jim Bowie

2008-11-03T03:38:16Z

Corry: wikify

'''James "Jim" Bowie''' (April 10, 1796 – March 6, 1836) was a 19th century Texan-Mexican-American since, at the time of his death Texas was still an independent Republic, though being born in Kentucky, he is offical American, he was proud to say he was Texan. Bowie was also a Mexican citizen by marriage.

He is famous for his role in the [[Texas War of Independence]].

Physicist

2008-11-02T19:24:39Z

Corry: Removed question mark from Newton, added Hawking

One who studies the science of [[physics]] is called a "'''physicist'''".

The routes of this word include "physic" (the science of properties of matter or energy) and the English suffix "ist" meaning "one who does, one who is skilled in."

Some famous Physicists include :

* [[Albert Einstein]]
* [[Enrico Fermi]]
* [[Robert Oppenheimer]]
* [[Isaac Newton]]
* [[Stephen Hawking]]
[[Category:Science]]

United States Naval Academy

2008-10-31T20:41:53Z

Corry: /* References */

'''The United States Naval Academy,''' located in [[Annapolis]], [[Maryland]], is a four-year, collegiate level military academy that produces officers for the [[United States Navy]] and the [[United States Marine Corps]]. Graduates receive a comission as either an ensign in the Navy or a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps, and may choose from a number of career branches within each service such as surface warfare, submarines, naval aviation, and special warfare (SEALs).

== Academic Program ==

The Naval Academy offers 22 majors separated into three groups:
Group I (Engineering): Aerospace Engineering, Electrical Engineering, General Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Naval Architecture, Ocean Engineering, Systems Engineering
Group II (Math and Science): Chemistry, Computer Science, General Science, Information Technology, Mathematics, Oceanography, Physics, Quantitative Economics
Group III (Humanities and Social Sciences): Arabic, Chinese, Economics, English, History, Political Science

In addition, each midshipmen is required to complete a core syllabus of math, science, and engineering to include:

One year chemistry, one year physics, four semesters of math including Calculus through Calculus III, one year electrical engineering, one semester naval architecture, one semester thermodynamics, and one semester weapons engineering.

This heavy emphasis on science and engineering is reflected in the degree each midshipmen receives. All midshipmen graduate with a bachelor of science, even those who completed a group III major.

Each midshipman also takes at least one class each semester on a professional topic including:

Two semesters of navigation and seamanship, two semesters of leadership, one semester of ethics, one semester of naval law, and one semester dedicated to the career path the midshipman has chosen.

Finally, each midshipman takes a number of humanities classes including:

One semester of naval history, Two semesters of English, and one semester of American government.

== Famous Graduates ==

[[John McCain]] - Class of 1958. U.S. Senator and 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate <ref>http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2008/03_31-16/TOP</ref>

[[Jimmy Carter]] - Class of 1946. 39th President and recipient of Nobel Peace Prize

[[James Stockdale]] - Class of 1947. Medal of Honor Recipient and 1992 Reform Party Vice-Presidential Candidate

[[Chester Nimitz]] - Class of 1905. Fleet Admiral who led U.S. Navy to victory in the Pacific

[[Jim Webb]] - Class of 1968. U.S. Senator and a former Secretary of the Navy.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Navy]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.usna.edu The United States Naval Academy website]

Science

2008-10-29T23:11:02Z

Corry: wikify

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right]]
'''Science''' is a methodology for discovering and classifying [[knowledge]]. The scope of science encompasses all measurable [[phenomena]]. Science falls under two scopes: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world, and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which can be disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]]. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], believed in [[God]], or some other higher power, and many were [[creationists]].
In addition, [[Christianity]] [[Christianity and Science|played a pivotal role in the development of modern science]]. In recent years, American scientists have been much more atheistic as a group than the general public. <ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref>

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis, it involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time. The generally accepted scientific procedure is:

* Observations of an unknown phenomenon are made
* A hypothesis is made to explain to explain the observations
* A experiment or experiments are carried out to test the hypothesis.
** If the experiment supports the hypothesis it is considered a theory
** If the experiment does not support the hypothesis it is either rewritten or discarded
* If at a later date evidence is produced which contradicts the theory, it is discarded and a new hypothesis is developed

One of the fundamental tenets of science is that no theory is absolute; theories are constantly changing in response to the observation of new evidence. Hence, a scientific theory that begins with an immutable conclusion and attempts to "fit the facts" to that argument does not fall within the realm of true scientific research.{fact}

==Naturalism and science==
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
This assumption was based on the Christian view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.

Science can only study the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist.
The latter is what is known as ''naturalism'', but despite the claims of atheists and others, is not a prerequisite of science.

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

[[category:science]]

User talk:DeanS

2008-10-29T22:18:13Z

Corry: /* My talk page */ new section

Just tell me how could we protect better the Mormon articles? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:What do you mean by "protect better" Joaquín? This is a wiki and we try to avoid protecting the articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

: OK, I will do my best to patroll them. At present I am out of home. Just keep doing your wonderfull work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Joaquín, Thanks for Patrolling the articles and dealing with JimmyP. As I mentioned on the church talk page, he needs to explain in detail why he has a problem with that link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:27, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I am out of town. I will be back untill August 6th. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:16, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Good to hear from you Joaquín. I hope you have a great vacation! --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:26, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi DeanS, what a great article 'Breaking Speaker Pelosi's News Blackout'. I love the strategy, proud of my GOP 'ers, it is so patriotic!--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:50, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jpatt! Now if only President Bush would make Congress come back in session to deal with this issue. They don't deserve a five-week vacation. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 02:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks, Bro! ==

I thought your guys are gonna ignore me again, but Nah, I got wrong ideas. Thank you, May the Lord bless you! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=497248] I wish I was brave enough to do that! But only I'm could is to support them to do so, "sigh".--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:36, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:Your welcome Tago. I think the pic is a nice addition as well. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:39, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::I must say, that picture is much better view then the source had.--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:50, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. I followed the pic to its source and was rewarded with this version. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

== Conservapedia:Featured articles. ==

Your opinion is needed in: [[Holy Days]], [[Architecture]], [[Great Flood]] and [[Deconstruction]].
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:39, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:Done. Thanks for the reminder. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:03, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:24, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

==Welcome==

Thanks for the welcome! This website is actually a god-send, a perfect oppurtunity to actually make use of my summer holidays. Hey by the way, I was wondering what CP's policy on science articles are, as this will probably be the aspect I'll be contributing to quite a lot. Thanks again- [[User:Jl2000|Jl2000]]

:Just start editing and you'll find out soon enough ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:21, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:I researched this person's edits and found much of the material to be false. There was also information on that other site which made it very clear that he was just another of their parodists. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::Interesting. They're supposed to be on a boycott of CP right now. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:29, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Christian solidarity==

Hi, Dean. I like your [[:Image:Beijing arrests.jpg]] but I couldn't edit the caption. Can you crop the image and put the caption in the image link? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:30, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Ed. How about this cropped image? The caption is in the image info. [[:Image:Beijing arrests2.jpg]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:24, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks and a request or two. ==

Thanks for pointing me at that list of admins. Two things - [[Conservapedia:User rights]] is full of broken links but is locked - can you or someone else fix these? Also can you unlock [[Rape]] for me as well - the current wording includes the phrase "seducing a child" - as seduction as a concept can suggest an element of consent I'd like to rephrase the article. Thanks in advance. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 21:39, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pre-screening of News stories==

Just curious - why the "No article prescreening" policy, and why delete what I thought were constructive comments, instead of responding to them on the page? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:44, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:The reason there will be no article pre-screening by you (or other liberals) is because myself or another admin will be prescreening the articles.

:I deleted your comments because those project pages are only for project members, and I'm not going to have nonmembers influencing the project. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 20:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, all that makes sense, but if you read my post, I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen, because I know non-conservatives like me aren't welcome on the sub-project. I had the sense that there was no pre-screening by anyone, and your edit-comment seemed to bear that out. Thanks for clarifying.

::Also, can I ask a blunt but serious question? Do you ever find that the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" are taken wayyy too seriously here, resulting in an all-or-none, black-and-white division between the two perspectives? I never post here to make trouble, only to offer a viewpoint that's usually more nuanced than the black-hat/white-hat exchanges that often take place. I hate labels myself, because in my case I'm libertarian on most social issues, conservative on fiscal ones, and still trying to figure out the spiritual - "Unitarian/Universalist" is probably closer than "Agnostic", but neither one is a strong enough fit to apply to myself.

::So if you want to create sub-projects for the true-believers only, go for it. I've just observed that while this is Conservapedia and not Neutralapedia, the "feel" of the place has become more polarized and combative, with less tolerance for dissent or even respectful disagreement, and a corresponding drop in the number and quality of contributors.

::As I said though, good luck with the news project, and I'll post my comments on the Main:Talk page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:17, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Dinsdale, You said, "I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen". What is this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikiproject:News&diff=prev&oldid=502069 "... I'd be glad to participate in article screening..."]

:::No, I don't find the labels are taken ''too'' seriously here. I have a problem with liberals and their way of thinking. Liberal viewpoints are wrong.

:::I find very little of the "respectful disagreement" from liberals; mostly I see great examples of [[Liberal Style]], vandalism, parody, troublemaking, obscenity, etc.

:::Your comments here are respectful; therefore I have responded in kind. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 21:39, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the courteous response. As for my statement on volunteering, the ''complete'' statement was "I'd be glad to participate in article screening but I don't qualify to be on this sub-project." Hey, I'd love night-editing rights, too, but I'm about as qualified to get that, too ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:05, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::LOL --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
==Didn't mean to step on toes==
I'm just a huge fan of Cherone's and his ability to not alienate people when discussing Christianity and why abortion is wrong. So, I'd rather stick his "line in the sand" in there, if you don't mind. He has stated that anyone who really wants to be taken seriously in this debate at least needs to recognize that a woman has a right to live, if / when a baby directly threatens that. It's a position, being a woman wanting children, I happen to share. :-) If you really think it's liberal bias, let me know or a third party know, and we can "let the majority vote" (as it were).--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 22:43, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: Btw, I DO mind. There is NO majority vote when an administrator removes liberal bias. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:59, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::I guess I don't understand what "liberal bias" is in this case, then. Are you asserting that Cherone is a liberal? I really have no idea his political preference, just what he has said about abortion. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 23:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::No, I'm not saying that Cherone is a liberal. See my comments at [[Talk:Extreme]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Wikinews==
DeanS, Wikinews, my spelling error on the Ayers story. Unrepentent should be unrepentant.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Could you add int link for Stephanie Tubbs Jones? Tanks in advance!--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jp. This mistake has been [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=502572&oldid=502384 corrected].

:The wikilink was added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=502578&oldid=502572 here]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:53, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

==Thank you!==
For stepping in. Whoever that person was, he was doing bad things to my blood pressure :) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 10:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:You're welcome Jessica. He was an imposter and was dealt with accordingly. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:10, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I got really annoyed... --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 10:32, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:No wonder you were annoyed. I'm sorry this happened to you. We have enemies of this site, and they don't care who gets hurt or how much damage/disruption they cause. This incident reminds me of homicide bombers. All they care about is themselves and how much damage they can cause.

:Be on the alert for imposters. You can check their contributions like [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/JasonH this]. JasonH's contribs started today. Also JasonH created his account [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=JasonH today]. Since we know [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jinxmchue the real Jinxmchue] has been editing for a while, that would also be a clue that JasonH was an imposter. Finally, he used this obvious deceitful <nowiki>[[User:JasonH|Jinxmchue]]</nowiki> [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DiEb&diff=prev&oldid=503259 signature.] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

==Thank You for the Unblock==

I appreciate being restored given that my comments aren't mainstream here, and I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:Phillip explained why I was wrong, and I wanted to fix my mistake. Even though I don't agree with your views, I won't block you for expressing them. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:58, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

== Wikinews Project ==

Mr. DeanS,

Why exactly do you think I'm a liberal? I've tried to make it clear that I am anything but.

--[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:Joseph, I don't think you're a liberal. I thought I explained the reason clearly in the email. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:36, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I see you have had great success with wanted pages via Wikinews. Since you have run out of new topics, I thought to suggest adding some words from [[Special:Wantedpages]]. Just to keep the pac motivated.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:43, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:Jp, even though that is an interesting suggestion, I prefer to link to items on the news section; since this is a news project. If you want to suggest items, look at the news articles and see where the wikilinks are missing. Sometimes it's because the poster didn't bother to use existing wikilinks; other times it's because the article hasn't been created yet. It's quite challenging to go through the news articles and find these wikilinks. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:14, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:: No problem. Before I submit a news item, I wikilink almost every word then use the preview to see which is or isn't listed. If you like, I can immediately add words that don't appear to the wanted section. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:45, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:::That would be great! If you could add missing wikilinks for the other suggestions, that would be even better. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:51, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:Jp, I have reconsidered your idea to use the Conservapedia wanted articles. Just using the news wikilinks was okay, but including the general wanted articles is even better. Plus these articles also add to their count. If you want to add articles, add them to the bottom of the [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page#Conservapedia_wanted_articles|Conservapedia wanted articles]] section. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Response to 'add missing wikilinks for the other suggestions', I would but do not have access to mainpage:right. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that you can add the missing wikilinks ''before'' the suggestion is posted.
:::Thanks for continuing to add new wanted articles.
:::What do you think about the section on revising the news postings? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:32, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I am fine with adding wikilinks before postings, even if they do not get posted.
::::My pleasure to help CP
::::Sounds interesting but I am not sure I understand. Do you mean, create a short essay/summary, then link back? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Once you add the revised headline summary, I will replace my headline with your revised headline on the Main Page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:46, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey DeanS, what is your policy if we created a news item that wasn't posted. But then the item was created and posted by a SysOp? Do I still get credit? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:I believe you should still get the credit. Add a comment below your suggestion and you will get the credit. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 21:45, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Outdated news item ==

The main page has a news item that says: "According to RealClearPolitics, for the first time in the 2008 Presidential race, John McCain overtakes Barack Obama in the Electoral College poll 274 to 264." You may want to remove that from the main page since it is no longer accurate, and the link provided leads to a page showing Obama leading McCain 273 to 265 (that is what is how right now, anyway). [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 13:54, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Done. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:22, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== IP's ban ==

(Not sure if this is proper procedure, but I'm still fairly new).

I disagree with your ban of Impm; there was no 'edit war' that could be perceived based on his recent (see five minutes ago) edits of the Barack Obama article. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Jirby, MYOB or ''you'' will be blocked. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:50, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Wow, they're really obsessed with me ==

How many people have created accounts referencing me? Quite a few, it seems. At least 3, to my recollection, including today's "Lowjinx." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:02, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

:They're obsessed alright; with you, all of the Conservapedia sysops and Conservapedia itself. They are also obsessed with vandalism, parody, deceit, and every other element of the [[Liberal Style]].

:I prefer to call them "possessed". They are possessed of a lying and evil spirit. They're sowing wickedness, and will reap wickedness at the judgment day.
--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:01, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

::A little less [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks|talk]], please. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Good, steady work==

Dean, thank you for your longstanding, careful attention to the main page. No one keeps up with current events as well as you do.

I also like your "wiki gnome" work, like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Indian-American&curid=72030&diff=506590&oldid=506571 this minor copy edit]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:You're welcome Ed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:53, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==False quotes in News story on Obama speech==

I wasn't sure if you saw my comments about the false statements in the headline about the Obama speech. Do you consider the headline correct in it's current form? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I read your comments. I would like Chippeterson to respond to you and provide a link for reference. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Understandable, but here's a [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/us/politics/28text-obama.html link] to the transcript of the speech, which clearly shows the headline is false and misleading. Chippeterson should respond, but only a sysop has the ability to edit news postings on the main page, and as the link shows, it's wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:10, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Bear in mind that ''The New York Times'' is the leading liberal news source, so their "factual" claims must often be given close scrutiny. They have even misreported science news, e.g., publishing the assertion about open water at the North Pole (which was later shown to be historically inaccurate) just in time to influence public policy on [[global warming]].

:::Although liberals refer to the NY Times as the "newspaper of record", conservatives don't give it as much credence. (They have the legal write to print opinion as fact, you know; see [[First Amendment]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:36, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:It's not '''"the"''' transcript (as in the only one possible); you left out "as recorded by CQ Transcriptions". Part of the strategy of liberal news media is to pick their sources carefully to give the impression they want. If you do a little research, you can find where a Boston Globe editor declared this quite openly. Would you like that as a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:40, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Republican Convention Headline ==

Last phrase should read "Democratic Vice Presidential nominee", not "Democrat Vice Presidential nominee." Thanks --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:40, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:Fixed. Thanks for the correction. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:21, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== RIP Bill Melendez ==

Thanks for that news, sad as it is. An unsung hero and icon of American culture whose legacy will live forever in our hearts. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jinx. The article was submitted by Benp and I just posted it. Can you start an article for [[Bill Melendez]]? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:29, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll have to see how soon I can get to it. Going to bed now. Have some yard work to do in the morning and work work from the afternoon through tomorrow morning. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:21, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:::No problem Jinx. Thanks for your contributions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:31, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

==Sysop Q==
How does one become a sysop? I've only been here a few days. [[User:JY23|JY23]]

:See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Administrators Conservapedia:Administrators/Promotion]. Sysops are selected as needed from the best of the best contributors, there is no popularity contest to determine promotion. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:17, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

== Re: New article request process ==

Didn't know about the process ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikiproject%3ANews%2FWanted_page&diff=511110&oldid=511109]) Sorry, [[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 16:19, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:That's fine. I usually just do it myself, and after you tried to do it, I realized I needed to write a process. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:32, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Cool. [[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 16:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

==Pictures==
DeanS, could you upload these photo's for me for the [[John McCain]] and [[Joe Biden]] articles, thanks.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/89ddfcef-3a43-49a6-99c4-b7f41986b56c_mn.jpeg

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/john-mccain-4.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 8 September 2008

:Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Biden_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg Biden on Meet the Press] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:McCain_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg McCain on Meet the Press]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:32, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I appreciate it. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]9 September 2008
===Other Pictures===
Also DeanS, there are some articles with no pictures at all and could really use them. I was hoping you could upload these.

http://www.moderate-america.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/colin_powell-277x300.jpg

http://www.gcva.us/dpts/vote/TimKainePic.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/ray_nagin_cp_8482804.jpg

http://www.fantasycongress.com/public/img/senators/graham_lindsey_SC.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 9 September 2008

:Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Colin_Powell.jpg Colin Powell], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:TimKaine.jpg Tim Kaine], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ray_Nagin.jpg Ray Nagin] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Lindsey_Graham.jpg Lindsey Graham]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 02:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Chippeterson, I deleted the Ray Nagin photo from Conservapedia and reverted the article because it could have been an AP photo and we're not allowed to use AP photos. The cbc.ca site uses a lot of AP photos and I wasn't able to determine if this was an AP photo. I don't mind uploading pics for you, I just need you to double-check the source and ensure they're non-AP photos before I can upload in the future. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll be more careful from now on DeanS. How about this one of Nagin from answers.com. http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/7/74/225px-Nagin2June2006.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 10 September 2008

:Chippeterson, thanks for understanding. Here's the pic for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ray_Nagin2.jpg Ray Nagin]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Betty Ford==
I just wrote an article on [[Betty Ford]] and it could use her picture. Could you upload this. Thanks. http://z.about.com/d/womenshistory/1/7/q/A/betty_ford.jpg

:Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Betty_Ford.JPG Betty Ford]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Night Edits==
DeanS, i think somebody left the spicket on. Can you close new user signup til daylight hours? Thanks -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:16, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:I noticed that too and already took care of it. Thanks for the reminder. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:25, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

::Yesterday it was turned off around 2. I thought it was just later now than it used to be. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:33, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:::It varies. I'm not going to go into details, but you can email Andy if you have further questions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Naw, I understand. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:37, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Debate about news articles is not allowed on this project." ==

This makes absolutely no sense. Somebody suggests a news item on [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions]], but comments about these ''suggestions'' have to be posted on [[Talk:Main Page]] ''before the suggestions are posted on the main page''? Talk about convoluted! Nobody would know what I'm objecting against, so I would have to preface it with "Somebody suggested a news item on this and that page, and I'll now comment on it here". But I can see that my objection had zero impact either way, so posting it again in the "proper" place won't do a thing, will it? McCain is excused for not knowing how to send a mail because he can't use a keyboard (sorta kinda). Right. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:28, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:DirkB, although it doesn't make sense to you, there is a reason for this rule. I want that page to contain suggestions only. I don't want liberals debating about the suggestions. From what I've seen on the Talk:Main Page, liberals like to discuss some of the articles, other editors reply, and this goes back and forth. I don't care whether you or other liberals agree with the suggested article. You can have these endless discussions on the Talk:Main Page after it's posted, not on the suggestions page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:45, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think he liked your reply... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Too bad. I'm not here to please the liberals.
:::Good block, btw. You better get ready to defend the permablock from Philip, etc. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:57, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::::<sigh> [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:59, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

== {{User|DRamon}} ==

Do you think he should be unblocked? Perhaps I was a little harsh, seeing as he has been creating content. I took a look at his edits after he edited another user's userpage, though the user has now reverted back to Ramon's version. Earlier this issue was brought up in Schlafly's talkpage. I mainly blocked him for this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&diff=prev&oldid=517564]. The parodists have been having fun with that list. Also he had been warned before. Take a look at his edits, is he a parodist? Do you think unblock? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:I do think DRamon should be unblocked and I don't see him as a parodist. If you want to warn him for editing someones user page that would be appropriate. Thanks for asking. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:46, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::User is unblocked. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:54, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks Henry. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 02:04, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== Inappropriate user name ==
A new user has joined with the user name : Tony Blair. could you please look into it?--[[User:Carolyn|Carolyn]] 09:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's a vandal and has already been blocked. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:07, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

== Satan... Carrot Top... ==

You have to at least admit that was pretty funny. It's rare that the vandals and parodists are actually funny instead of stupid. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:09, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:That's why I changed the block comment. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==Wiki support==
DeanS, as a member of Wikiproject: News, I feel you have spoiled me with attentiveness and clear direction. As a member of Wikiproject: Religion, I have no such contact, no direction, no replies. It is frustrating but I can live with that. I wanted to pick your brains about site structure that I have unable to find in the help section. Category's seem to have boundaries. A rule of thumb, no more than three, correct? Multiple category's on similar topics not looked upon as correct? e.g. Catholic Church and Christianity. Sub-categories have more precedent than category tagging? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for the compliment, Jp. I don't have the same passion for categories and I defer an answer to those who have more interest. I would suggest you start a Wikiproject:Categories and go from there. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==Fred1776==

Was it really necessary to revert that last edit by Fred1776? It was on a talk page, and was not rude in anyway. Robust, certainly, but neither rude nor insulting. "Liberalist version whatever"'s edits were vandalism: this was an opinion. It's one I happen to share and I am sure that many on this site share. Surely Aschlafly is not such a tender soul that he needs protecting from this. It might make unpleasant reading, but it's surely nicer and more decently put than a "mild" rebuke from Bugler --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:55, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:Lecturing the site owner is not appropriate, period. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

== Something's not right with that mainpage edit ==

It looks like you posted the same story twice, though I see what you meant to do. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:28, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:I thought about taking off the second link, but I wanted to provide twice as much fun for the liberals. I'm going to change it now. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Just wanted to point out mispelling of 'organization' in the human rights watch story. I don't know if we should be promoting HRW. I believe their foundations are the monitoring|promotion of homosexual rights.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:55, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Organisation is correct English in the home of that tongue! As for HRW's Liberal bias - well, if even ''they'' are condemning Chavez... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Misspelling corrected. Btw, ''misspelling'' has two s's. I don't believe we're promoting HRW, just that we agree with them in this instance. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::::As you can tell, my grammar and spelling needs much improvement. The news headline: Could the he U.S. mortgage, needs a fix'n. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:25, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Jpatt, I think you may be confusing HRW with HRC (Human Rights Campaign), which *is* an organization based on the promotion of homosexual rights. It's easy to get the two confused, which was probably the intent when they came up with the name for HRC. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

==Another brainless attempt to hack my account==
This time from IP 24.21.149.251. Could you do me a favour and give them a daisycutter? Thanks, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 08:30, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks, Dean [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:36, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== ChristMaster2000 ==

A user called Christmaster2000 keeps writing 'McCain = The end of the world' at the top of pages. Can you stop him?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:41, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:Where? I don't see the changes? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

::There was one on [[Athletics]], which I've reverted, plus a few others. Actually he seems to have been blocked already - I thought he was active because his change was still on the Athletics page.

== Thanks for unblocking me ==

Thank you. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:36, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:Your welcome. Philip convinced me to undo your block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:49, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Archive mainpageright ==

Since you're a regular who archives the main page, can you do so sometime soon? [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 03:48, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

:Done. Btw, Conservative took [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=prev&oldid=529716 my] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News&diff=next&oldid=530094 archive] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=next&oldid=530125 restored] it to the Main page when he added the ''Evolutionary Racism of Hitler and Darwin'' section to the bottom of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3AMainpageleft&diff=530432&oldid=529771 Mainpageleft]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 08:11, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg lawsuit==
Since the claims made on the mainpage In the News headline were [http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/27-alert-contrary-to-internet-rumor-there-has-not-yet-been-a-court-ruling-on-obama-dnc-motion-to-dismiss shown to be false] four days before the headline was posted on Conservapedia, will you please remove the entry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 16:30, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thank you.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:30, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
`

== News- Debate ==

Shouldn't the second presidential debate be discussed in the news section? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:07, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

==Family Values==
I made a grammar burp. No such thing as won't. Also, count me in on the previous news project.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:55, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:I disagree with saying "won't" is a grammar burp. "Won't" is correct. "Won't" is a contraction of "will not". [http://www.edufind.com/English/grammar/Tenses14.cfm]
:Thanks for agreeing to participate in the previous news subproject. I'm going to set up a special page for our coordination and will link to it from your talk page and the subproject. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:51, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== Let's block registration wave ==

Dean, let's permanently block everyone registered between 11:30 and noon. I think they're fake. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I blocked the IP 93.106.19.228 - it was the same one for all 101 accounts.
:08:57, October 11, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 93.106.19.228 (Talk) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: 101 accts set up from 08:30, October 11, 2008 to 08:43, October 11, 2008)
:I blocked the rest of them. They're all blocked now. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:31, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Great effort. I thought the IP might be the same, such that blocking one would block all. But it didn't hurt to block the names also, in case someone tried to access it from a different IP.

:: In the future, I have an even more powerful way to delete the accounts.

:: Thanks again for your alert effort.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== Wikinews/subproject ==
Definetely, your idea is a must. Though, explain to me about '''Suggestions for new Previous Breaking News summaries.''' Is this the same as Rewrite current headlines?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 18:11, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:No, it's not the same. Rewriting the current headlines is for someone that wants to improve headlines on the current Main page. The ''Suggestions for new Previous Breaking News summaries'', is like the other Previous Breaking news, but the page hasn't been created yet. I want us to create those pages and link them to our Conservapedia articles and incorporate their content into the corresponding articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Once additions are made, would you suggest strikethrough font the listing?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:32, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Once additions are made, move the listing to this new section: [[Wikiproject:News/Previous_Breaking_News#Completed_updates_to_September_2008|Completed updates to September 2008]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:42, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The sheer size is overwhelming. We need an army of helpers.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:34, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I totally agree. Since this is a long term project, I'm hoping we can make progress while recruiting others to join our efforts. I would like to have a competition similar to the other subprojects - Wanted pages and News suggestions. Any ideas? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:42, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Competition is your best bet. I can suggest members pick categories that they are fond of- like ACLU. Then their responsibility includes News additions, past and future, ACLU posts.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 01:12, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Interesting idea. Let's say you picked the ACLU subject. Then someone else picked Barack Obama. How would the competition work? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:19, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I just want to say that I think this is a bad idea. I realize Jpatt worked very hard on the recent additions to [[ACLU]] and I commend him for that, but I don't think the additions help the article. Since news headlines, by their nature, aren't broadly descriptive, they don't fit well in most articles. They end up being made into lists, which I don't think satisfy the "conscise" requirement of the commandments. Additionally, most of the sources for the news article are blogs or internet news sites which generally aren't up to the standards needed for regular articles. Maybe there will be times when a news headline or two is relevant to an article, but I think wholesale moving of headlines is not appropriate. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:58, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

:I am just following orders for the Wikinews/subproject. I will wait for DeanS to rule before adding any more.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 23:02, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

::Where are the rules? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:26, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, I found them. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:29, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for your efforts Jp. I'm glad you decided to wait before adding more headlines.
:I agree with a couple of HelpJazz's points. I don't think the wholesale moving of headlines is appropriate either. The idea is to use the news links as a ''reference'' to improve the article. We need to discuss the details on the corresponding previous news talk page.
:I also don't see how we can do this as a competition. We want quality instead of quantity on these edits.
:I disagree that this is a bad idea. While inserting the headlines directly into the article isn't the right approach, I believe the news links provide unique material that can improve the article.
:I also disagree with the notion we shouldn't use blogs or internet news sites as resources. The mainstream media doesn't provide much material we can use because of their liberal bias. Conservative truth is found in these blogs and we will continue to use these in our articles and news items.
:In summary, I think we need to be careful how we use these news items. If done in the proper way, these links can provide valuable reference material for our articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:32, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==FYI==
Hello Dean. As a Mormon, I feel you should know that User Conservative has been promoting the blogs of a man named Mariano Grinbank who writes such blogs as [[Atheism is Dead]], [[Richard Dawkins : Scientist or Activist?]], [[Atheism Dissected]] and others (I say “promoting” because these blogs would not warrant encyclopedia entries on their own; they are hosted by popular free blog sites and have little traffic). There is nothing wrong with this, however the same Mariano is a dedicated anti-Mormon who writes a blog [http://www.lifeanddoctrinemormonism.blogspot.com/ attacking Mormonism], calling it “offensive religion”, and saying “Mormonism has sought to discredit Christianity”, and “everything that Mormonism does, everything it teaches, everything it stands for is an offense against Christianity.” I don’t think this is the sort of character Conservapedia should be promoting. [[User:SamJ|SamJ]] 09:28, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for the info. I have no problem with Conservative promoting the blogs against Atheism and Richard Dawkins. I'm also aware that there are several anti-Mormons on this site. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:36, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::My concern isn't about the anti-atheism blogs, which I'm sure are fine for this site, but the fact that these links prominently link to the same writer's anti-Mormon blog, which Conservapedia is therefore indirectly promoting. A reader who finds one of these blogs through Conservapedia and finds it convincing may easily look at the other links to the other blogs and be led to a screed condemning Mormonism. That is my concern, but if you don't object then that's fine. I just felt you should be informed. [[User:SamJ|SamJ]] 09:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Your objection is noted. I hope you will make some positive contributions to Conservapedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:57, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== My talk page ==

According to [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] I am in control of my own talk page. I have no intention of getting embroiled in an edit war here, but why is this not being respected? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 18:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Obesity

2008-10-29T16:50:51Z

Corry:

'''Obesity''' is a medical classification regarding an extreme and unhealthy level of excessive body weight. It is a more serious classification on the [[Body Mass Index]] (BMI) scale than ''overweight''. Some consequences of obesity include Type 2 [[diabetes]], strain on joints, and an increased risk of [[stroke]] and [[heart attack]]. Obesity has become more common in the [[United States]] and is increasing in many developed countries.

Obesity has many causes, including some that are choice and controllable such as sinful overeating ([[gluttony]]) and/or lack of exercise. It can also be caused by improper hormone production or other malfunctions of various brain structures, including in particular the [[hypothalamus]] (site of the reward pathways, [this action=release of serotonin=feeling of pleasure]) and [[thyroid]] gland.

Obesity is most dangerous among the children and the elderly, whose bones, [[liver]]s, and [[lung]]s are too weak to deal with the excess weight and fat. Obesity can significantly shorten a person's lifespan.

The medical establishment considers obesity to be an illness, in the sense that it is a serious medical condition, but disagree about the root causes of non-hormone related obesity. The medical world is nearly unanimously agreed that obesity is a big problem in the Western world, and in fact becoming a problem world wide. Liberals, however, [[liberal denial|deny]] this by saying hunger is a bigger problem among the poor.{{Fact}}

==See also==
*[[American Medical Association]]
*[[Doctor]]
*[[Gluttony]]
*[[Naturopathy]]

==References==

{{reflist}}

[[category:diseases]]

Talk:Obesity

2008-10-29T16:50:24Z

Corry: /* World wide problem */

Ok, I'm not an expert, but is there any other way to get obese other than overeating? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:11, 22 February 2008 (EST)

If your thyroid gland is damaged or not functioning properly, you will gain weight even if you eat your normal set of calories. You will also become lethargic and depressed. Let me see if I can't find some more for you. :) [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 15:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I would argue that obesity is not an illness but a condition. There are no (well, okay, very few) "obesity" bugs flying around. You're not going to become obese by picking up some strange foreign infection. There are no "obesity vaccinations." [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 15:12, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

==World wide problem==
The author trying to make "conservative" hit points has a valid comment here about liberal views of '''World Wide Hunger''', but this statement was saying liberals were denying obesity is a problem in the west. I've cut it for now, and pasted it here. I'm going to look for a "world wide food shortage" page, to add this important "c&p" to. Cause it's a valid point, just not on the page on obesity. If anyone has a better suggestion on where to put this, let me know, thanks.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:29, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
"Liberals, however, [[liberal denial|deny]] this by saying hunger is a bigger problem among the poor.<ref>[[liberal denial]], Item 3 in general denials</ref>" 12:27, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
:I (perhaps) agree that the sentence should be part of a much larger article on liberal denial regarding obesity vs. hunger. But until we have such an article and can link to it from this one, I think it's important for the line to remain, so that it will still be seen in the mainspace (rather than on the talk). I'm looking forward to your article. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 12:45, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
::Can't obesity and hunger both be problems? I've never heard of a liberal saying that the existence of hunger means that obesity isn't a problem. Do you have any quotations or evidence on this? (Editing further) Referencing an unreferenced claim elsewhere on this webpage doesn't make for a good citation. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:50, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Obesity

2008-10-29T16:48:42Z

Corry: /* World wide problem */

Talk:American History Lecture Eight

2008-10-29T02:55:16Z

Corry: New page: == A study organization strategy == Maybe a suggestion could be to organize what to study on each day. Before a test I generally will allot a block of lectures to review each day. In thi...

== A study organization strategy ==
Maybe a suggestion could be to organize what to study on each day. Before a test I generally will allot a block of lectures to review each day. In this case it could be, for example, pre-Columbian through the French and Indian war on Monday, through Washington's presidency on Tuesday, and so on. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 22:55, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

American History Lecture Eight

2008-10-29T02:47:06Z

Corry: /* Key Terms Through Reconstruction */ sp- I think this is what you meant.

{{HS_American_History}}
[[American History Lecture Eight|Lecture]] - [[American_History_Homework_Eight|Questions]] - [[American History Homework Eight Answers|Student Answers]]

We will have our midterm exam next week, which covers everything through Reconstruction. That means Lectures One through Six, but not Lecture Seven. Our exam will consist of ''about'' 30 questions (the total will be different for the boys' and girls' tests).

There are three ingredients to success on any exam:
*how much time you spend studying (rather than, for example, wasting time on unproductive activities like television)
*how effective your method of studying is
*how effective your test-taking techniques are during the exam itself (see, for example, the techniques mentioned earlier in this course)

Master all three aspects of exam preparation listed above and you will maximize your score. For some, that will mean scoring at the top of our class; for others, it will mean improving what your score would have been otherwise.

View an exam as a fun challenge, like participating in a contest. Your performance in the race or game depends on your time spent preparing, how effectively you prepared, and how effectively you tried during the contest itself.

If this were a sporting event, then everyone would recognize and honor the winners, just as we do in the Olympics, the World Series, and the Super Bowl. We will also honor the winners (top scorers) with awards. At the end of our course we will also give awards to the most improved students. This friendly competition is intended to bring out the best in everyone, and motivate all to do better than we might otherwise.

Do not think it is impossible to know every event in the list at the end of this Lecture; we will likely see top scorers on next week's exam who are able to learn nearly every event. A student "who hustles while he waits," as Thomas Edison said, can find a ton of extra time for preparing that he did not realize existed before.

Recall how the homeschoolers Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Edison approached the challenges in their life. They saw challenge as opportunity, and gave it their best shot. They knew that success in life is due almost entirely to "perspiration" (work) rather than inborn traits like IQ. Lincoln and Edison would have given this exam their best shot, and so can you. Be one of the students who wins an award for scoring among the highest in the class.

Several students have informed me that they will be taking the CLEP American History exam in order to earn college credit. Congratulations to those students for showing initiative, and hopefully others will consider attempting to earn college credit also.

== Midterm Exam ==

Because several students are taking the CLEP exam, and because it is the best of the College Board exams, we will follow its format. The CLEP exam divides American history into two periods. The first CLEP American History exam covers through Reconstruction (Lectures One through Six, but not Seven), just like our midterm exam. Our midterm exam will follow the CLEP's subject matter breakdown for questions:

:35% of questions are on politics, such as the President, Congress and government policy
:25% on social developments, such as slavery, Utopian communities, religious and reform movements
:15% on intellectual and cultural developments, such as books and inventions
:15% on foreign policy, such as foreign wars, treaties and diplomacy
:10% on economics, such as inflation, taxes, and protective tariffs

In terms of the time period, only 30% of the first CLEP exam (through Reconstruction) is devoted to the beginning of time to 1789. So do not start with that period and burn out before you study the period of 1790 to 1877, where 70% of the questions are from. Do not waste too much time studying exploration, settlement and colonial America! Perhaps only 10% of the CLEP exam (and our exam) will cover that period. Students often make a big mistake in preparation by not allocating their study time properly. Avoid that mistake and spend your study time wisely.

== Preparation and Test-Taking Tips ==

"Time is money" is a famous, and true, saying. The time you spend not making money could have been better spent making money. Wasted time is lost opportunity to make money, or do something else useful, such as charity or prayer. Also, wasted time is often less enjoyable than time spent working on something you believe in.

A concept similar to "time is money" applies to studying for exams. You will spend a certain amount of time preparing for the midterm exam. Call that total amount of time "x". How you allocate that time to different areas of the overall time period (1500-1877) will make a difference on how well you do on the exam. If you spend 90% of x on the period between 1500 and 1700, then you will do poorly on 90% of the questions, because they will be from the period 1700 to 1877. You would have done far better to spend the 90% of x on the time period that will have 90% of the questions.

How hard you try while taking the exam will also count towards your score. It helps immensely to identify the time period of a history question before trying to answer it. In doing this, it helps to know which presidents served when. You can memorize a list of presidents if you prefer.<ref>See [[Presidents of the United States]].</ref> Or maybe you can figure it out from what you learned in the lectures. Test yourself: who was president in 1842?<ref>[[John Tyler]]</ref> Who was the president in 1826?<ref>[[John Quincy Adams]]</ref>

There will be several cartoons on the exam. Realize that cartoons are a way for someone to describe facts with a point of view, in order to make a political statement. The cartoonist uses caricatures and draws situations in order to express a point of view. The key to deciphering cartoons is to pay close attention to detail, to pick up all the clues.

Many students make the mistake of answering a cartoon question too quickly. A cartoon is a mystery, like an unsolved crime. As soon as a cop arrives on a crime scene, he does not jump to a conclusion about who committed the crime. He gathers all the evidence. He considers possibilities. He wants an explanation that fits all the facts. He looks for a motive. Approach cartoons the same way.

More generally, look for a purpose to every question. Develop a sense or "ear" for historical purpose in these exams. Prefer an answer choice that adds historical meaning and purpose to a question.

Often there are maps to read on history exams, and here is a tip for them: before the Civil War there was no West Virginia. If you see West Virginia on a map, then it was after the Civil War started.

'''Above all, understand a question before trying to answer it!'''

== Tip on Organizing the Material ==

We have covered a great deal of material spanning hundreds of years. We need to try to organize all these facts in our mind somehow. Develop a frame of reference to do this. You can choose whatever frame of reference you like. For me, my frame of reference in remembering each president is to think about how conservative he was. Every few decades we have a conservative president:

1788 – [[George Washington]]
 1816 – [[James Monroe]]
 1884 – [[Grover Cleveland]] (a conservative Democrat who was pro-gold, anti-union, and anti-government-spending)
 1920 – [[Warren Harding]]
 1980 – [[Ronald Reagan]]

Then I fill in the other presidents in between, with reasons why they were not so conservative.

For example, Thomas Jefferson was not particularly conservative because he was slightly opposed to religion in government; unsuccessfully fought the Tripoli War; continued some of Alexander Hamilton's big government programs (like a national bank); and imposed the Embargo Act against trade with Europe. You may find this approach helpful in organizing and remembering all of American History since George Washington. Or perhaps you have your own approach for keeping the presidents straight, and organizing historical events. The point is to find something that ''works for you'', and then use it to master the material.

== Self-Motivation ==

A key part of success on an exam -- and in life -- is learning how to motivate yourself. The top scores on the midterm exam will probably not be by students who like history the most. It will likely be by students who motivate themselves the most in order to succeed.

We saw an example of motivation in connection with the original Jamestown settlement in 1607. At first, nobody wanted to work, and the settlement was failing. Grown men were spending the afternoons playing games of bowling rather than working.

Then John Smith arrived, and he had a simple means of motivation: those who do not work, do not eat. Do you think people started working then? Of course. And they were much happier and healthier for it.

Sometimes adults still use that motivation of putting off meals until work is finished. There are also other effective motivational techniques. Take something you enjoy, such as watching a sports game, and deprive yourself of it until you finish your work. You will enjoy the game better that way. Or, on the most positive side, learn to reward yourself for hard work.

== Key Terms Through Reconstruction ==

Listed below are the key terms for the first half of American history (through Reconstruction). The highlighted terms are the most important, and the ones for students to focus on first. The non-highlighted terms are more for the students in the "honors" portion of this course.

Any of these terms may appear on the exams in this course. Several of our students are already planning to take the CLEP exam, and anyone doing that should know as many of these terms as possible.

This list is not as daunting as it appears. Homeschoolers who win the spelling bees memorize the entire dictionary, which is tens of thousands of words. This list is only about 321 terms. A homeschooler like Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Edison would diligently memorize and know the meaning of all the terms on this list, not because they are smarter, but because they believed in trying their best. You can try your best -- everyone can -- and you find lots of time for this that is otherwise wasted.

This chart can be used effectively to quiz yourself. Pick out any term, and try to identify its time period and who was president. Does the term refer to foreign policy (e.g., dealings with a foreign country) or domestic policy (e.g., an issue internal to the United States)? Even if you don't recall immediately the meaning of the term, try to figure it out based on what you do know.

Quizzing yourself in this manner will both improve your test-taking skills, and identify for yourself what you need to study more. Use the short descriptions for these terms that will be handed out in class (and which is also available by email - contact me if you need a copy), or refer back to the lectures and the model answers.

As in baseball and in sales in business, simply try to improve your percentages with these terms. If you know only 10%, try to improve that to 40%. If you know 50%, then try to improve that to 75%. If you know 70%, then strive for 90%. Just as a batter in baseball should not be discouraged by failing 2 out of 3 times at bat, you should not be discouraged by low initial percentages on this key term list. Try to improve your percentages. With effort, you'll amaze yourself at how much better you can become. Your classmates will be working hard on this, and do not let them pass you up!

One approach to improving your knowledge of these key terms is to type or write out short descriptions of each one. There are only 321 terms. If you took 2 minutes for each one that you did not know, then it would take you only 1 hour to complete 30. In one day you could cover nearly the entire list, and you would not likely forget them for a long, long time. Typing or writing out the meaning of something in one's own words has the effect of really burning it into one's memory. I still recall lines from Shakespeare that I wrote out by hand when I was in the eighth grade!

Our first through sixth lectures should have covered all of of the following terms, except the lectures did miss the Newburgh Conspiracy (or Address). That was a plot among officers of the Continental Army (the colonial Patriots fighting in the Revolutionary War) to hold a military coup and establish martial law in order to obtain back pay that was owed to them by Congress for their military service. The plot came to a climax when they angrily met on March 15, 1783, and were surprised by an unexpected appearance by George Washington. He gave a short speech, but the officers were still still angry, and lacking in the respect that they usually gave to their esteemed leader. Washington then pulled a letter from his pocket from a member of the Second Continental Congress. But Washington was unable to read the letter without his reading glasses, and in a miraculous moment of sincere emotion, declared, "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country." Many of the officers were suddenly moved to tears in the realization that Washington, like themselves, had sacrificed much for the country. Washington then read the letter from Congress, and the officers subsequently abided by Congress's own timetable for paying them.

The Newburgh Conspiracy is a good story. But develop a sensitivity or "ear" for the '''historical significance''' of each event or story in history class. Why is this particular story important in the history of our nation? The answer is this: this event confirmed civilian authority or control over the military. Congress, a civilian authority, decides if and when to pay the soldiers. The soldiers have the guns, but they must submit to the civilian authority of Congress.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| American Indians
| '''Thomas Paine/Common Sense'''
| Utopian communities
|-
| Meso-America
| Valley Forge
| Examples of Utopian groups
|-
| Europe: Crusades
| Franco-American Alliance
| '''Women's Rights/Seneca Falls'''
|-
| '''Christopher Columbus'''
| '''Declaration of Independence'''
| Shakers
|-
| Treaty of Tordesillas
| '''Articles of Confederation'''
| William Lloyd Garrison
|-
| John Cabot
| Treaty of Paris
| American Antislavery Society
|-
| Ponce de Leon
| Newburgh Conspiracy
| Horace Mann/Public Education
|-
| Hernando Cortes
| Land Ordinance of 1785
| Liberty Party
|-
| St. Augustine, Florida
| '''Northwest Ordinance of 1787'''
| Mormon Church
|-
| Santa Fe, New Mexico
| Annapolis Convention
| Emerson and Thoreau
|-
| League of Iroquois
| Shay's Rebellion
| Commonwealth v. Hunt
|-
| Sir Humphrey Gilbert
| '''Constitutional Convention of 1787'''
| Seventh Day Adventist Church
|-
| Roanoke Island (""Lost Colony")
| Virginia Plan
| Elizabeth Blackwell
|-
| Spanish Florida
| New Jersey Plan
| Oregon Trail
|-
| Spanish Armada
| Connecticut Plan
| '''Texas secedes from Mexico'''
|-
| Samuel de Champlain
| bill of attainder
| Gag rule
|-
| Virginia Company
| '''Federalist Papers'''
| '''John Tyler'''
|-
| '''Jamestown (Virginia)'''
| bicameral legislature
| Elijah Lovejoy
|-
| economic system of Jamestown
| '''George Washington'''
| Webster-Ashburton Treaty
|-
|"Starving time"
| '''Judiciary Act of 1789'''
| '''James Polk'''
|-
| Henry Hudson
| full ratification of Constitution
| '''Manifest Destiny'''
|-
| House of Burgesses
| Hamilton's report on the public credit
| '''Texas enters Union'''
|-
| Jamestown's "cash crop"
| Hamilton's report on manufacturers
| Slidell Mission
|-
| '''First slaves'''
| First Bank of the United States
| Oregon Treaty
|-
| Plymouth Bay Colony
| '''Bill of Rights'''
| '''Wilmot Proviso'''
|-
| '''Mayflower Compact'''
| cotton gin
| Iowa enters Union
|-
| economic system of Plymouth, Mass.
| federal assumption of state debts
| '''Mexican War'''
|-
| difference between English & Spanish
| '''Washington's Neutrality Proclamation'''
| Spot Resolutions
|-
| Powhatan Confederacy
| Citizen Genet
| '''Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo'''
|-
| '''Mercantilism'''
| '''Jay's Treaty'''
| Barnburners
|-
| '''Royal Colony'''
| Executive Privilege of President
| '''Zachary Taylor'''
|-
| Charter Colony
| Chisholm v. Georgia
| Gold in California
|-
| Joint-Stock Colony
| '''Whiskey Rebellion'''
| '''Millard Fillmore'''
|-
| Proprietary Colony
| Pinckney's Treaty
| '''Compromise of 1850'''
|-
| Massachusetts Bay Company
| '''Washington's Farewell Address'''
| '''Fugitive Slave Act'''
|-
| '''Puritans'''
| Quids
| Minnesota and Oregon join US
|-
| Puritans compared to Pilgrims
| '''John Adams'''
| Economy of South in 1850s
|-
| Great Migration
| '''XYZ Affair'''
| Clayton-Bulwer Treaty
|-
| Virginia as Royal Colony
| '''Alien and Sedition Acts'''
| Clipper ships
|-
| Maryland
| '''Virginia and Kentucky Resolves'''
| German and Irish immigration
|-
| Connecticut
| Undeclared naval war with France
| Perry/Japan
|-
| Rhode Island
| Adam's "midnight judges"
| Ostend Manifesto
|-
| Pequot War
|"'''Revolution of 1800'''"
| Transatlantic cable/telegraph
|-
| '''Colonies settled 1607-39'''
| '''Thomas Jefferson'''
|"'''Uncle Tom's Cabin'''"
|-
| Congregational Church
| Tripoli War
| '''Know-Nothing (American) Party'''
|-
| Anne Hutchinson
| '''John Marshall'''
| Franklin Pierce
|-
| '''Roger Williams'''
| '''Marbury v. Madison'''
| '''Kansas-Nebraska Act'''
|-
| United Colonies of New England
| Lewis and Clark
| '''Republican Party'''
|-
| Toleration Act of 1649
| '''Burr-Hamilton Duel'''
| early leaders of Republican Party
|-
| '''Fundamental Orders of Connecticut'''
| '''British Orders in Council'''
| "'''Bleeding Kansas'''"
|-
| Religious Persecution in Mass.
| '''Chesapeake Affair''' (Leopard)
|'''John Brown's attack'''
|-
| New Amsterdam
| Embargo Act
| Brooks-Sumner incident
|-
| New Jersey
| Nonintercourse Act
| Clara Barton
|-
| Carolina
| Harrison at Tippecanoe Creek
| James Buchanan
|-
| King Philip's War
| '''James Madison'''
| Panic of 1857
|-
| '''Bacon's Rebellion'''
| British burn Washington, D.C.
| '''Dred Scott v. Sanford'''
|-
| Pennsylvania
| Star-Spangled Banner
| Lecompton Constitution
|-
| Quaker beliefs
| Treaty of Ghent
| Lincoln-Douglas Debates
|-
| Colonies with most religious freedom
| '''Hartford Convention'''
| Freeport Doctrine (Freeport, IL)
|-
| Charter of Liberties
| '''Battle of New Orleans'''
| John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry
|-
| Dominion of New England
| Bonus Bill
|1860 Repub. Platform
|-
| Glorious Revolution in England
| '''James Monroe'''
| '''Abraham Lincoln'''
|-
| Delaware
| Rush-Bagot Agreement
| Copperheads
|-
| Georgia
| Fulton's steamboat
| '''The Confederate States of America'''
|-
| Middle Colonies
| Fletcher v. Peck
| Fort Sumter
|-
| Founding of colleges in colonies
| Cumberland (National) Road
| '''Trent Affair'''
|-
| Halfway Covenant
| '''Protective Tariff'''
| Confiscation Act
|-
| '''Triangular trade'''
| Second Bank of the U.S.
| '''Emancipation Proclamation'''
|-
| Salem Witchcraft Trials
| John Jacob Astor
| '''Radical Republicans'''
|-
| Scotch Irish
| Erie Canal
| Sherman's march through Georgia
|-
| '''Great Awakening'''
| Tecumseh
| Absentee Voting
|-
| '''Jonathan Edwards'''
| '''Era of Good Feelings'''
| Southern Disunion
|-
| George Whitefield
| Florida
| Homestead Act
|-
| '''John Peter Zenger Case'''
| Dartmouth College v. Woodward
| Pacific Railway Act
|-
| Stono Rebellion
| McCullough v. Maryland
| Morrill Land Grant Act
|-
| King William's War
| Adams-Onis Treaty
| '''Procl. of Amnesty and Reconstruction'''
|-
| Queen Anne's War
| Tallmadge Amendment
| Sioux Wars
|-
| '''Salutary Neglect'''
| '''Missouri Compromise'''
| Wade-Davis Bill
|-
| King George's War
| Cohens v. Virginia
| Freedmen's Bureau
|-
| Albany Congress
| Denmark Vesey
| Appomattox Court House
|-
| Albany Plan of Union
| '''Monroe Doctrine'''
| '''Andrew Johnson'''
|-
| '''French and Indian War'''
| '''John Marshall'''
|'''13th, 14th, 15th Amendments'''
|-
| Treaty of Paris
| caucus
| Black Codes
|-
| George III
| '''John Quincy Adams'''
| Civil Rights Act
|-
| '''Colonial economy in 1763'''
| '''Andrew Jackson'''
| '''carpetbaggers'''
|-
| Pontiac's Rebellion
| Whigs
| Ku Klux Klan
|-
| Louisiana territory
| '''Tariff of Abominations'''
| Burlingame Treaty
|-
| British Proclamation of 1763
| '''South Carolina Exposition and Protest'''
| '''Military Reconstruction Act'''
|-
| Sugar Act
| Jackson's attitude towards Calhoun
| '''Tenure of Office Act'''
|-
| Currency Act
| Maysville Road Veto
| Command of the Army Act
|-
| Stamp Act
| Indian Removal
| '''Impeachment of Johnson'''
|-
| '''Stamp Act Crisis'''
| Tom Thumb
| '''Ulysses S. Grant'''
|-
| Stamp Act Congress
| Peggy Eaton Affair
| '''Gilded Age'''
|-
| Quartering Act
| Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
| Fisk-Gould Scandal
|-
| Sons of Liberty
| Antimasonic Party
|'''"Boss" Tweed'''
|-
| Declaratory Act
| '''S.C. Ordinance of Nullification'''
| Force Act
|-
| Townshend Duties
| '''Compromise Tariff'''
| Amnesty Act
|-
| '''Boston Massacre'''
| Force Bill
| '''Credit Mobilier scandal'''
|-
| Gaspee incident
| '''Whig Party'''
|"Salary Grab" Act
|-
| Committees of Correspondence
| Whig supporters
|"'''Crime of '73'''"
|-
| Tea Act
| '''Martin Van Buren'''
| Greenback Party
|-
| '''Boston Tea Party'''
| Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge
| Women's Christian Temperance Union
|-
| Intolerable (Coercive) Acts
|"Trail of Tears"
| Wounded Knee massacre
|-
| First Continental Congress
| '''William Henry Harrison'''
| Whiskey Ring
|-
| Second Continental Congress
| Nat Turner
| '''Rutherford B. Hayes'''
|-
| Benjamin Franklin's achievements
| Lowell System
| '''Compromise of 1877'''
|-
| Colonial population
| Reform Movements
| Baseball
|-
|}

== References ==

<references/>
 

[[Category:American History lectures]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:American History Lecture 08}}

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2008-10-29T01:27:28Z

Corry: /* Status */

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Should this entry not read 'American public schools...', I am not going to comment on American schools, as I know very little about them. However public schools (in the American sense, ie state sponsored and controlled schools) have existed for centuries in other countries. For instance the state school I went to was founded in 1445 --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::: DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:
::: Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating "slavery is wrong" from "state". The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.
::: Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.
::: Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.
::: Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Aschlafly, I assume that the Asian/Native American theory is taught because it is the consensus generally agreed upon by the experts. If it is so obviously wrong, what do you suggest should be taught in its place? [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 11:07, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:I am curious about what is meant by "blood types". After all, all humans share the same blood types or groups (if it refers to A, B, O, AB). Or is it a reference to DNA? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 12:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

On the Rhode Is. slavery question, I think this may be Andy's reference:

''Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony's leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.
http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:09, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==A bulleted list...==
A bullet list doesn't quite make it as an essay. While I'd like to think the author will be making additions and fleshing out his arguments, other [[Essay:5 Questions to Ask an Anti-Conservative|"essays"]] [[Essay:10 Ways Liberals Create Atheists|similarly]] are nothing more than [[Essay:Most Influential Persons|baldfaced assertions]] with little or no [[Essay:Electoral College|actual]] [[Essay:Conservatism Essential to Religion|substance]] or [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|well thought-out]] [[Essay:Hillary's Strategy to Win|arguments]]. Most seem nothing more than mere lists of things to be against, to link to internal articles (or worse other "essays"). <s>Good luck defending your lists Aschlafly, for without an inkling as to what thoughts may be behind your spate of "essays", readers will likely come to the conclusion that the author of such drivel cannot be a vital, energetic thinker but an intellectually lazy and shallow person who cannot put across a cogent argument and satisfies his impotent rage with lists of "bad thoughts".</s> [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 15:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
===NOTE===
The above was written by me, Christopher Campbell using my mother's account here. She only found out that I was using her account shen she tried to edit later on and found that she could not due to being blocked. At first she thought someone on the internet "hacked" her account and while it was tempting to let her believe this I finally fessed up to making the edit. 
My Mother will not let me have any internet accounts of my own that she hasn't personally set up and monitor. Nor will she let me have an account here at Conservapedia, (which is why I was forced to use her account). She said that the above proves that I am not ready to edit responsibly, showing (as it does) little regard for the feelings of Mr Schlafly and his efforts to make Conservapedia the best it can be.

'''I therefore publicly apologize to you Mr Schlafly for the great wrong I have done, "speaking" rashly and denigrating your encyclopedia without care as to you, your administrators and the other fine editors who are attempting to make Conservapedia a resource we all can be proud of.'''

Christopher Campbell 16:15, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
(EDT)

:::Well I think that (for one so young) it was an excellent, if somewhat abrasive critique. It is, however, best to critique the work and ideas not the man: drop the "drivel", "intellectually lazy" and "shallow" comments next time. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dark Ages ==

Bullet point 7: "The so-called Dark Ages saw a great revolution in science and learning, brought about by the spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the establishment of networks of monastic 'universities'."

The first phrase is correct, but the rest isn't. The revolution in learning took place in Muslim countries in particular, as well as India and China although the latter two areas did not influence Europe directly until the late 13th century. Europe contributed very little original scholarship indeed for nearly six centuries. A list of notable scholars in Europe in the Dark Ages (by which I assume you mean from the end of the Western Empire in 476 to the early 11th century) would include Isidore of Seville, the great encyclopaedist (d.636), Bede, the historian (d.735), and Alcuin, the theologian and polymath (d.804). There may be a few others but these are probably the only three who stand comparison with the much large number of eminent Muslim scholars of that half-millennium (and even Alcuin would be doubtful in that regard). Europe was very much an intellectual backwater until Gerbert of Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II from 999) brought Arab learning from Cordoba to Christian Europe.

Places like Seville around 600, Jarrow around 700 and Charlemagne's court at Aachen around 800 were centres of scholarship (qv Isidore, Bede and Alcuin respectively) but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as universities. The concept of a university as an educational institution which teaches and awards degrees in a wide range of subjects originated in the Muslim world. Those at Fez and Cairo, built in what Europeans call the Dark Ages, are still very much active. The establishment of the earliest universities in Christian Europe, e.g. Bologna, was clearly inspired by the success of universities in Muslim Europe (i.e. Sicily and Spain).

Bottom line: this bullet point should be deleted. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 15:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:You are incorrect in your interpretation. A study of Bede's life would show that Jarrow did not stand in isolation, but was part of a network of monastic 'universities' - and the term is used advisedly - that extended across [[Christendom]]. The emphasis in modern historical studies on [[Islamic]] scholarship is based upon a prevalent self-hating Liberal ideology that is unable to credit [[Christianity]] with any positive achievements, and retrospectively adorns the current enemy of modern democratic values with laurels. This is not top decry medieval Islamic scholarship, which had much of merit, but to rescue Christian science and scholarship from its current, politially-motivated neglect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::1. It sounds as though you need to do some reading about early mediaeval scholarship! Isidore certainly influenced Muslim scholars in Spain but, Bede apart, no Christian scholar from the mid-7th to early 11th century made an original contribution to scholarship comparable to those of Muslims such as Avicenna and Averroes or Jews such as Moses Maimonides.
::2. I don't understand your point about "the current enemy of modern democratic values". How does that relate to Islam in general? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:56, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==Conservative denials about history==
If liberals were to write their own version of this, it would probably accuse conservatives of lying about exactly the same subjects. Wouldn't it be better to make a serious historical claim, with references to academic analysis, verifiable sources, and such respectable things? It would certinly be better than just declaring that liberals are lying with a one-sentence claim and no backing evidence, even if they are. It makes conservapedia look stupid. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Misnamed ==

I always thought that it was called the "guilded age" because there was so much money and prosperity; everything was figuratively gold-coated (gilded). I'm confused why this age is misnamed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

==Status==
''That contributions to history are determined more by status than by effort or Providence. This bias is a form of status worship.'' I'm confused. Isn't it liberals who are always being accused of insisting that the contributions of minorities and women be added to textbooks and courses, even if that displaces learning about white men with more status whose contributions may have been more significant? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

: "Status" is not the same as "contributions". Often they are opposites. The comment here is about the increasing focus of history books on status, such as who held public office or who won an award, rather than on contributions such as Thomas Edison's works. This issue has nothing to do with race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::Is there any evidence that history books once had less focus on "status" than they do now? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 21:27, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-28T04:12:03Z

Corry: /* Chromosome example */

The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Refutations==

Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.

1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.

2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.

3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).

4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.

5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.

6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.

7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.

8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.

9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.

10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.

11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.

I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.
:# "''Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months''" is story-telling. It doesn't explain ''how'' evolution could have come up with the idea. The rest of your point applies equally well to creation: God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.
:# Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor. Vestigial organs are due to a ''degradation'', whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires ''innovation''.
:# The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot". The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all. What's wrong with image inversion? That's a natural consequence of using a lens. As for the blind spot...{{QuoteBox|Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/]}}
:# No comment.
:# That makes sense. When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.
:# The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all. The second part about mutations is story-telling.
:# As for No. 1.
:# Selection only selects from something that is already there. The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?
:# That's an ''ad hoc'' rationalisation. It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.
:# What molecular evidence? Molecularly, they are quite different.
:# I agree that it makes no sense. I'll remove that one.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
: P.S. you had a typo in your first point. I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!

Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. '''My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory.''' My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory.

Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.

I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.

1) '''All origins theory is story-telling.''' The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).

2) Being in the same clade ''does'' imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: '''assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light''' there is no such thing as certainty in science).

3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.

4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.

5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA
b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA
c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.

The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.

6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.

7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)

8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.

9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called ''Diplognathus'' was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)

10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)

And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."

: The point here is simple: one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution. Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.

: It only takes one counterexample. Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::: In ''principle'' it only takes one counterexample. In ''practice'', it's not that simple. Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius. We run 100 tests to see if that's true. One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees. Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)? And that was for a very specific hypothesis. Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses. Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded. At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all. Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework. Of course there are ''plenty'' of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that ''none of the proposed points actually follow through'' as counterexamples.

::The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.

::And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role''. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them '''because they work well enough'''.

::A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.

::As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).

::Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::: You write that "beauty can happen by chance." That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.

::: When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance." If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off. Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Responding to Thinker...

"''All origins theory is story-telling''": In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, ''which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator'', is just a made-up story.

"''The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible''": True. Which is where evolution hopelessly fails. It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.

"''...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.''": Huh? Evolution is a claim about what ''actually happened''. Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because ''they'' can see the contradiction). Whether or not it happened ''is'' very relevant.

"''Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...''": But the claim was that it doesn't ''identify'' a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true. Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor ''if evolution is true''. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing. So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.

"''Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.''": Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against ''evolution'', not ''biology''. The two are not synonymous.

Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?

"''It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.''": No, it doesn't serve well. Evidence of things working well is evidence of good ''design''. Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that. The same applies to your response to No. 7.

"''All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.''": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.

"''Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.''": Except that these [[intermediate forms]] are almost entirely lacking.

"''scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.''": Two different types of keratin. And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/909 this article]:{{QuoteBox|‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.}}

"''The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry''": Or a common designer.

"''The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic.''": Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic. However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying. A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/].

"''...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...''": No, they don't. They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.

"''...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.''": No, they don't ''ignore'' such gradual development; they argue against it.

"''IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role.": No, it ''argues'' that without the missing part, it will not work in ''any'' role.

"''If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.''": Hand-waving story telling.

"''Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.''": Oh? The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.

::But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:
::1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.

::2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.

::3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.

::And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::But what if some evidence proved that the bible is in fact, not infallible? Would you disregard that, Mr. Schlafly, as you suggest we do with the theory of evolution? I dont mean to judge, just please don't say that someone is closed-minded because they may not change their views because one part of the theory may appear to be faulty.

::Arguing about this seems to be pointless anyways, since it is possible that one counterexample could prove the theory impossible, and it is possible that this counterexample could be overlooking something that neither side can see. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Thinker, evolution ''is'' used to disprove creation, whether it should be or not. And in a sense it should be, as (depending on how you define them), there are really only two options: a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. If one is correct, the other is wrong.
:: I reject that evolution is a core tenet of biology. Biology existed before Darwin published his idea, and the two are different concepts anyway. Biology is the study of living things (e.g. how they work), evolution is the study (if you like, I would say story) of how living things came to be.
:: [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342 This source] says that the eye ''can'' detect a single photon, and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/ this source] says that the cephalopod eye can't see as well as the human eye. In any case, you are comparing eyes for different environments and that therefore have different purposes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Consciousness ==

Excellent new point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Bat counterexample ==

Superb again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

The article stated: "A bat can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore the bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight."
1) Bats do not require sonar to fly; the existence of 150 species of non-echolocating bats proves this.
2) Even ignoring the sonar of toothed whales and the echolocation of oilbirds and swiftlets, there are nonflying land animals that use echolocation: two genera (multiple species) of shrews and the tenrecs. Thus the statement that "an animal that can't fly doesn't need it" is also disproven.
3) Since mammalian flight and mammalian echolocation both exist in isolation, the flight-echolocation combination is not irreducibly complex and therefore does not disprove evolution.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
: It was poorly worded, but the point was valid, that a certain group of creatures do need the sonar to fly, even if that was only some bats and not all. I've reinstated and improved the entry. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::It's clearly a waste of time to remove it again, but the point is most definitely not valid. To approach validity, there would have to be no current non-echolocating bats and no non-bat echolocators. There would also have to be no fossil evidence of non-echolocating bats and no fossil non-bat echolocators. In reality, none of these four conditions are met. Therefore there is no theoretical impediment to an echolocator evolving flight or a flyer evolving echolocation, since the two traits are entirely separable and need not have arisen simultaneously. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Thinker", please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.

:And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Some Comments ==

Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: No, PatWills, autumn foliage ''is'' beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.

: As to animals, they don't dress themselves. They really don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone. In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful. And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.

:::::Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals? It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it. It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty? Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity". So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?

: Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty. It's a depressing fate. Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:
:::1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent. [[Facts]] are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. Can we say the same about beauty? If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful. What makes it beautiful is a perception. You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.
:::2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.
:::3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.
:::[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Sideways, your comment is not responsive. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with until you do, except to reiterate the following. Evolutionists ''must'' deny the existence of beauty, and you can see examples on this page. Suit yourself, but I'm going to spend my time with the 99.99% of the population that admits that beauty exists, and enjoys it. Depression awaits those who deny the existence of beauty, and you have free will to choose your own path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Consciousness (2) ==

The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Be careful not to confuse ''consciousness'' with ''self awareness''. They are not the same, and I was talking bout the latter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Ah I see, I'll be more careful. However, I still think the point is flawed though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:
:*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.
:*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality.
:*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'.
:*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).
:*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.
:*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::Regarding the point on symbiosis. The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view. As such the point relies on evolution not occurring. Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.
::Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this. While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures. Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.
::Regarding animals and self-sacrifice. Other animals do exhibit altruism. A good example of this is the ''U. stansburiana'', or the Side-blotched lizard.
::Regarding intermediate fossils... This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument. Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another. People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils. Hence why I call it a cop out argument. There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.
::Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Self-awareness and clothing have little if anything to do with each other, I agree there.
::: Whether morality is subjective or not depends on whether or not you believe that it comes from God.
::: I'm not sure that it's true that tool use is "most often" found in primates, but otherwise I agree with this point.
::: I agree that animals do exhibit self-sacrifice. Stories of a hen dying whilst protecting her chicks are legion, for example. Admittedly, though, I don't know if any animals exhibit self-sacrifice for anything other than their own offspring.
::: Sorry, but evolution ''does'' say that "man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish". Well, perhaps not "rats" specifically, but it does the rest. True, it doesn't claim that we evolved from the creatures around today, but it does propose a ''line'' from the simplest creature to man (as well as lines to other creatures, altogether forming a tree). And any common ancestor to modern humans and apes would be referred to as an ape.
::: Yes, man is ''defined'' as an animal, in the taxonomic [[classification system]](<-- read that), but you can also ''define'' man as not an animal by using different criteria (such as the existence of an eternal soul). However, whether or not man is an animal is beside the point for this article.
::: The symbiosis argument does not rely on both "coming into existence as they are today", but on the requirement that both species became dependent on each other at the same time. In theory, that could be after both came into existence.
::: Scientists have discovered what ''they claim'' to be intermediate fossils, but (a) they are often not indisputably so, and (b) they are often not actually intermediate! That is, New Scientist in March this year had an article on supposed fossil transitional forms, and I'm reasonably sure that Tiktaalik was one of its examples, but it said that it was on a side branch. If it's on a side branch, it's not intermediate! For Ambulocetus, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776 here].
::: Just because creationists have rejected all proposals so far doesn't mean that it's pointless asking for them or that there's any that they wouldn't, in theory, accept.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Removed "Statistical Approach" ==

It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truth. Instead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== "The foliage existed before man does" ==

But only by a few days, right? Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Beauty ==

The argument about the impossibility of evolution creating beauty is a valid one, contrary to Sideways' comment. If beauty objectively exists for no apparent evolutionary reason, then it's fair to ask why it exists, and it's fair to conclude that this argument is one that favours creation. To put it another way, evolution would not predict the existence of beauty, but creation would, so if beauty exists, the creationary prediction has been fulfilled and the evolutionary prediction is falsified.

So does beauty exist? Certainly we humans consider various things to be beautiful or not. Just as certainly, we differ as to what we consider beautiful, which suggests that the whole idea is subjective, not objective. So no, it is most definitely ''not'' like 2+2=4. The saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is quite true.

However, it can be framed in a more objective manner, as I almost do in the first paragraph. That is, are there things that are generally considered beautiful ''for which no apparent evolutionary reason exists''?

Autumn leaves are ''not'' an example of that. Why are autumn leaves the colours they are? Because in dying, they have lost the chlorophyll that makes them green. There is no need to invoke design to explain their colour. (This does not mean that God didn't deliberately design dead tree leaves to be nice colours, but it does mean that we can't invoke God as the only likely cause.)

However, an example is the one I mentioned higher on this page: the peacock's tail. Darwin considered the peacock's tail to be an example of ''sexual selection'', that is, the peahen prefers the more colourful peacock tails, so evolution favours more colourful tails. For a long time this hypothesis has been accepted, but more recently tests have been done to show that peahens ''don't'' favour more colourful tails, so this idea has been put to bed. (See link higher up this page.)

Now it's always possible that some evolutionist will come up with some other evolutionary explanation of the peacock's tail in the future, but at the moment, this evidence favours the creationary view, so is a valid argument. But autumn foilage is not, for reasons I've just explained.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Philip, if you think that beauty is ''completely'' subjective and relative, then do you feel the same way about the term "good" as commonly used? E.g., God created such-and-such, and saw that it was "good".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly. As God created 'goodness,' so too he created 'beauty' on Earth. Psalm 27:4 states "One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple." Likewise, Psalm 50:2: "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:58, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. Anyone who claims that beauty is completely subjective and relative is likely to say the same about goodness. God saw that his creation was good, but under this view that is in the eyes of the beholder. It wasn't ''really'' good, it just looked that way to God. For there, of course, it's a small step to saying that morality is in the eyes of the beholder. God said something was wrong, but it wasn't ''really'' wrong, it just seemed that way to God.

::: When 100 out of 100 people say something is beautiful (like autumn foliage), it ''really'' is beautiful. And those who deny it for the sake of evolution can look forward to the depression that life without beauty inevitably entails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: So what are we to make of the old saw that ''Beauty is in the eye of the beholder''? [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: It's meaningless when the beholder is God. What He sees as beauty IS beauty, as he created it. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::: We are talking about what appears beautiful to ''humans''. But to take your point, how do you determine (apart from explicit references in Scripture) what God considers beautiful? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: My mother, long passed now, used to hate Autumn - when she saw the leaves turning brown she always used to feel depressed, as to her it signaled the end of summer and the oncoming long dark winter months. I guess not everyone sees the world the same way. [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I experience a similar state - while I enjoy the pretty colors, it also means the end of the gardening season, and the onset of the heating season, hunkering down for winter, and the short, dark days. PS, one word I find interesting in other contexts in this "argument": kaleidoscope. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:00, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not saying that beauty is ''completely'' subjective, nor relative. I believe that it exists, and that God created it (i.e. that's probably why the peacock's tail is like it is). But it doesn't follow from that that everything that we ''consider'' beautiful is that way because God intended it to be so. Do you find a landscape beautiful? Most do, but most landscapes are the result not of God's design, but of God's judgment on the world in the form of Noah's Flood. So in such cases, beauty is actually (a) subjective (i.e. it wasn't intended that way) or (b) ''despite'' the judgment (i.e. God made the world so beautiful that even in a corrupted form we still find much of it beautiful). I'm quite happy to accept (b), but if (b) is correct, what we have to acknowledge is that it ''isn't the way God designed it''. So are autumn leave beautiful because God designed autumn leaves to be beautiful, or simply because they are part of an overall beautiful creation?

'''But all that's rather beside the point'''. The point of the beauty argument is that evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't explain it. But natural processes ''can'' explain why autumn leaves are the colour they are. Therefore it's not an evolution-refuting argument.

As for God pronouncing the creation "good", first, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily uses the word "as commonly used" (in the present day). Rather I see "good" as referring to a range of things, such as impeccable and excellent design, faultlessness, fit for purpose, and such. And yes, beauty would be one aspect of that.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Aschlafly already explained it to you clearly, Phil. Beauty cannot result from evolution, as it cannot result from chance. As for Bible's use of the word, yes, it necessarily uses the word "as commonly used." Vague definitions is a favorite method of liberal deceit. God's word is inerrant, and thus does not mislead with vagueries. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That name's "Philip", by the way. And I've explained myself at least as well as Andy's explained it to me, and you've not added anything new to his explanation. Why is the Bible's use of the word ''necessarily'' "as commonly used"? Many Bible words have subtly different meanings than how they are commonly used ''in modern times''. And referring to my use as a "vague definition" is incorrect; I gave a definition that was more detailed than Andy's. Inerrancy is different to clarity. I agree that God's word is clear where it needs to be, but it's not always clear (on less-important matters), although always inerrant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
The old saw is an atheistic falsehood, which is traced to statements by a young Benjamin Franklin (before he returned to [[faith]]) and by [[David Hume]], an early atheistic philosopher. See [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59100.html]. Looks like it has misled many who are unaware of its atheistic roots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: That's a rather selective interpretation of the link you provided. It actually says that in the wording we've been using it's attributable to a Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, although the concept appears earlier, including by Hume, and before him Franklin, and before him Shakespeare, and even he was not the first.
: Nevertheless, the existence of a saying does not mean that it's true. It may not be, but it appears to have a fair bit of truth simply by the ''fact'' that some see beauty where others do not.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:: No, Philip, Shakespeare did not say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is obviously an atheistic saying that you repeated, as I pointed out. It's time to concede that point.

:: Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't. The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose. Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty? It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::: I had been under the impression that leaves change color as a result of their chlorophyll dying due to a lack of water. If this is, in fact, true, I do not think that it is impossible to describe how and why the leaves change using a purely naturalistic viewpoint. (To be honest, I haven't really given this much thought before, and your view on it is very interesting. I'll have to dig out my old Wile biology book and see if it covers this. It's so hard to find science books written from a Christian perspective.)
:::With regard to whether there is a set-in-stone definition of beauty, this idea intrigued me, so I searched the King James Version of the Bible for various words and phrases meaning "pretty", "beautiful", and the like, using a software concordance. The Hebrew word used is almost always the same one, "יפה". Here is Strong's definition of it:
:::::H3303
:::::יפה
:::::yâpheh
:::::yaw-feh'
:::::From H3302; beautiful (literally of figuratively): - + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.
:::H3302 is simply a root (and unfortunately, I can't get the Hebrew letters to render correctly. Oh, well...):
:::::H3302
:::::יפה
:::::yâphâh
:::::yaw-faw'
:::::A primitive root; properly to be bright, that is, (by implication) beautiful: - be beautiful, be (make self) fair (-r), deck.
:::Most of the time, the word "beauty" was used in the phrase "the beauty of his [God's] holiness". "Beautiful" and "comely" generally referred to people or things that looked good, or, pretty. "Fair" was often used to describe various women, such as Sarah and Vashti. ("fairest" and "fair one" were only used in the Song of Solomon). "Goodly", "pleasant", and "well" (when it was used in this sense) likewise were used to describe things, but no definition of the ''words'' was offered in the text. In short, I was unable to find any hard-fast definition of what God considers to be beautiful (in a physical sense, at least). Based on this, as well as my own experience, I think that while there are things which practically anyone would agree is beautiful, such as a sunset, beauty is largely subjective. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 23:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Sarfati reference ==

The Safarti reference about the prostate doesn't say anything about how natural selection would have changed the design for the worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
: See the last line of the article. It doesn't say quite what was in this article, but I've improved it now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::It smells of [[straw man|straw]] to me. Sarfati (thanks for the spelling btw!) simply claims that evolutionists say that the prostate is a bad design, but doesn't (a) give any evidence that evolutionists actualy make this agument, <s>(b) give any reasons why evolutionists think the prostate is a bad design,</s> (c) give any reasons why evolutionists would ''admit'' that a bad design would be naturally selected or (d) show that it is necessary to the evolutionist argument for the prostate to have been badly designed. Maybe he has it in his book, but it's certainly not supported by the reference. (In fairness, there is also one line at the beginning of the article, but again this is just an assertion). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I guess he does say why evolutionists allegedly think that it is a bad design, but he then spends the whole article arguing that not only is it ''not'' a bad design, but evolutionists are using fautlty data to come to the conclusion that it is a bad design. Thus, according to Sarfati, if evolutionists knew about these data, they would have to agree that the prostate is a good design, thus counteracting his own argument! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Chromosome example==

The chromosome example, currently #15 on the list, is false. The standard human has 46 chromosomes. A human with Downs Syndrome has has 47. If they were to mate, they would produce viable offspring. However not all instances of having an extra chromosome result is problems such as Downs Syndrome, some have relatively no impact, most are far worse, and some provide benefits. However I cannot recall a situation where it was beneficial in humans, I have read of cases where it has benefited other animals and plants.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

: Random mutations are never beneficial. Please make your point after you have the evidence, not by referring to evidence that you don't have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::They can be, in the right circumstances. Take the SNP responsible for sickle cell anemia. A person homozygous for sickle cell will have a debilitating disease, but a heterozygous person is more resistant to malaria than a non-carrier and is not symptomatic for sickle cell. This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::If we were to assume that I was incorrect on mutations sometimes providing benefits, I was still correct that mates with different numbers of chromosomes can still mate successfully, provided of course that they would have been able to produce viable offspring in the first place. That part alone is enough to disprove the point. As for mutations providing benefits, I am not saying that all mutations are beneficial, in fact most mutations involving extra chromosomes cause serious problems, especially in larger mammals (humans included). However plants tend to make better use of the kinds these kinds of mutations, take the F. chiloensis or the Beach Strawberry, It has 8x the number of chromosomes compared to wild type strawberries. Because of this, it produces larger fruit with more seeds. More seeds and larger fruit being an obvious advantage regarding reproduction. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Corry said "''This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world.''" Just because the sickle-cell mutation happened to produce a beneficial ''result'' in one case does not mean it is truly beneficial. Natural selection dictates that anything that is beneficial stays, and anything that does not ''immediately'' benefit an organism is thrown out. If there ever was a beneficial mutation, it would very quickly be passed among ''all'' members of a species. Since all of humanity does not have the sickle-cell trait, the mutation is, hands down, not beneficial when applied across a broad spectrum (which is what would have to occur in order for a species to evolve). [[User:Samd|Samd]] 00:02, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::No- mutations in the genome do not spread like computer viruses. And as above, I said that homozygotes are at a disadvantage, while heterozygotes are at an advantage. If a mutation causes an overall reproductive benefit, in this case by heterozygotes being resistant to malaria and more likely to have children, then that mutation will be spread more than one which does not have a reproductive benefit. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 00:12, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-28T03:33:08Z

Corry: /* Chromosome example */

Racism

2008-10-27T23:29:01Z

Corry: Removed gender and religion. See talk page.

'''Racism''' is [[prejudice]] and [[discrimination]] based on [[race]].
An example is a claim that of inferiority or superiority based on the color of one's skin. Another example was the [[Jim Crow]] laws.

Racism has come to mean the hatred of another person because of the color of his or her skin, or perceived difference in origin. The doctrine of [[substantive due process]] in United States constitutional law can be used to invalidate racist laws. Alternately, the [[Equal Protection|equal protection]] clause of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] can be used to do the same. ''See e.g.'' [[Brown v. Board of Education]], 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
[[category:psychology]]

==Opposition to racism==
[[Laird Wilcox]] wrote:
*There is a [[humanist]] anti-racism that focuses on [[reconciliation]] and [[healing]], that works to bring people together, that functions openly and honestly without the use of [[dossier]]s, [[spies]], specious [[lawsuit]]s, [[disinformation]], and that recognizes the [[right]]s of individuals whether they agree with one another or not. This is the anti-racism of good neighbors, of people helping people, of community goodwill, and of the realization that we are all [[human being]]s. ... On the other hand there is a vindictive and corrupt anti-racism that focuses on paybacks and [[punishment]], that demonizes and degrades its critics, that attempts to carve out [[special rights]] for its constituency, that opposes free and open discussion of ideas, that attempts to silence, [[censor]] and stifle its opposition through intimidation and harassment, and encourages [[law enforcement]] scrutiny of opponents because of their alleged [[values]], opinions and beliefs.<ref>''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Laird Wilcox, Editorial Research Service, 1999, pg. 3. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref>

== See Also ==
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Nazism]]
*[[Reverse_racism]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/racism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Racism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

User talk:Hsmom

2008-10-27T20:29:08Z

Corry: /* copying from US Gov sites */

==frisbee==

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

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

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

==Handy Hints==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==References==
<references/>

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

== Theory of evolution ==

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

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

== Engineer ==

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

== Feminism ==

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

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

==May I just say...==

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

== Scabies article & Plagiarism ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Mex ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Paragraph quote ==

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

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

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

== surface mining ==

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

== copying from US Gov sites ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apple Inc.

2008-10-27T16:19:32Z

Corry: wording, punctuation.

[[Image:Apple-logo.png|right|thumb|150px|Apple Inc. logo]]
To see Apple, the fruit, go [[Apple (Fruit)|here]].

'''Apple Inc.''' is a liberal <ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> corporation based out of Cupertino, California, that deals primarily in computer hardware, software, and their line of [[MP3]] players, [[iPod]]s. Founded on April 1st, 1976, by [[Steve Wozniak]] and [[Steve Jobs]], its first product was the Apple I. The two steves founded the company in their garage and have since became one of the biggest tech companies around. On January 9th, 2007, Apple Computer Inc. officially changed its name to Apple Inc to include their other non computer products. That same day, they announced the revolutionary [[iPhone]], which according to Apple, combines "a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device with desktop-class email, web browsing, maps, and searching." <ref>http://www.apple.com/iphone/</ref>

==Original computers==
===The Apple I===
The Apple I was the first apple computer. The Apple I started out with just being a circuit sold to computer hobbyists. Later Apple realized that they could make more money by selling the Apple I all developed and put together instead of having the consumer build it themselves.
=== The [[Apple II]] ===

In 1977, however, Apple released the [[Apple II]], which was one of the first computers that came completely contained within a plastic case, motioning towards ''user-friendliness''. The main difference, however, was the screen display. Instead of just being able to display text, it would display graphics, charts, and eventually, color. Many small companies were buying these for use in their offices, but Steve Jobs had ambitions to expand.

=== The Apple III ===

The Apple III was created in response to Steve Jobs' wanting to move ahead with new innovations. He wanted to innovate, and as such, provided some questionable designs to the employees, such as it being shipped without a cooling fan, because Steve Jobs felt that having a loud obnoxious fan would interfere with his meditation. This particular defect caused the computer to break down, usually before it had reached its destination. Thousands were recalled.

===The Lisa===
The Lisa was named after Steve Job's illegitimate daughter Lisa. The company had contests to come up for a computer acronym using the letters LISA. The Lisa was a failure because it was more expensive and not as powerful as the Macintosh.

=== The [[Macintosh]] ===

In 1984, the next huge Apple computer was released. Apple paired with Adobe to create Adobe [[PageMaker]], the first [[desktop publishing|Desktop Publisher]] ever created. Using it, small companies could make official-looking documents, a milestone in technology history. The application ran exclusively on the Macintosh. The Macintosh was famous for it's "1984" [[Super Bowl]] advertisement. The Macintosh was the first device to have a Graphic User Interface (GUI). The name of the device was taken from Steve Job's favorite type of apples the McIntosh apples. Despite the difference in spelling the name was also used by McIntosh Labs who brought certain legal problems into play. <ref> iCon: Steve Jobs </ref> The Macintosh was a great computer but there were three major flaws. One it only had six applications and Two the Macintosh did not have an internal hard drive to save to, so users constantly had to do the "Floppy disk Olympics", Three the device was not expandable.

=== The Apple IIg ===

The Apple IIg was a mix between the two, but its main feature was that it was mouse driven. This was an amazing and unheard of innovation.

==John Scully==
[[John Scully]] was appointed CEO of Apple by Steve Jobs because they would not let him run the company. Jobs picked Scully because he knew nothing about computers and would need to depend on Jobs for all decisions. This backfired on Jobs when he was forced to leave the company leaving control into the hand of a man who knew nothing about computers. When Jobs left the company was sent into despair. There was no vision and Scully was barely able to keep the company alive.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:information technology]]
[[Category:Computers]]

User talk:Hsmom

2008-10-27T15:43:49Z

Corry: /* copying from US Gov sites */

User talk:Hsmom

2008-10-27T03:11:21Z

Corry: /* copying from US Gov sites */

Trainspotting

2008-10-25T22:07:36Z

Corry: improved

'''''Trainspotting''''' (1996) is a [[British]] film based on the novel by [[Irvine Welsh]], depicting the lives of a group of young men in seedy, 'wrong side of the tracks' [[Edinburgh]] as they destroyed by heroin addiction. The film is notorious for its depiction of the Edinburgh drugs scene, and its plot, depicting the ostensible efforts of antihero Renton to escape that milieu. The drug scenes are constructed and filmed in brilliant colour, to emphasise the 'highs' that they supposedly provide, by contrast with the depiction of clean, everyday life as grim and colourless. The film's most cited line emphasizes its cynical promotion of drugs, by depicting 'life' as an endless cycle of suburban boredom: ''Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a starter home. Choose dental insurance, leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose your future. . . . But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin’ else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you’ve got heroin?''<ref>Metaphilm.com, ''Trainspotting, Addicted to Denial, If a train is heading toward you, ignorance does not lead to bliss.'', by Adam Dobson, retrieved 10/24/08[http://metaphilm.com/philm.php?id=480_0_2_0_M/]</ref>

The film's opening song, ''Lust for Life'', was performed by influential punk rocker [[Iggy Pop]], who has struggled with [[heroin]] addiction himself.<ref>NNDB, ''Iggy Pop'', retrieved 10/24/08[[http://www.nndb.com/people/520/000024448/#FN1]</ref> The lyrics include the lines ''"Yeah, I'm through with sleeping on the sidewalk / No more beating my brains / No more beating my brains / With liquor and drugs / With liquor and drugs."''<ref>LyricsMode.com, ''Lust For Life lyrics by Iggy Pop'', retrieved 10/24/08[http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/i/iggy_pop/lust_for_life.html]</ref> The song was number ten on UGO's list of the Top 11 Uses Of Classic Rock In Cinema.<ref>UGO.com, ''Top 11 Uses Of Classic Rock In Cinema, 10. "Lust For Life" by Iggy Pop in Trainspotting'', retrieved 10/24/08[http://www.ugo.com/filmtv/top11-classicrock/?cur=trainspotting#top]"Despite protestations from the filmmakers and the inclusion of a horrific detox scene, Trainspotting makes being a Scottish junkie look totally awesome. Why? Because when you run from the cops, smash into cars and the movie freeze-frames to show your nickname you have "Lust For Life" thumping underneath."</ref>

The film has nothing directly to do with the British hobby of train spotting, in which railfans keep records of the rolling stock they've seen,<ref>eHow.com, ''How to Go Trainspotting'', retrieved 10/24/08[http://www.ehow.com/how_2247294_go-trainspotting.html?ref=fuel&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=ssp&utm_campaign=yssp_art]</ref> beyond the authors' opinion that shooting heroin is as little use as he considers the railfan hobby to be.

Defenders of [[Hollywood values]] cite this movie as an example of Hollywood telling the truth about the harm caused by drugs, but this does show "cool" people engaging in drugs and enjoying it. This movie, like most Hollywood depictions of drugs, portrays the drug users as sympathetic victims rather than as the perpetrators of evil.{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Cinema]]