Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:The Population Bomb

2007-05-09T16:50:36Z

Dave3172:

{{unprotected|April 9th|Ed Poor}}

This book should have ranked Number One on the all-time worst list. Complete garbage. It ranks up there with the bet he made with Julian Simon about commodity prices. Ehrlich is a fraud.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:50, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Salò

2007-05-09T16:43:16Z

Dave3172:

Feel free to help out. Thanks! [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I give this page...one day before it gets banned. :) How can you even hope to give a synopsis of the film that won't trip about forty different alarms? "There's the guys in a villa in Italy...some people show up...tell some stories...stuff happens..." --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?

2007-05-07T17:21:29Z

Dave3172:

{{debate}}

'''If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?'''

Absolutely not. The attack was necessary to gird the hearts and loins of patriotic but unmotivated Americans to win the war against un-American forces. The 3000 innocents killed were a tragic loss, to be sure, but without them a terrible dictator would still be gassing his own people, and developing weapons to use against us. These are the terrible but necessary choices a Commander-in-chief must make.

[[User:Bob|Bob]]

Did he really?! I havn't heard of this but will research it. If he did know thEn he was wrong.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Are you sure that would be wrong if Roosevelt did know? I think effective war strategy makes those kind of decisions. In chess it's called a "[[gambit]]".

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 1 January 2007 (EST)

:I'm guessing that "him" was Franklin D. Roosevelt and "the attack" was Pearl Harbor. The conditions leading up to Pearl Harbor are ''extremely'' controversial and I don't think the idea that Roosevelt knew is accepted as fact.

:However, there is an incident, about which there's no doubt, that raises a similar moral question.

::Oops. I take it back. There is doubt. Oh, well. I read about this in Anthony Cave-Brown's book, ''Bodyguard of Lies,'' but apparently its truth has been questioned. Well, here's the story anyway: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:24, 1 January 2007 (EST)

:During the Second World War, the Allies broke the German coding system known as "[[Enigma]]," a fascinating story involving the early development of computers and [[Alan Turing]]. The Germans did not know the code had been broken. The Allies were therefore continually faced with the moral dilemma of whether or not to act on the information they decrypted. If they were to act on it too often, the Germans would suspect the code had been broken and change the coding system, stopping the flow of information.

:In November of 1940, the Allies learned, through a decrypted message, that the Germans intended to conduct an air raid on Coventry. They decided that it was more important to keep the secret of ''Ultra,'' their decrypting system, and therefore did not warn Coventry or take any protective measures. Germany attacked with three hundred bombers, killing over five hundred people, destroying tens of thousands of homes and a medieval cathedral. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:24, 1 January 2007 (EST)

:: Dpbsmith describes the dilemma extremely well. I've been meaning to add an entry on the Enigma, and hope to do so this afternoon.

:: I don't have a definite view about how to solve this dilemma. It's a good topic for debate and discussion. What's your view, Dpbsmith?

:: I do think it's clear that Roosevelt had advance warning of the Pearl Harbor attack, by the way. I think we may have moved one key aircraft carrier or battleship out of the way (moving more ships would have tipped the Japanese). Also, simply radar would have given us an hour's notice, and 2,400 sailors need not have died unless as a gambit for a greater objective.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 1 January 2007 (EST)

::: I thought the incoming Japanese aircraft ''were'' seen on radar, but the radar operator couldn't believe they were really being attacked and misidentified them as an expected flight of incoming B17's? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:42, 1 January 2007 (EST)

:::: Boy, that sounds very odd! But you may be right, and I have not researched this further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:44, 1 January 2007 (EST)

::::: Don't you think it would be good if you research these things BEFORE you present them as fact?

::::::Here's is an excellent and well qualified source on the subject, [http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/comatph.html COMMUNISM at PEARL HARBOR] HOW THE COMMUNISTS HELPED TO BRING ON PEARL HARBOR AND OPEN UP ASIA TO COMMUNIZATION, By Anthony Kubek, University of Dallas. Prof. Kubek was the editor of the ''Morganthau Diaries''. The ''Morganthau Diaries'' is the report of the [[Senate Internal Security Subcommittee]] (SISS) which investigated the activities of [[Harry Dexter White#Morganthau Diary]] and others in the US Treasury Dept Division of Monetrary Research who [[subversion (political)|subverted]] President Roosevelt's China policy and brought the [[CCP]] to power in China (which remains in power in China). The SISS investigation took twelve years, 1954-66, and its Report, the ''Morganthau Diaries'', took an additional two years to write. During those twelve years, the Senate changed hands form Democratic to Republican and back to Democrtaic, so the Report's findings can truelly be regarded as bipartisan. All these findings by Prof. Kubek & the SISS were written in the 1960s, ''before'' release of [[Venona]] documents, which only confirmed these findings. There is no evidence Prof. Kubek or the bipartisan SISS had access to Venona materials, so the report cited here cannot be consigned to "conspiracy literature" anymore, as it had been by many authors for nearly half a century. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Here is a section from ''A Patriot’s History of the United States'', by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen that addresses the matter:

'''''Did Roosevelt Have Advance Knowledge About the Pearl Harbor Attack?'''''

“Even as the last smoke billowed from the sinking ships in Hawaii, many people were asking how the United States could have been so unprepared. Historian Charles Tansill suggested that the debacle could only have occurred with Franklin Roosevelt’s foreknowledge. Clearly, if a president in possession of advance warning had allowed hundreds of sailors and soldiers to die in a surprise attack, it would have constituted high treason. Why would any chief executive permit such a strike?
In his famous book, ''Back Door to War'' (1952), Tansill accused Roosevelt of allowing a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to provide the United States with the motivation and justification to enter the war against Hitler in Europe, but little new evidence was provided over the years until the 1980s, when John Tolland published Infamy, wherein he claimed to have located a navy witness who, while on duty in San Francisco, received transmissions locating Japanese carriers and forwarded the information to Washington. Adding to Toland’s revelations, a “Notes and Documents” piece in the American Historical Review disclosed that the FBI had acquired information from an Axis double agent named Duskow Popov (“Tricycle”), who had information on a microdot about the attack. Although Tolland and others maintained that Popov’s documents included a detailed plan of the Japanese air attack, it did no such thing. Tricycle’s data dealt almost exclusively with buildings and installations, but had nothing on ships, aircraft scouting patterns, or any of the rather important items that one would expect from a “detailed plan.” In 1981, Asian historian Gordon Prange published ''At Dawn While We Slept''; following his death, his students Donald Goldstein and Katherine Dillon completed his work with new Pearl Harbor claims in ''Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History''. The authors found Toland’s mystery sailor, Robert Ogg, who empathetically rejected Toland’s assertion that he had said that he had intercepted massive Japanese radio traffic. Meanwhile, Documents acquired from Japanese archives raised a more serious problem for the conspiracy theorists because they proved that the Japanese fleet had been under strict radio silence during the voyage to Pearl Harbor.
The controversy refused to go away. In 1999, Robert B. Stinnet’s ''Day of Deceit'' revived the argument that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the attack with important new code-breaking information. But the crucial pieces of “evidence” that Stinnet employed often proved the opposite of what he claimed. He used precise intelligence terms—code breaking, interception, translation, analysis—interchangeably, which produced massive errors: An intercepted document is not necessarily broken, and if intercepted and broken, it may not be translated, and if intercepted and broken, and translated, it may not be analyzed for days, weeks, or even years. Some intercepts from November 1941 were indeed broken, but were not translated or analyzed until…1945!
The entire argument of the revisionists hinges on the notion that FDR couldn’t get into the war with Germany without pretext. But Roosevelt had already had ample cause if he’d wanted to, to ask for a declaration of war against Germany. Nazi U-boats had sunk American ships, killed American sailors, and in all ways shown themselves hostile. Against a nation that declared war on Mexico over a handful of Cavalry troopers or that had declared war on Spain for the questionable destruction of a single ship, Germany had long since crossed the line needed for a declaration of war. …Pearl Harbor was a Tragedy, but not a conspiracy. <ref>A Patriot’s History of the United States Pages 594-595</ref>

--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]] 11:18, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, DPBSmith is right about the Japanese bombers appearing on the American radar screen. (''Air Raid- Pearl Harbor!'') American leaders, even those in the military, did not believe that an initial Japanese attack would come on Pearl Harbor. They believed such an attack would come on the Philippines, Wake Island, or Midway Island. As a matter of fact, the US carriers ''Lexington'' and ''Enterprise'' were ferrying F4F Wildcat fighter planes to further fortify Midway and Wake. Even the Secretary of War did not believe the news when it reached him. He exclaimed, "This can't be true! This must mean the Philippines!" --[[User:DuncanB|DuncanB]] 14:39, 9 January 2007 (EST)

If Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, then he is a traitor. Pure and Simple.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Roosevelt did not know that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor. He and what then passed for the national security council believed they would attack U. S. forces in or near the [[Phillippines]] and that the war in the Pacific could therefore be contained, freeing more U. S. forces to fight in Europe. Indeed, he sent three U. S.-flagged ships into a disputed zone near the Phillipines where he anticipated they would be attacked.

The Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor instead demonstrated the Japanese were too smart for this. They knew that overwhelming force would eventually fall upon them if they fought the United States, so the only plan that made sense was to disable the largest percentage of that force possible at the outset. (Japan's GDP was one-tenth that of the U. S. and its population barely half of ours in 1941.) Of course, they were not so smart as to avoid going to war on the same side as Germany, a mistake they had (by contrast) avoided in the First World War.

Even if an attack on American interests was absolutely necessary to get the U. S. into World War II, knowledge that the attack would come on the fleet moored at Pearl would have enabled the U. S. carriers then on maneuvers to seek and destroy the Japanese carriers. The political question here is what works best for the narrative. Remember in "Patton," where the title character said "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser"? By destroying the Japanese task force on December 6 or 5, Roosevelt would have prevented the nation as a whole, and particularly the Navy (of which he was secretary during World War I -- it was HIS service), from being seen as losers on December 7. Roosevelt was many things, but he was not stupid, and allowing the fleet to be sunk deliberately would have been straight-up stupid. [[User:Amyz]] 13:12, May 7, 2007 (EDT)

: Well said. The conspiracy theories around this are similar to the conspiracies that pop up whenever a tragic event of this magnitude occurs (such as JFKs assasination or the 9/11 attack). The horror is so inconceivable that some people try to make sense of it by creating outside forces that made it inevitable. When in reality, the truth is that sometimes bad things just happen. And its usually because someone made a bad assumption (Japan would attack the Phillipines instead of Hawaii), a bad decision (Kennedy having a Secret Service agent get off of the car) or a bad choice (not giving more weight to certain pre-9/11 intelligence). It's not a matter of malice or ill intent. It's human error.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

===References===

<references/>

Embryonic stem cells

2007-05-05T01:38:30Z

Dave3172: reverted to previous version - fix vandalism

'''Embryonic stem cells''' are taken from the inner part of a young embryo, also known as a [[blastocyst]]. An embryo reaches the blastocyst stage about 4-5 days after [[fertilization]]. At that point they contain about 50-150 cells.

Embryonic stem cells can differentiate into the three "germ layers": [[ectoderm]], [[endoderm]] and [[mesoderm]]. The 220 types of cells in humans are all based on these germ layers. Some scientists, particularly those having pro-choice political views, claim that embryonic stem cells can differentiate better, and divide into greater numbers, than [[adult stem cells]] can.

[[Pro-life]] conservatives consider taking stem cells from human embryos, as tantamount to [[abortion]], which they believe to be a hideous and [[evil]] practice. President Bush was pressured by [[Liberal]] [[Scientist]]s into funding stem cell research[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html].
[[category:biology]]

Twenty-First Amendment

2007-05-05T01:37:39Z

Dave3172: reverted to previous version - fix vandalism

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.<ref name=FindLaw>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment21/ Text and Annotations to the Twenty-first Amendment] at FindLaw.com</ref>

== Notes ==

This repealed Prohibition and the [[Eighteenth Amendment]] in 1933, during the [[Great Depression]]. This Twenty-First Amendment is the only one ratified by conventions in each state, rather than by state legislatures.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Constitution]]
[[Category:Prohibition]]

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-05-05T01:36:34Z

Dave3172:

Theory of relativity

2007-05-05T01:35:02Z

Dave3172: reverted to previous version - fix vandalism

Relativity refers to two [[physics]] theories; general relativity (GR) and special relativity (SR), put foward by [[Albert Einstein]]. The Theory of Relativity is a geometrical theory of gravitation, while Special Relativity is a limiting case. Einstein formed two postulates around which the theory is based:

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are obeyed in all reference frames.''

The theory of relativity was first proposed based on mathematical theory developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]]. This theory differs from [[Isaac Newton]]'s theory of gravitation by disposing with the idea of a universal, mutually agreeable scale of time (i.e. a universal clock that all times can refer to) and space (i.e. a universal sheet of "graph paper", which location refers to). At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Einstein-Lorentzian relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's formulas.

The famous equation attributed to Einstein, ''E=mc2'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

In general terms, relativity predicts that space-time can be curved by massive bodies, so that (for example) near a [[black hole]] the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees, time passes more rapidly away from a black hole than near it (for a distant observer) and other apparent violations of [[geometry]] and common sense.

Relativity is important for massive or fast-moving bodies: at low mass and low speed, it can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of [[electron spin]] arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels with infinite speed in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed ([[electron spin]] was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

General relativity successfully explains the seemingly anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion. While other explanations based in Newtonian gravity had been proposed, none were consistent with observation.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] {{fact}}. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

==Special relativity==

Special relativity is the limiting case of General relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. It is based on two postulates; one, that the laws of physics are identical to all [[inertial observers]], and two, that the [[speed of light]] ''in vacuo'' is a universal constant.

===Time dilation===
[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for exponential decay, they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby proving the theory.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

===Length contraction===

When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

We also see that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.

The mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

==General Relativity==
===Einstein field equations===
The Einstein field equations is
:<math> G_{uv} = 8\pi\, T_{uv} </math>
where ''Guv'' is the [[Einstein curvature tensor]], and ''Tuv'' is the [[stress-energy tensor]], ''Guv'' and ''Tuv'' are both rank 2 symmetric tensors. The Einstein field equations is a system of [[partial differential equations]] that relates the curvature of space to the mass occupying the space.

==Evidence for Relativity==
No particle accelerator built since the 1950s would work unless the mass increase predicted by special relativity not only occurred, but occurred to the precise degree predicted by the theory.{{fact}} In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and were directly able to observe the relativistic "twin paradox" the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy <ref>Hafele-Keating Experiment [http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment]</ref> <ref>as described in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?], a personal web page, which cites Haefele and Keating (1972), ''Science'' Vol. 177 pp 166-170 as its source</ref> <ref>Sullivan, Walter (1972), "Relativity Theory Awaits Affirmation", September 23, 1972, p. 61. Note: Article refers to a different experiment, which Sullivan discusses, saying that if successful it would be "the second time within a year" that relativity had been confirmed, then proceeds to discuss Hafele[sic] and Keating's experiment as the first.</ref>

Furthermore, relativity has been proven to be vital to make the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) function properly <ref>How Relativity is vital to GPS [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]</ref>.

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on a [[quantum theory of gravity]] (the "theory of everything"), such as [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]]. Critics increasingly point out that [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]] are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].

==Government Support for Relativistic research==

The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of federal funding of physics research today,<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref> much of it unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project, for example, has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref> However, more than twenty years of observing the [[pulsar]] pair PSR 1913+16 have shown its orbital period to be dropping at exactly the rate expected due to loss of orbital energy by gravitational radiation <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref>, resulting in the 1993 Nobel Prize for physics being awarded to the discoverers of the pulsar pair, Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse.

There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views, and there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref> Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of the theory of relativity and that may have hurt him professionally,<ref>Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never given a Nobel Prize.</ref> even though his theory "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time." The full quote:

:"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

==External Links ==
:[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]

Vietnam War

2007-05-04T20:47:51Z

Dave3172: Reverted back to last version by RobS - the fact that Vietnam exists as a Communist nation would lead one to believe that, sadly, they won.

[[Image:SaigonFall.jpg|thumb|South Vietnamese residents flee [[Saigon]], as North Vietnamese forces enter the city.]]
The '''Vietnam War''', officially the '''Second Indochina Conflict''', was initiated by the [[United States]], in response to a poll conducted that suggested given the planned democratic election after the reduction of the demilitarized zone upheld until [[1956]] since the war would lead to a certain [[communist]] victory.

America, knowing that South Vietnam would democratically become a communist state abstained from signing the Geneva conference of 1954 allowing this election to happen even though these were the grounds they had stated at the end of the [[Second World War]]. A frustrated [[Ho Chi Minh]] eventually decided to move into South Vietnam as the increasingly unpopular US controlled government employed stronger tactics to maintain the South Vietnamese people under Diem. In retaliation the US sent 'advisers' to help Diem keep the situation under control before stepping up to a full scale ground war. The war was the longest in American history, lasting approximately 16 years. It was also the first war fought by America in which the stated military goals of the Americans were not met and it is now widely agreed that it is the first war America actually lost failing to win the hearts and minds of both the Vietnamese and the people back home.

==Opposition to the Vietnam War==

The Vietnam War is remembered as creating massive opposition in the [[United States]]. Much of the [[hippie]] movement was based in opposition to the Vietnam War and a belief in [[pacifism]] more broadly. This opposition inspired such songs as "The I Feel Like I'm Fixing to Die Rag," by [[Country Joe McDonald]], "Give Peace a Chance," by [[John Lennon]], "Run Through the Jungle," by [[Creedence Clearwater Revival]], and "War," by [[Edwin Starr]]. This opposition also manifested itself in the form of protests. One of the most famous protests of this era occurred at Kent State University in [[Ohio]], during which four students were shot and killed by the Ohio State National Guard following several days of rioting and the firebombing of the ROTC building. The shooting was later determined to be justified when a federal court dismissed the case against the eight guardsmen indicted.[http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/LEWIHEN.htm]

It wasn't until the Reagan era that popular culture, and society, began to embrace Vietnam veterans as heroes by creating characters like John Rambo and John "Hannibal" Smith.

==External links==

*Larry Berman, [http://hnn.us/articles/37934.html ''Perfect Spy: The Incredible Double Life of Pham Xuan An''], Time Magazine (Smithsonian Books/HarperCollins, 2007). [http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060888381/Perfect_Spy/index.aspx]
*[http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/almanac-saigon.pdf SIGINT and the Fall of Saigon, April 1975].

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Debate:Define Civil War

2007-05-02T20:36:48Z

Dave3172:

Again, liberals have skewered another meaning, this time civil war. Iraq is a low level civil war, they claim. I didn't know there were so many levels of civil war. 25,000 Al Qaeda bandits try to provoke Sunnis and Shiites to fight each other. Out 24 million citizens, how many people are fighting for one side or another? possibly 1%? Then 240k people are fighting each other in a low level civil war?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:48, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

1% is enough for a war (in most countries the military comprises less than 1% of the total population): it means 1 out of every 50 males is fighting, which probably means something like 1 out of every 30 able bodied males: so chances are every Iraqi knows at least 1 person who's fighting for some faction.

If this is not a civil war, then what is it?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

It's a war on terror with no defined armies, only groups of competing militias. Porous borders with enemy nations surrounding on all sides, providing proxy support. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:31, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Civil wars can be of varying intensity and size. The United States' Civil War completely dwarfed in size and area and casualty counts most civil wars of the 20th Century...like El Salvador's for example. But just because El Salvador's was small and limited doesn't mean it wasn't a civil war. Iraq falls into that category, with the added pressure of a failing government. If the al-Maliki government collapses, then you'll have a failed state. Which is the only thing that could be worse than what we have right now in Iraq.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

World War II

2007-05-01T15:04:05Z

Dave3172: minor edit to first paragraph. Russia was already been in the war, attacking both Poland and Finland prior to Barbarossa

'''World War II''' was a global conflict fought between the [[Allies|Allied]] powers including the [[United States]], the [[Soviet Union]], [[Britain]], [[France]], Australia, Canada and many other nations and the [[Axis (WWII)|Axis]] powers (mainly [[Nazism|Nazi]] [[Germany]], [[Fascism|Fascist]] [[Italy]], and Imperial [[Japan]]). The war is usually considered to have started on September 1, 1939 with the invasion of [[Poland]] by Nazi Germany. During the war, eight major world powers fought, along with several lesser states joining with one side or the other. On the side which lost were the Axis Powers Germany, [[Japan]], and [[Italy]]. Against them were the Allied Powers [[United States]], [[Great Britain]] and the Commonwealth, the [[Soviet Union]], [[France]], and [[China]] (which was friendly to the West at the time.) Russia entered the war on the side of the Allies after Germany launched an attack codenamed [[Operation_Barbarossa|Barbarossa]], while Britain declared war in reaction to Germany's aggression against [[Poland]].

==Causes==
The causes of World War II are complicated. The immediate causes of World War II are generally held to be the Japanese attacks on China, the United States, the British and Dutch colonies; and the German invasion of Poland on the 1st September 1939. Following the two day deadline for the withdrawl of German forces, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand declared war on Germany, followed quickly by France, South Africa, Canada and Nepal.

One major cause of German aggression may be the fervent [[Nationalism]] that became the norm in Germany post-[[World War I]]. Germans were eager to reaffirm their position as a major player on the world stage.{{fact}}

== German Tactics ==
The major tactical innovation of the war was the use of combined arms warfare, typified by the German doctrine of [[blitzkrieg]]. In this style of warfare armor, infantry, artillery and air power (see [[Luftwaffe]]) all coordinate to achieve overwhelming superiority at point on the enemy lines. Armor and fast-moving infantry units then exploit the gap and penetrate deep behind enemy lines. The objective is to cause a widespread collapse of the enemy's ability to fight. It was particularly effective during the early stages of the war, before the Allies developed effective countermeasures.

==War in Europe 1939-1941==
The French and British were initially reluctant to honour promises to the Polish government, avoiding serious consideration of an invasion of Germany. The British failed send land forces in time to support the Poles (see [[Western betrayal]]). The French mobilized slowly and then launched a token offensive in the Saar. The Meanwhile, on September 8, the Germans reached Warsaw, having slashed through the Polish defenses.

Following the completion of the invasion of Poland, German forces regrouped and Allied forces remained defensive, leading US commentators to dub it the [[Phoney War]]. This perception was not shared in [[Finland]], which fought a Soviet invasion start on 30 November 1939. Despite the overwhelming numbers of the [[Red Army]], the Finnish resistance was strong and the battle was hard fought before the Soviet army took control.

May 10 1940 marked the end of any accustion of a phoney war, with the invasion of France by Germany, via [[The Netherlands]], [[Luxembourg]] and [[Beligium]]. Resistance by the British armies and French armies proved weak and the occupation of France began. British troops were able to evacuate mainland Europe at Dunkirk. France was divided into the northern [[Occupied France]] and the collaborationist [[Vichy regime]] in the south of France, including [[Corsica]].

The collapse and occupation of France, together with Germany's alliance with the Soviet Union, fascist Italy, benevolent neutrality of fascist Spain and Portugal, with little of Europe outside of Axis hands led many to assume that the United Kingdom had been defeated. Indeed it would appear that the, seemingly foolish, decision of the relatively weak United Kingdom to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard. This decision ensured the remaining British Empire was still involved in the war, with Japan threatening many British possessions in Asia.

In 1940 [[Denmark]] and [[Norway]] were invaded by German forces, to preempt a British occupation of Norway. Norway also contained a source of [[Heavy water]], possibly crucial in the construction of an atomic weapon. This was soon followed by the British invasion of neutral [[Iceland]] (the invasion of [[Denmark]] by German forces marks the start of an independent Iceland).

With Britain the sole opposing European nation, the [[Battle of Britain]] commenced. The [[Luftwaffe]] attempted to achieve aerial dominance over the south of Britain, in order to allow a sea based invasion of Britain to proceed. For many months the [[Royal Air Force]] and Luftwaffe fought for dominance, with the resilience of the RAF, with British, Canadian and Polish pilots forced a rethink of [[German]] tactics. The period that followed is known as the [[Blitz]], where the RAF and Luftwaffe attempted to undermine the infrastructure of the opposing country. This was a period of great economic devastation, which took both countries a considerable period to recover from. More seriously it led to huge numbers of civilian deaths.

1941 marked the major turning point in the war in Europe, when the Germans put aside plans for an invasion of Britain and undertook [[Operation Barbarossa]] - the invasion of the Soviet Union. In a war of major turning points, this was the most significant in Europe. This miscalculation diminished the Germans armies capacity as they a war against the Soviet Union (known as the [[Great Patriotic War]] in the Soviet Union) demanded huge dedication of resources and later in the war permitted an invasion of mainland Europe by Allied Forces on [[D Day]].

==America Enters the War==
The [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]] brought America into the Great War. Admiral [[Isoroku Yamamoto]] of the Japenese Navy was against engaging with America and only fear of "waking a sleeping giant", which they did. America recovered from the shell shock and plunged into the war with the slogan "Remember Pearl Harbor!".

==The end of World War II in Asia==
On August 6, 1945, a B-29 Superfortress, the Enola Gay, dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Then, on August 9, a B-29 dropped the second atomic bomb. On August 20 the Japanese government told the United States they were ready to accept the terms which the Allies proposed. The next day, the Allies replied, saying the authority of the emperor would be "subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers." On August 14 the Japanese government agreed to this.

Then, September 2, 1945, the Japanese government, along with all it's military forces, formally surrendered to the United States. This happened in a ceremony aboard an American battleship, the ''Missouri'', on [[Tokyo Bay]], where the [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender]] was signed. This was the ending of World War II, after six years almost to the day.

==Fall Out From World War II==

*[[Iron Curtain]]

*British Empire
The war effectively bankrupted Britain, which started the process of discarding its empire. It was not until 2007 Britain finished paying off the loans to the USA which it had taken to fight Nazi Germany.

*Supermecy of the USA in the Western World
Whilst most countries had seen their economies demolished by the war, the USA had industrialised heavily and gained financial gains from sales of arms to other Allied countries.

*Supremecy of the Soviet Union in the Eastern World.

==References==

<references/>
[[Category:World War II| ]]
[[Category:Wars]]

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-27T23:14:32Z

Dave3172: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
*[[User:Tenna]] -- made a video game page full of obscenity and slander. Recommend permanent ban--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:14, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Terryeo]], Please block user if he causes problems at [[Dianetics]] or [[Scientology]]. See the relevant talk pages. I gave him a warning so far.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Rvm}} first edit was reverted by MountainDew (I mean DanH). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Vossy}} created a weird article which someone else immediately blanked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AmeriCan}} - disinformation [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=112288] -- [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::If I may, AmeriCan included some incorrect information along with some that was partially correct. I am not sure this abuse at all. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::Also, he has a continuing habit of cut-paste from other sites. See, for example his entry for [[Producerism]], copied in full from [http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pr/producerism.htm]. His contributions to [[Canada]] and [[hijab]], among others, are similar cut/paste jobs.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 18:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Vandalized Ronald Reagan, sock of Coolhandsluke --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Ilovebeingconservative (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:28, 17 April 2007) (Earliest: 04:19, 17 April 2007) [2]
*{{user|Sterile}} - 90/10 rule --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|ILikeCookies}} - not so much abusive edits as just plain fluff--doesn't quite seem appropriate. What does everybody think?
*#This edit to [[Dan Quayle]] wasn't too bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dan_Quayle&diff=prev&oldid=110148]
*The 6 random hex digit sock perp is back: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|GofG}} useless edits - warned
*{{user|Vyngarsson}} - 11 April 2007, trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=prev&oldid=99990] for a good example. Another example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=103140&oldid=101324]
*{{user|Phiattiangel}} - 11 April 2007, trolling.

===Dealt with===
*[[User:JeffersonDarcy]] -- linking to NAMBLA site. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=NAMBLA&diff=prev&oldid=129221] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**First, we know from Andy that linking to creepy sites is okay, even if you wouldn't put the material itself on CP (like the Silent Scream site). Second, JeffersonDarcy is a very good contributor, and has helped with some of my law articles.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**TOTALLY agree. You can't have it both ways, you know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Of course I linked to the NAMBLA site - the article was about NAMBLA. Who do you think I should link to there, NAACP? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 16:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
***In the future, maybe you should get permission to place links to questionable content. Naughty naughty [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
****that's a fair concern - but when someone posts the necessity for citations on the discussion page, I don't think that linking to the organization's official website would be a bad idea. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 16:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**The link could violate the Commandments, however this user's contributions do not show that this was anything more than a good faith attempt to improve the article. Therefore, '''No Block'''. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Truthandjustice}}
*#The reason given for Truthandjustice's block is: "'''Vandal'''") --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AdamNelson}} new user making sudden, unexplained big changes
*#---Ed, I saw it, about the same time Andy did. He's gone --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
*#09:49, 21 April 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AdamNelson (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Vandal & Per Andy
*{{user|AL}} off to a bad start --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*# 17:42, 19 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AL (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (made about a dozen edits in an hour, virtually all of which had to be reverted by others and myself because they removed factual info (e.g., SF entry) or inserted opinions as though they were facts (several instances))
*{{user|Nematocyte}} - warned not to annoy <s>TK</s> Terry.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Ed, are you sure that TK has another problem with him? I am the one who has had problems with Nematocyte over my article [[Extraterrestrial life]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:I misunderstood I guess. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
* Dw1237200 sock of Ak1053287 (Who had a 3 day block by DanH starting on 12 April) got the second name on 13 April. Blocked, Infinite, both ID's. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|RightWolf2}} - threats, no useful edits --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*:: I vote for a block. I think he returned simply to threaten me, again. I've requested an explanation from him on his talk page. Who let him back? It's OK this time, but pretty soon we'll need some accountability for those who unblock someone who becomes a problem again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::Threatening, breaking the rules, blackmail... I'm no lawyer, but I don't think he has any legal grounds for his latest threat. I'll be blocking him. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::Isn't he already blocked? I got one of his socks earlier today. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::Didn't he admit to making overly polemic right-wing entries that he didn't really believe in himself awhile back to "test" the site? I remember getting into an argument with him about a month ago about his attempt to qualify Fred Phelps as a "leader in the pro-family movement". [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::You remember right, Dan. He's problematic. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*# 18:51, 21 March 2007 TimSvendsen (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked RightWolf2 (contribs)
*# 18:27, 21 March 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RightWolf2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (Disruption, Threats. I did this to take the responsibility off Hoji.)
*{{user|Jeremiah4-22}} - for this edit http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biscuit&diff=97586&oldid=78309 (Blocked for 3 days) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Hillarycliton}} - blocked, all five contribs reverted --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Save Our Values}}
*#No contribs since 13 April --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AppliedFaith}} -trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=104416][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=104363], "sexual activity is always impure, even when conducted within marriage."
*#I gave him a question to answer at [[talk:Heterosexuality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for ONE YEAR --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:AnonymousLegion]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Mjc12]] - blocked by Conservative
*{{user|Polarbear}} - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by [[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
*TK blocked [[User:Cheney123|Cheney123]] (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
*[[User:Theelephant]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
*#18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
*{{user|Cooperstown4}} - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
*{{user|Zac4213}} - Was my block too hasty?
*{{user|Jaques}}- Many recent edits very similar to Wikipedia and use exact same pictures, See [[Whale]] and [[Plankton]].
: Jaques is a frequent contributor and many of his entries are good. The complaint would have to be more specific than this. There is nothing wrong about copying public domain pictures, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Mandolin2k}} - Joke entry (see "Jellystone")
*{{user|Godblessamerica}} - Copying from Wikipedia, prank edit here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wales&diff=prev&oldid=105299]
*{{user|Hamtandrus}} -self identified Holocaust denier. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=105297]
::I think he's just being facetious.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::: He also says that he's 'done with this - place' [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::'''No block''' Holocaust denial isn't against the rules. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|SRogers}} - anti-Semitism; see piped link Judaism|bankers in Federal Reserve article, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve&diff=90085&oldid=81656] -- 6 month block, (Conduct detrimental to Conservapedia --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Sureal}} - altered [[RMS Titanic]] to blame liberals for the loss of the ship, as well as previous bad edits for which he was warned. One week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Homeschool mom}} lays it on too thick - suspected parodist
: Warned 4/15. Awaiting response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: No response. Another user said that her edits are copies from Wikipedia. Looks like we may have to block. Give her another day to respond?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Homeschool mom agreed to leave on her own. Case closed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-27T23:14:23Z

Dave3172: /* Current Alerts */

'''This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==
*[[User:Tenna]] -- made a video game page full of obscenity and slander. Recommend permanent ban
*[[User:Fred]] -- questionable edits intended to embarass CP. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=46203][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state&diff=prev&oldid=41507] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Terryeo]], Please block user if he causes problems at [[Dianetics]] or [[Scientology]]. See the relevant talk pages. I gave him a warning so far.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
*{{user|GeorgeJ.W.}} keeps to add seemingly parodic, biased nonsense to articles, often attacking free software for being "communist". --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 19:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Aydindrill}} Causing havoc. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 22:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
**'''Blocked''' by Aschlafly as a sock of icewedge. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Scorpion}}, vote fraud via sockpuppets. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|CaptainCAVEMAN}} ought to be blocked. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Hacker}} Review of Hacker's edits: slightly less than 500 edits, of which only about 6 are new entries and only about 10 are substantive edits of existing entries. One of the new entries was "Geek". Unless this improves quickly, I propose blocking this account because this violates the 90/10 rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::That seems disingenuous. Yes, he has only a few new pages, but he has made a number of templates. And, maybe I read the "total" incorrectly, but it said 307 edits? At the risk of sounding tautological, this user is quite useful, IMHO. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Rvm}} first edit was reverted by MountainDew (I mean DanH). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Vossy}} created a weird article which someone else immediately blanked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AmeriCan}} - disinformation [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=112288] -- [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::If I may, AmeriCan included some incorrect information along with some that was partially correct. I am not sure this abuse at all. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::Also, he has a continuing habit of cut-paste from other sites. See, for example his entry for [[Producerism]], copied in full from [http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pr/producerism.htm]. His contributions to [[Canada]] and [[hijab]], among others, are similar cut/paste jobs.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 18:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Vandalized Ronald Reagan, sock of Coolhandsluke --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Ilovebeingconservative (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:28, 17 April 2007) (Earliest: 04:19, 17 April 2007) [2]
*{{user|Sterile}} - 90/10 rule --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*Terreista and LambChop -blocked, socks of each other --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|ILikeCookies}} - not so much abusive edits as just plain fluff--doesn't quite seem appropriate. What does everybody think?
*#This edit to [[Dan Quayle]] wasn't too bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dan_Quayle&diff=prev&oldid=110148]
*The 6 random hex digit sock perp is back: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|GofG}} useless edits - warned
*{{user|Vyngarsson}} - 11 April 2007, trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=prev&oldid=99990] for a good example. Another example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=103140&oldid=101324]
*{{user|Phiattiangel}} - 11 April 2007, trolling.

===Dealt with===
*[[User:JeffersonDarcy]] -- linking to NAMBLA site. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=NAMBLA&diff=prev&oldid=129221] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**First, we know from Andy that linking to creepy sites is okay, even if you wouldn't put the material itself on CP (like the Silent Scream site). Second, JeffersonDarcy is a very good contributor, and has helped with some of my law articles.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**TOTALLY agree. You can't have it both ways, you know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Of course I linked to the NAMBLA site - the article was about NAMBLA. Who do you think I should link to there, NAACP? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 16:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
***In the future, maybe you should get permission to place links to questionable content. Naughty naughty [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
****that's a fair concern - but when someone posts the necessity for citations on the discussion page, I don't think that linking to the organization's official website would be a bad idea. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 16:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
**The link could violate the Commandments, however this user's contributions do not show that this was anything more than a good faith attempt to improve the article. Therefore, '''No Block'''. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 12:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Truthandjustice}}
*#The reason given for Truthandjustice's block is: "'''Vandal'''") --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AdamNelson}} new user making sudden, unexplained big changes
*#---Ed, I saw it, about the same time Andy did. He's gone --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
*#09:49, 21 April 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AdamNelson (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Vandal & Per Andy
*{{user|AL}} off to a bad start --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*# 17:42, 19 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AL (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (made about a dozen edits in an hour, virtually all of which had to be reverted by others and myself because they removed factual info (e.g., SF entry) or inserted opinions as though they were facts (several instances))
*{{user|Nematocyte}} - warned not to annoy <s>TK</s> Terry.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:Ed, are you sure that TK has another problem with him? I am the one who has had problems with Nematocyte over my article [[Extraterrestrial life]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:I misunderstood I guess. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
* Dw1237200 sock of Ak1053287 (Who had a 3 day block by DanH starting on 12 April) got the second name on 13 April. Blocked, Infinite, both ID's. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|RightWolf2}} - threats, no useful edits --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*:: I vote for a block. I think he returned simply to threaten me, again. I've requested an explanation from him on his talk page. Who let him back? It's OK this time, but pretty soon we'll need some accountability for those who unblock someone who becomes a problem again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::Threatening, breaking the rules, blackmail... I'm no lawyer, but I don't think he has any legal grounds for his latest threat. I'll be blocking him. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::Isn't he already blocked? I got one of his socks earlier today. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*:::Didn't he admit to making overly polemic right-wing entries that he didn't really believe in himself awhile back to "test" the site? I remember getting into an argument with him about a month ago about his attempt to qualify Fred Phelps as a "leader in the pro-family movement". [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*::::You remember right, Dan. He's problematic. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*# 18:51, 21 March 2007 TimSvendsen (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked RightWolf2 (contribs)
*# 18:27, 21 March 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "RightWolf2 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (Disruption, Threats. I did this to take the responsibility off Hoji.)
*{{user|Jeremiah4-22}} - for this edit http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biscuit&diff=97586&oldid=78309 (Blocked for 3 days) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Hillarycliton}} - blocked, all five contribs reverted --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Save Our Values}}
*#No contribs since 13 April --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|AppliedFaith}} -trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=104416][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=104363], "sexual activity is always impure, even when conducted within marriage."
*#I gave him a question to answer at [[talk:Heterosexuality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*#Blocked for ONE YEAR --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:AnonymousLegion]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
*[[User:Mjc12]] - blocked by Conservative
*{{user|Polarbear}} - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by [[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
*TK blocked [[User:Cheney123|Cheney123]] (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
*[[User:Theelephant]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
*#18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
*{{user|Cooperstown4}} - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
*{{user|Zac4213}} - Was my block too hasty?
*{{user|Jaques}}- Many recent edits very similar to Wikipedia and use exact same pictures, See [[Whale]] and [[Plankton]].
: Jaques is a frequent contributor and many of his entries are good. The complaint would have to be more specific than this. There is nothing wrong about copying public domain pictures, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Mandolin2k}} - Joke entry (see "Jellystone")
*{{user|Godblessamerica}} - Copying from Wikipedia, prank edit here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wales&diff=prev&oldid=105299]
*{{user|Hamtandrus}} -self identified Holocaust denier. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=105297]
::I think he's just being facetious.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::: He also says that he's 'done with this - place' [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::'''No block''' Holocaust denial isn't against the rules. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|SRogers}} - anti-Semitism; see piped link Judaism|bankers in Federal Reserve article, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve&diff=90085&oldid=81656] -- 6 month block, (Conduct detrimental to Conservapedia --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Sureal}} - altered [[RMS Titanic]] to blame liberals for the loss of the ship, as well as previous bad edits for which he was warned. One week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{user|Homeschool mom}} lays it on too thick - suspected parodist
: Warned 4/15. Awaiting response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: No response. Another user said that her edits are copies from Wikipedia. Looks like we may have to block. Give her another day to respond?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Homeschool mom agreed to leave on her own. Case closed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Democratic Party

2007-04-26T18:23:58Z

Dave3172: /* Remove the polling data, it's worthless */

== Criticism ==

When President Bush talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans against it tended to oppose the move based on states' rights. Also, the comment that Democrats "don't care about American families" is opinion, not fact. It should be removed. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This article has the biggest POV I have ever seen, and it offers no adequate description of the Democratic party. Rather, it is a catalog of what conservatives believe that Democrats believe, and it is filled with slanted descriptions ("The Homosexual Agenda") that do not advance the purpose of the article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "List of conservative misinterpretations of the Democratic party." That would immediately solve the problems mentioned above.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet the [[Republican Party]] page has no such sections on Criticism. At least this site could have the courage to be somewhat fair in their heavily biased presentation of "facts". What a joke. I mean really, is this site trying to look idiotic??

:Yes. (Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.)--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 04:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Some of these? ==

"The Democratic Party, as a political unit, supports abortion, gun control, and organized labor, and the funding of '''some of these''' by taxes."

Seriously. "Some of these?" It's a list of three whole items. Gun control is legislation, unions are a bargaining community of workers, and abortion is a medical procedure. Of these, one needs funding, one can receive incentives, and one either is passed, or is not. If we're going to say "the Democratic party supports taxpayer-funded abortion", well, frankly, we'd be seriously stretching the facts, but we should at least have the courage to be concise and say that. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Ummm, why did the post with a link to his poll numbers get taken down. That seems like it goes against your commandments.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== ic ==

The name of the party is the Democratic Party. If you would like to use a disparaging name for the party, at least choose one that is an adjective. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Pro-Terrorism ==

So, let me get this straight. Being opposed to invading another country means that you support terrorism? That's logically unsound. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 15:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(A)There are terrorists in Iraq. (B) If you don't fight terrorists you are with them (George W. Bush 2003). C) Dem's voted against fighting terrorists...therefore they are with them!
How's that for logic yankee!

Logical fallacy in the extreme. (A) Was not, as far as I recall, conclusively proven at the time of the vote you cite. Please cite proof that it was, or retract. (B) Is a mans opinion. No less, no more. (B) is the logical fallacy known as a Falsified Dilemma, and your reliance upon it is the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Look them up. The given points also conflate the notion of going to war in Iraq with war against terrorists, which is yet another logical fallacy. The whole thing is also an Appeal to Emotion.

Oh, and I'm english. That's an ad hominem attack right there. The opposite of appeal to authority. Basically, you've taken two faulty assumptions, a list of people you disagree with, and used that to make a statement of fact (C). Now, I could care less about your personal opinion of me, and of your (or my) opinion of the party we're discussing, but in something that's supposedly encylopedic, using such logical constructs. I respectfully request you restrain your enthusiasm, and keep to facts, not opinions. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use of AD ==

The article uses AD for no apparent reason; for any given year, AD is automatically assumed unless BC or BCE is used. It also misuses it; it's AD 2007 and not the other way around. I've noticed other articles with a similar usage.

==Liberal Economics==
Liberal economics is not a '''political''' term.
Being an economic liberal means, among other things, little government intrusion into the markets or into the affairs of business. Liberal economics favors balanced budgets over either surpluses '''or''' deficits. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes; then we can safely say Ronald Reagan was a liberal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:: In this classical use of the term Ronald Reagan was an economic liberal. He supported deregulation, free trade, low taxes... That is basically what an "economic liberal" is. It has nothing to do with "Liberal" or "Conservative" and is somewhat of an archaic term. To make matters worse most liberals are not "economic liberals" (they support tariffs and heavy handed forms of central planning to promote "fairness" and "economic justice"). [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You've nailed the issue on the head. Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin are two recent examples in history of liberals; as User:Order raised the issue here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal#Liberal_outside_of_the_US] comparing the American use of the term vs its use outside the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::So if little government intervention in the economy is the liberal stance on economics... does that make socialism the conservative viewpoint? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 23:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good question. That presupposes liberalism and conservatism are polar opposites. Now, in a purely cycnical sense, one can say that they are, just as sanity and insanity are polar opposites. This is one reason I personally do not subscribe to the spectrum theory.

:::::In economic theory, liberality and prodigality are polar opposites. In American political culture, "liberals" really are for the most part socialists; however in its American use it carries a connotation of "treasonous". This is absent outside of America, were many American allies, Britain or Israel for example, have Socialist governments. Not just Socialist laws or policies, actual Socialist parties in control of government. So if we were to apply that American understanding of the term, i.e. that a "Socialist" is "anti-American", how do we explain close allies being "anti-American"?

:::::Thus, American political vocabulary is all screwed up. And all we can really say for sure is both terms, liberal and socialist, are abused and neither conveys a clear meaning. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== By Jefferson? ==

Democratic Party founded by Jefferson... Humm. I thought he founded the Democratic-Republican party which was actually referred to by contemporaries as the "Republican" party. The modern Democratic party is the result of several splinter and transitions just like the Republican Party. Arguably both parties are splinters from Jefferson's original party, just the Republican party went through the transition to the Whig party first. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:You should learn how to place information in a talk page appropriately

== Sources ==

Seriously, I thought I would clean up the presentation seeing as I can't in good conscience touch the content... but... GEE WHIZ these sources are awful. A column? Cheesy little websites with election trivia? Pictures of maps? This is the best we could do? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Remove the polling data, it's worthless ==

Opinion polls are not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, except maybe to provide background information for a specific political event, such as an election. If someone is reading this article two years from now, do you think the democrat Congress's approval rating in the second week of April 2007 will be relevant to them? Of course not. I'm not going to summarily remove it now, but I suspect most intelligent people will agree with me that it doesn't belong.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm more than happy to let it stay...provided we add the same polling data to the Republican Party page and the George W. Bush page. We are supposed to be even-handed here, right?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Islam

2007-04-18T17:32:47Z

Dave3172: "Five Pillars" suggestion

Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?

2007-04-18T16:43:20Z

Dave3172: /* yes */

I personally believe the Democrats have zero clue about the war on terror. So much so, they want to change the wording, terror on the yellow brick road. How about a little insight to how they think, I give Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., "You can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental". They want to end the war on terror using congress. I've got news for anybody and everbody- the terrorists are not laying down their arms surrendering. Quit what? They attacked us and they will attack us until we are all dead, that's all they want. Anything less, you are dreaming of negotiations and nice talk. You are thinking irresponsibly.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== no ==
absolutily not! Why did Osama endorse kerry? liberals are more cocerned with spending your money on crazy social programs than on defense. In the words of Benjamin Netanyahu, "Today we have the power to destroy them. Now we must summon the will to do so". Its as if democrats dont understand the threat at all. they are too worked up over "global warming" (which I am sure they think is '''100%''' President Bush's fault!) [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:Maybe he endorsed Kerry knowing that it would benefit Bush. Al Qaeda benefit at least as much from the wars as they would from a lack of wars - think about what motivates their recruits. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==yes==
1993 WTC bombing. Omar Abdel-Rahman was arrested, tried and convicted. That happened under Clinton. GWB hasn't even come close to trying, let alone convicting, any senior member of AQ that was behind the 9/11 bombing. Terrorism hasn't been reduced globally since the "war" began; if anything, it has spread. Now there are bombings in moderate Arab countries like Morocco. AQ almost stole Somalia from under our noses, and would have if it wasn't for Ethiopia stepping in. In no facet have the policies of GWB made a serious dent in terrorism.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::have there been any terrorist bombings here? no. war=success. but would anything be better with democrats in charge? do you seriuosly think we would be better off with clinton?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::You mean besides 9/11? Or are you saying that the War on Terror begins and ends at the US Border? Because if you take it as a whole, terrorism has only comtinued to ramp up since 9/11. Would the Democrats be better? Until they show me that they are as incompetent as this Administration, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== YES ==
:Surprisingly. The real issue with terrorism is not that they want to just kill us. Were that the case, all they would have to do is start by killing every American they come across, around the world. This is not being done. Rather, the purpose of a terrorist act is the act itself. (I have spent significant time and energy studying this--even spoke at a conf. on the subject.) Take the example of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Now, as a thought experiment, ask your self, honestly, if no one had died in the buildings--if the terrorists were caught before they could kill more people than were on the planes--would it have still been a significant moment in American history? If you're being honest, the answer is yes. The sight of two enormous buildings collapsing is just too much for most of us to comprehend.

:Now, looking at the same event, if the planes were empty, and the buildings were empty, would we still have been as awestruck? Again, if you're being honest the answer is yes. I argue that it is not the fact that people died in the attacks, but the attacks themselves are the reason we are affected by terrorism.

:The message of terrorism is this: we (the terrorists) can do this to you whenever we want. We (Americans) are supposed to believe that if this giant building can be taken down, anyplace we hide will not be safe.

:When we look at our national response to the attack, the Republican-led administration has done exactly what the terrorists wanted in the first place: they listened to the message and played it over and over again for everyone to see and (re)experience. At the risk of a lifetime ban, the Republicans could not have responded better had Osama bin Laden been in the White House. We were meant to be afraid--to disrupt our society--to fear their strength.

:Now ask yourself this: Before 9/11 had you ever heard of Al Qaeda? More than likely you hadn't. A few of you might have--those i tune with the news cycles and so-on. Today, everyone knows the name Al Qaeda. Their name recognition is incredible. They are the Coca Cola of terrorism. When most of us ask for a tissue we say Kleenex, not thinking about the name brand, and now the same is true of Al Qaeda.

:The reason I believe the Democrats can fight terrorism is because I believe they will go back to attacking it through anti- and counter-terrorism tactics, e.g. Intelligence. Think of the movie Munich if you want a good example. I have no problem in my liberal heart with one of our SEALs putting two in the back of a terrorist's skull. That is how terrorism needs to be fought--not drawn out into the open-that's what they want. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2007-04-18T16:38:23Z

Dave3172: /* Better */

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. Enhanced graphics allow game makers to make suggestive, and even pornographic images. That's a moral argument, here's a differant side. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Better==
Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?

2007-04-18T15:43:32Z

Dave3172:

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-18T00:59:35Z

Dave3172: /* Really */

{{debate}}
I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into [[hard-core pornography]]? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Um...might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only leathal when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).

::: From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.

:::: The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was '''''very''''' angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire '''''armed''''' police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be '''''much''''' less than paying for a police department. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Holocaust denial

2007-04-14T04:34:30Z

Dave3172: /* Wikipedia */

==Wikipedia==

While I disagree on the way Wikipedia words this, I think it's slightly misleading to call their reporting of the fact that people do, in fact, deny the Holocaust, an endorsement. A few people do not believe in the Holocaust, and this is a fact, regardless of the validity of this belief. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well, I've raised this issue in several forums with Wikipedia; and given the way the term "Holocaust denier" is so lightly thrown around in Wikipdia (it is Chip Berlet calling Danial Brandt a Holocaust denier, and Wikipedia's refusal to take it down, that is the root cause of all the problems WP has had with Brandt), it's not surprising this pejoritive has boomeranged home once again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:OK, so the stuff about Wikipedia's abuse of the term gives undue weight right now; I do intend to bring it back, however, as the article expands. And there are other issues regarding Wikipedia & Holocaust denial that also need sun light. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:11, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

How is holocaust denial different from denying that slavery ever existed in the United States, because it doesn't exist now?

I find this article offensive. I am a holocaust denier myself. [[User:Hamtandrus|Hamtandrus]] 18:11, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Then please crawl back under your rock.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Waterboarding

2007-04-13T20:57:06Z

Dave3172:

RobS, did you read the citation? It says "Mr Cheney implied that the technique - a form of simulated drowning - was used on the alleged September 11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is being held at Guantánamo Bay."-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, but this isn't Wikipedia. Under WP:Verifiability, you can add that kinda garbage despite the fact that the actual radio transcript PROVES it is a false citation from ''the Guardian'', as well as the other link that was removed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Show me the transcript.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Here. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061024-7.html] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I read it. He says, "And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, '''that's been a very important tool''' that we've had to be able to secure the nation." I'm putting the line back, but with the quote. You'll like it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:06, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: I added this - "In a recent interview, [[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]] described waterboarding as a "very important tool" in the interrogation of [[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]], but said that he did not consider it torture.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061024-7.html</ref>." No doubt it's factual, it's straight from the interview. Cut out the middle man. Take that, BBC!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

It reads,
:'''...our ability to interrogate..."'''; says nothing about waterboarding and continues with,
:"The Congress recently voted on this question of military commissions and '''our authority to continue the interrogation program'''. It passed both Houses, fortunately. The President signed it into law, but the fact is 177 Democrats in the House -- or excuse me, 162 Democrats in the House voted against it, and 32 out of 44 senators -- Democratic senators voted against it.
and as he concludes in the next sequence,
:" We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.
So even as the ''Guardian'' stated, "implied" is clearly false. And the ''Christian Science Monitor'' article is pure defamatory, disinformation, wholey without a shred of credible merit, and patently false. Any claim on any subject from any of these organizations, or the authors involved, is henceforth suspect [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:17, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

He said, "we don't torture," because he doesn't think waterboarding is torture. Why would he say it was a "very important tool" in that investigation, had it not been used? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:The question posited by the host on behalf of listeners was
::'' if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we [the good folks in the Heartland] are all for it, '''if it saves American lives'''."
:''The Guardian'' conventiently left off both the hypothetical nature of the question, more specifically, and most importantly, ''the qualifier'', "'''if it saves American lives'''". Neither the "No brainer" headline they ran with, or the article abstract, carry the qualifier to the hypothetical, "torture is a no-brainer '''if it saves American lives'''." Thus by no tortured reasoning now can any of these sources, including the White House transcript, be used in this article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, why can't we use a White House transcript to say what Dick Cheney said? You seem to be slightly off base on a lot of these arguments, but I really fail to see why a primary source of what Dick Cheney said doesn't properly explain what Dick Cheney said.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have to agree w/ Ames on this one. Why can't a WH transcript suffice? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It's too late. This is nothing more than an effort to defame a living person, and does not address the subject matter of this article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
To defame a living person with '''''what he said on the record?''''' Do you censor everything bad anyone you like does or says? Becuase I bet that keeps you busy - it'd keep me busy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:It does become a chore to defend against false defamations, having to prove a negative. Let's call it responding to left-wing McCarthyism and McCartyite-style smears. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
It becomes copious and valueless to fight with you on this topic. You seem unable to acknowledge the points presented against you. As such, it is a waste of my time. Could a ''reasonable sysop'' resolve this debate please?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry but I just have to disagree with you; simply because ''the Guardian'' and ''Christian Science Monitor'' peaked your interest in defaming Dick Cheney with bald face lies gives no reason whatsoever to keep talking about it. And rewarding readers with appetites for lies with more contortions to try and make these lies credible is scandalous, IMHO. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Perhaps both sides need to cool off. Ames, please review [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:31, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Ed, I think you're right. Could you look at the debate, though? The question is whether a White House transcript of an interview with Dick Cheney may be used in an article on waterboarding.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Debate ==

Try [[Debate:Is waterboarding torture?]]. It might help to bring clarity of thinking. Then we can resume work on the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry Ed, but that is not the issue here under discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oh, you mean I have to actually read all that talk above? :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I can summarize it. Two prominent mainstream publication printed false information with the express intent to defame the VP of the US. It has been proven false, with damage to those publications reputations. Discussing it any further serves no purpose, IMO. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:44, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I thought it was more, Rob and I disagree as to the interpretation of a VP's statements in a transcript. As a result, he would like to strike any mention of it from the article. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Unless it's an urgent matter, it might be preferable to let it go for a few days. We can always insert it later if the 3 of us can agree on a wording. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

=="mildest forms of torture"==
Unless there is some citation for this, it should be removed. Torture is torture.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:57, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Mass murder

2007-04-13T20:21:26Z

Dave3172:

Cut -

'The greatest mass murders in recorded history took place in the Communist countries of the twentieth century.'

Although I think I know where you're going here (Mao and so on), these weren't directly mass murder. Terrible, yes, but wasn't the holocaust worse in that all of those deaths were ordered?

[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

:Yes, yes, I mustn't inject my own personal opinion into the article. You can help me stay calm. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:: If that remark was in earnest (sarcasm's fairly hard to pick up on the interweb), then I'm glad. Collaboration for great justice! [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

:LOL, I am the primary enforcer of the rule against sarcasm here, so you can relax. I'm almost always in earnest. I use smileys or the like when I think context isn't enough. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Cut:
:for the most part due to the atrocities of the two World Wars (the [[Holocaust]] is often seen as the most grievous example of this), although actions such as economic measures which killed many, e.g. the Great Leap Forwards in Maoist China, or the widespread starvation that took place in Imperial Russia 1900-1917 could also construed as mass murder, although they are not as clear-cut

This is unsourced and really just sounds like personal opinion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'd agree. The stated goal of the Holocaust was murder. The Great Leap Forward did not have that as a goal; it was just an inevitable byproduct. One addition I would make was Stalin's extermination of the kulaks.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Nancy Pelosi

2007-04-13T13:26:26Z

Dave3172: /* WashPost Editorial */

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps users might want to know ''when'' she was first elected, and how many terms she has served, and exactly where her district is.....there are several overlapping the city and county of San Francisco, I seem to remember. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would agree with this. Also, we need to look closely at campaign contributions she's given to other members of Congress; it appears with her $50-90 million net worth, she basically purchased the House leadership position by surrounding herself with people she contributed money to get them elected to the House in the first place. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Which see, all previous Speakers. It is germain, but hardly unusual. And nothing illegal about it. Newt and Tip O'Neil gave away millions. I did like your contributed picture better, Rob. I think it captured her true "inner beauty". --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Newt and them guys didn't have the personal wealth Pelosi has. While yes, some of these figures control donors and bring influence that way, I don't beleive there's been a Party leader in recent memory who purchased her way to the top with her own personal fortune as Pelosi has. And there is no other explanation, how a clearly radical figure who openly confesses to holding radical minority views has been able to assume leadership of not just a major party, but now the the majority party.

:::Let's put Pelosi's wealth in perspective; her net worth is approximately twice that of GW Bush & John Edwards who are worth roughly the same, and about half of John Kerry's sole-and separate fortune apart from Theresa.

:::Actually I had a better photo yesterday but lost it, still trying to find it. Amazing what a little bondo and $249 Earl Schieb paint job can do, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liam.... ==

I don't think a hit piece, without citation, even on one so deserving as Madame Speaker, is appropriate. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

There are citations. I'll add a few more.

*Liam, sign your posts, please. Nothing on her being the first woman Speaker? I think "Criticism" should fall below the other items on the page, eh? I complain about the same things on Reagan, etc. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm writing more for the Pelosi page right now. And sorry I only just now learned how to sign my posts. --[[User:Go liam|Go liam]] 01:03, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Liam...you might want to check check wastingtonpost.com for Thursday's lead editorial..... --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
==Quotation==
The current "quotation":''"The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."''

The actual quote:"When I accept the Speaker's gavel, I will be taking it out of the hands of the special interests and put it into the hands of America's working families and children for a better future. There will be civility, integrity and bipartisanship. We'll conduct ourselves in the manner the American people expect."[http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/12/middle_class_ma.php]

*I am happy to see that Madame Speaker, aside from her foreign policy aspirations, also agrees, through word and deed (using non-union migrant workers at her winery), with the majority of Americans who are against labor unions. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== NY Post quote...fictitious and misleading... ==

The actual, full quote from the article follows....

<blockquote>
Pelosi actually chided the White House for not objecting to the visit to Damascus on Sunday by three GOP House members. "I didn't hear the White House speaking out about that," she whined.

'''Actually, the White House did just that: "We ask that people not go on these trips," said spokeswoman Perrino. "We discourage it. Full stop."'''

'''Besides, even Pelosi must understand that there's a huge difference between three regular legislators calling on Assad and the Speaker of the House - arguably the highest-ranking Democrat in Congress - doing so.'''
As such, she is seen as the representative of the president's political opposition - one that desperately seeks to undercut and reverse his foreign policy.

More than two centuries ago, Congress passed the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. As an elected official, Pelosi isn't restrained by the law - but its meaning is clear.

Negotiating with world leaders - particularly those at odds with the United States - should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.
</blockquote>

I have removed the quote.--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hype==
*''Pelosi indicated at a press conference that she had carried a message from the government of Israel. She then said she carried a message from the President. <ref>http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=111801</ref> Both of her claims about message carrying were lies. Pelosi told reporters the meeting "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert". She may face criminal charges.''

This is a little hyperbolic, now. Whose gonna do it, one of the fired US Attorneys? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, there are many who were not fired. And, last I checked, the Attorney General can perform all of their tasks, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yah but you know the chance of this happening is 1000 to one; you probably got better odd on somebody trying to introduce impeachment proceedings against Bush. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Rob, do I detect some note of disapproval at political appointees being removed from "at the pleasure of" appointments? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Iglesia, the guy removed in New Mexico is a real scream. A week after he's removed, the new appointee indicts a former Democratic mayor and the former 30 year Democratic State Senate Majority Leader for embezzeling $4 million during constuction of a new Courthouse (see the irony there--even building a Courthouse is a corrupt enterprise in New Mexico). And of course $40,000 of the stolen cash ended up in Bill Richardson's campaign chest. Now considering the Courthouse has been in use now for nearly 5 years, how did this all manage to evade news headlines unitl the day after the US Attorney was removed? This one will be interesting to follow in Washington. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I actually brokered a interaction between a United States Senator and the Attorney for the San Diego area, where the Senator was demanding action on filing against Illegal Immigrants, which was not being done. The Senator actually contacted the White House wondering why this particular appointee was refusing to prosecute crimes, unless it was the 6th or so offense. Fast-forward several months, and this same Senator is one of the chief complainant's against the President, claiming the firings were unjustified and purely political! I wonder how one takes the "politics" out of political appointments? ROFL! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yep. It's like Krauthammer said, Gonzales gets the boot after this screw up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== That stuff about Wolf, Pitts, and Aderholt ==

It appears that the inclusion of the info about those three congress members is disputed. I'm figuring its a matter of it detracting too much from Pelosi's account of the trip? I suppose that could be the case. It might fit better on the Syria page. Or is there another reason, maybe regarding the way I worded it? Because I could change that too.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 07:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*IMO, including the information about the three Republican Representatives is germain, so long as one explains the reason for the mild criticism they received was due to their relative minor stature, compared to the Speaker of the House, who is third in line to the Presidency. Also, they did not hold press conferences asserting they were the bearer of diplomatic messages. As stated, it erroneously gave the impression that 1) the White House didn't criticize their going, and 2) maybe because they were of the same political party, they received less heat. You might also google, and add a line their going wasn't something new, dozens of Members of Congress have visited there, much to the displeasure of the White House, including Senator Specter, another Republican. I might add they all got the same baloney words from the dictator. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**True; there is a big difference between a routine Congressional fact finding mission and (1) a stated aim ''prior'' to undermine US foreign policy (2) all the doggie doo Pelosi stepped in when carrying through her threats. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== WashPost Editorial ==

Um, you know, posting the WP editorial in its entirety probably goes beyond the bounds of "fair use" and into the land of copyright violation. Maybe it should be excerpted instead? (especially since it has a link to the full editorial for anyone who wants to read it...) --[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 13:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*LOL. Sorry, it is fair game. But nice try. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't claim to be an expert, nor do I want to belabor the point, but reproducing a copyrighted work ''in full'' is almost certainly a violation.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 14:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, thanks for your concern. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As someone who has worked in the journalism industry, WJ Thomas is right. Fair use allows for reproducing a couple of paragraphs. You CANNOT reprint a editorial in full unless you have the express permission of the originiator of the material. Proper procedure online is to have a graph or two and then link to where the original material is located.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Kurt Vonnegut

2007-04-12T16:21:03Z

Dave3172: Added a small detail to death line

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

Vonnegut has described himself as an [[atheist]],<ref>Some question whether Kurt Vonnegut was an atheist. He has described himself as a "secular humanist," and the majority of secular humanists are atheist or agnostic.</ref> and in 1992 won the "Humanist of the Year" award.<ref>http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Kurt_Vonnegut_Jr.</ref> He attributed his atheism to having studied anthropology, yet he has been often respectful of those with faith, such as observing that "there were no Atheists in foxholes."<ref>http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-v.htm</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Authors|Vonnegut, Kurt]]

Talk:Boudicca

2007-04-12T16:11:13Z

Dave3172:

Ed, I think she does deserve some independent mention. She led one of the most successful revolts against the Roman Empire. I think it ranks up there with the slave uprising of Spartacus and Vercingetorix's Gallic revolt. Killing off four Legions is no small success.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:33, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: Boudicca and her revolt gets entire books in Tacitus - why should CP be any different? She definitely needs her own article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:37, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

agreed she was a monster. maybe you could mention her breifly in the Celts article with a link but she needs her own article. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, 2 to 1. She stays. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:06, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Democracy in action! Huzzah!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

File:Ghwb.jpg

2007-04-12T16:06:30Z

Dave3172: Bush 41

Bush 41

Talk:Boudicca

2007-04-12T15:33:16Z

Dave3172: Making the case for a separate page

Talk:Jimmy Carter

2007-04-12T04:01:23Z

Dave3172:

Is this the same president who got an award for brokering a deal with North Korea which they went on to break secretly? It had something to do with crediting him for ensuring that NK would '''not''' do something with nukes that would endanger the world, i.e., he got credit for preventing them. But we found out years later that they did the thing he got credit for preventing. Lemme google that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

*Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.
*The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification.
*In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program. [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/12/164726.shtml]

Yes, just what I thought. Now let's see if I can find a more credible sources than Ruddy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:54, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

*Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.
*The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts. [ibid]

I didn't know about this one. Can anyone else verify this? It has the ring of truth, and I've always considered Carter the worst US president of the 20th century - especially on [[human rights]], but this is not a blog. This is an encyclopedia, and everything must be verifiable and trustworthy. Someone else a bit less emotionally involved than I am should continue this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:57, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

My impression is that Jimmy Carter was and is a conservative. His vilification was due to "Reagan conservatives" justifying Reagan's presidency. Reagan was actually a radical who tried, and in many ways succeeded, in turning back the clock. Carter supported the Vietnam War and is a religious man. His support of the ERA was tepid at best.

I have to take issue with the first line, "He is not only regarded by most Americans across the political spectrum as being the worst president of the 20th century, but he is also considered by many conservatives to be among the worst presidents in the entirety of American history."

That has the ring of the mealy-mouthed 'Some people say..." that is so common among journalists. It's just a vague impression that is not in any way quantified.

Is there a source for this information? Is there a recent survey of people saying who the worst president of the 20th century is? As it is, there's no foundation to this statement.

: I think both Richard Nixon and Warren G. Harding get in line before Carter on the Liberal Bad President List. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Carter's reputation was in big trouble long before Reagan ever took office; let me give a real simple illustration why Jimmy Carter was, and remains roundly considered one of the most ineffective Presidents of late memory. Carter served from 1977 to 1981; in that time, the Democrats controlled ''both'' House & Senate, i.e. there was '''no''' divided government. The number one priority of the Congressional Black Caucus for each and every one of those four years, was passage and signing into law the [[Martin Luther King]] National Holiday. For some reason, Mr. Carter just could not get the job done. There must have been other priorities that prevented President Carter from convincing a majority of members of ''his own party'', this was an important thing to get done during his first term of office. By contrast, Ronald Reagan, and the Republican controlled Senate, had no problem convincing the Democratically controlled House of Representatives to pass this legislation. And history records the facts of this matter, which is illustrative of Jimmy Carter's failed, ineffectual leadership. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Not going to argue that Carter was a good president; he wasn't. But most polls of historians and the like consistently place Carter towards the bottom of the third quarter or top of the fourth quarter. Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Nixon tend to score below him for presidents in the 20th Century.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:01, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Gardasil

2007-04-11T15:33:11Z

Dave3172: /* The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc.) */

Favorite soundbite from televised debates 2/4-2/5: "This is about corporate welfare for Merck and making guinea pigs of Texas school girls."

The proposed HPV vaccine mandate uses 11-year-old school girls as guinea pigs for Merck. “HPV” really means “Help Pay for Vioxx,” since Merck is seeking state laws to give it billions of dollars in new revenue. Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities projected sales of this vaccine to be billions if states require it. “I could not think of a bigger boost” to Merck, he said.

But this vaccine is a loser. Michigan recently rejected Merck’s attempt for a state mandate there. Indiana rebuffed Merck’s attempt there. Maryland refused to mandate this vaccine. The Texas legislature opposes imposing this vaccine by mandate. Only after Merck hired Texas Governor Rick Perry’s former chief-of-staff, and funded the “Women in Government” group to advance Merck’s agenda, did the Texas Governor bypass the legislature in a move of dubious legality. Follow the money.

This new vaccine hs not been shown to prevent a single case of cancer. Merck, in its own package insert, does not claim that this vaccine lasts more than a few years. The average age of cervical cancer is 48. There is no evidence giving this vaccine to an 11-year-old will protect against a condition 37 years later. Not even Merck makes that claim.

Merck wants the states to require purchase of its vaccine, and kids can feel free to have sex. Only in the fine print do we learn that no long term benefits or risks of this vaccine have even been tested. Merck did not even test if this vaccine causes cancer.

Don’t be fooled by this drug company chicanery. Follow the money and see that this vaccine is great for Merck and bad for the rest of us. It costs $360 for the shots alone, and up to $1000 when administrative fees and follow-up office visits are included, particularly when there is an adverse reaction.

This controversial vaccine was approved only about eight months ago, based on testing of perhaps only a few hundred young girls. Do not make guinea pigs out of all our children. Parents who want to give this to their children can already do so. This vaccine does not prevent any diseases contagious at school and should not be used as a condition of entering school. It should not be forced on our children.

:Well, honestly. The vaccine only serves to protect. A good Christian girl will stick to her morals and won't go out having sex because of this vaccine, and a girl who had already planned on having sex would benefit from this, because it protects them. Do you feel inclined to step on a rusty nail after you get a tetanis booster? --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::please see the discussion in ASchafly's thread between him and me. I have in good faith attempted to contribute valuable, moral information here, but he is questioning my credentials in bad faith. I hope he reads up a little and stops the attacks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: Palmd0001, your recent edit was unsupported and false. See [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/16/DI2007011600929.html here].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::My edits are, of course, completely supported, not false, cited, and written by an expert (me) which is more than I can say for much else here after my little discussion with you [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Question][[http://www.example.com link title]] Any fair and balanced observer will see that you have no interest in the truth. I had really hoped otherwise.
Your potential friend, Peter [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Dave, thank you for the NEJM citation. It will probably not last.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No problem. I am anticipating the inevitable edit followed by "The New England Journal of Medicine is not a valid source" statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 21:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Condom effectiveness==

: Have kept condom statement and also cited conflicting report.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The way it's currently written is nonsensical, as in the NEJM study condoms clearly reduced HPV transmission. Unfortunately the conflicting report you cited isn't a link so I can't compare the 2 sources.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Murray, Google search the whole cite. The first link you see should be the report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Austin, just how much of your "conflicting" report did you read. A lot of the report talks about the effectiveness of condoms. Also, the NEJM report came out two years ''after'' your cited report. So any discussion about testing methodology is moot since it couldn't apply to the NEJM report.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: From my link "All published epidemiologic studies of HPV have methodologic limitations that make the effect of condoms in the prevention of HPV infection unknown. While a few studies on genital HPV and condom use showed a protective effect, most studies on genital HPV infection and condom use did not show a protective effect." Surely you can't be arguing that one article in a academic journal is a better citation than a report to Congress.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Austin, also from your link:

::"As described above, available clinical and epidemiologic data indicate that genital HPV infection is transmitted by contact with infected skin or mucosa. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HPV (125;126). Studies of HPV infection in men demonstrate that most HPV infections (both HPV DNA and HPV-associated lesions) are located on parts of the penis that would be covered by a
condom (48;54-57;63;127-129).

::Published studies that have assessed the effectiveness of male condoms to prevent HPV infection or any STD other than HIV are limited by multiple methodologic issues (117;118). In general, these limitations are likely to underestimate condom effectiveness (130-132)."

::Again, Austin, the biggest problem is that the NEJM report is from 2006 and the report to Congress is from 2004. How can you use it to discredit a newer study using improved methodology?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The effectiveness of condoms, in general, is a controversial issue. Does anyone know the standards of this project for treating controversial matters?

Pending a clear statement otherwise from management, I would say we ought to describe each side in the controversy '''accurately'''. We should not, for example, claim an advocate is on one side when it's on the other. We should not 'torture the meaning' of a source to make it support one side, either.

All agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought the way I had it before was pretty clear. It stated evidence for condoms, which is VAST, and also pointed out that they are SECOND most effective. THIS IS NOT AN AREA OF SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. Adding a moralistic statement about them in the PROPER place is fine, but really, this was quite clear as of yesterday. If anyone else wants to present an expert with credentials that equal or surpass mine on the subject, please do.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 12:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was entirely clear as of yesterday. I don't know that there are 2 sides to this. Bottom line is that condoms have been shown to reduce transmission, and the current version of the article is flatly false. Nobody is saying that condom use will ''prevent'' transmission altogether, becauce the NEJM study makes clear that isn't the case. But to describe them as "ineffectual" makes no sense.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Among 27 estimates from 20 studies, there was no consistent evidence that condom use reduces the risk of becoming HPV DNA-positive. [http://www.stdjournal.com/pt/re/std/abstract.00007435-200211000-00018.htm;jsessionid=GJLPFHnbKqghK8hXPwCFmJ7ZVMTZWj4dJq12GHNfFyz21yvM62jF!721371455!-949856145!8091!-1]

:I'm just a layman but it took me only one google hit to find this link to the Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I respect your skills and intelligence, but google is not an appropriate search engine for medical studies. You should try PubMed. Also, your combination of evidence is, in essence, a meta-analysis, which cannot be done as simply as you have. The general consensus in the medical literature is that condoms significanlty reduce the risk of all STDs, including HPV (the the NEJM article), but of course, abstinence, meaning NO CONTACT AT ALL, is most effective. I wont revert, but you should reconsider your back-of-the-envelope meta-analysis. Also, the cited meta analysis is old (2002), and the type of study in NEJM was designed to be more accurate. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm well aware that the general view is "that condoms significantly reduce the risk". But that is not the question our young Christian friend has brought up. Moreover, there's a huge public battle about strategies to reduce the incidence of VD and unwanted pregnancy. The claim that "condoms are the best way" is related to questions about their effectiveness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, all my edits here and in STDs clearly stated that abstinence is the best and only certain method. Condoms are a very effective second best, and Ive always clearly stated that. In the world of medical literature, 5 years old is OLD for a study, and meta-analyses are considered the second weakest form of study. [[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, no one here claimed they are the best way. The cite said that condoms are the SECOND best way to avoid HPV. The first, obviously, being abstinence. I can't believe that this is a controversial statement. It's common sense.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:27, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As PalMD said, that article is 5 years old. There's plenty of evidence from the last 2 years. Try some of these: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T80-4HMV7J6-2&_user=4429&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059602&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4429&md5=24c5f1dc80356bed16618f8390c08c01 - 1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16223580&dopt=Citation - 2][http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v194n8/36645/36645.html - 3] [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to debate the issue. I want to work with you to find a way to '''present''' the issue in the article.

Austin has brought up the effectiveness issue. If some medical authority calls the [[male condom]] "second-best", you can come up with a citation for that and place it in the article. Just don't do it in an argumentative way. Try this:

*Abstinence is the most effective way to prevent its transmission. (Blank) recommends use of the [[male condom]], calling it "second best".

Oh, but this entails the argument that "some people won't be abstinent, so we better tell everyone to use condoms". Maybe that's why Schlafly reverted before.

We can't sweep the "best strategy" issue under the rug, and it involves more than just "what recent studies" say. There are moral aspects, too. And also the way you phrase something has an effect on behavior (see [[Pygmalion effect]]). Telling people '''if you are going to have extramarital sex, do (blank)''' is tantamount to egging them on to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, Ok, first, we do have the reference that Dave put in. It is simply MEDICAL FACT. It is not currently in dispute in the medical world. As to the moral implications, I would hope that those reading this would have a good moral foundation. If they are planning on remaining abstinent, wonderful. If not, they should know what to do next, or they will spread disease. This is not a pygmalion thing...it is public health. I thought that the way I originally presented it was fairly good. Check it out. If we are to add a section on morals, I think it takes away from the encyclopedic/factual nature of the article. A link to an article about morals should be sufficient.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 14:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, you're losing me: what is a medical fact?
::#That the most effective method of VD prevention is abstinence?
::#That the "second-best" method is condom use?
::#That UNAIDS is right when the advocate several methods '''other than abstinence''' as "effective"?
::#That PR campaigns which tell people, "if you can't be abstinent before marriage or faithful within marriage, try (blank)" are effective in preventing VD?
::It's a complex problem. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abstinence==
There is a problem, at the least, with the phrasing regarding abstinence. People abstaining from sex do not have sexual partners. This should be fixed or removed. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Before making major revisions..==
Consider discussing here...even if you are the boss.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Or,on the other hand, make unilateral controversial changes. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 16:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, AIDS, etc.)==

This seems like a slightly bizarre comment. Yes, I suppose it is accurate as far as it goes, but what's the point? Why stop there? Why not also add that it does not protect against the common cold, pneumonia, leukaemia, ingrowing toenails and being run over by a bus? It's a vaccine against HPV, not all STDs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Because that doesn't assist the ideological bent of said statement.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks

2007-04-10T15:14:13Z

Dave3172:

== Rewrite ==

I'm going to take a swing at this... bear with me. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK, I added a very terse timeline of events sourced from a combination of CNN's timeline and the FBI press release. I just included the key events of what happened... not the response during the day. Selective inclusion of the response could be perceived as partisan and total inclusion of everything... well... that'd be plagiarism. I also gave the most recent estimates for casualties I could find.

:I ''did not touch'' the "conspiracy theories" or "events following 9/11" as those are both way too political for liberal old me. My personal opinion is that the "events following" section should be a ''little'' bit more fleshed and written in a more encyclopedic tone... the immediate result was the [[War on Terror]] which has its own article. I also think that the "conspiracy theories" section needs a lot less space but possibly a link to another article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:17, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh... and I have an idea for an additional section which I may tackle unless someone does it first.

*"Planning and Execution"
*"Emergency Response"
*"Subsequent Health Issues"

:Any others? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I really wanted to go to bed... we seem to have lost the talk history in the BORF page move vandalism... I could only save the section I was editing and so still had in my browser cache. There wasn't much in here and I think the edits I made are pretty vanilla. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK... I added a section about the economic impact and the consequences on US policy. The economic impact can stand some significant increase from someone who understand the ins and outs better than I do. The consequences on US policy should remain brief as most will lead to their own articles. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:No one wanted to take a swing at it so I just cut the Conspiracy Theories section down to "Conspiracy Theories exist / are easily disproven" and the Popular Mechanics article. If people want to expound on the conspiracy theories, I would suggest creating a new article for it, and linkt to it from here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::I have one suggestion on the conspiracy section: rather than say "easily disproven," maybe "comprehensively disproven" would be a better term. Easily sounds more like opinion, while comprehensively is not only more neutral, but also more powerful. Just a thought.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Planned Parenthood

2007-04-02T20:15:44Z

Dave3172: /* Misattributed Quotes */

Biased, one-sided, of dubious accuracy, and a transparent attempt to demonise an organisation. Welcome to conservapedia. How can this site be expected to have any credability when all it offers is a distorted image of reality? I am surprised I do not see any accusations of deliberate genocide by Planned Par... oh, wait, there they are. My mistake. Now, how long before someone tries to compare them to a certian well-known dictator or his political party? - Suricou Raven.

I'm new at creating articles so any help would be great thanks.

:Thanks, Kathryn. I'm going to "move" your article to [[Planned Parenthood]] with the 2nd P capitalized. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I thought I'd have more time to work on this page but not untill tommorow. So it will be short for now I guess.

"Planned Parenthood vigorously opposes abstinence" -- Their website lists "continuous abstinence" as a form of birth control, with a long discussion of its pros and possible problems. It is in fact the first method listed. http://plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm

"They profit from [[abortion]]" -- They're a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Is it accurate to say they 'profit' from anything at all? [[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 01:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Article is starting out very bias. It is too anti-planned parenting and since it has no sitations I am removing that part of the article and anyone who can help by contributing usefull information that is not bias would be lovely. Thanks :) ~ And also I am unsure how to make citations or whatever so im just adding links as subscripts and hopefully someone can help me out thanks

:Can there be some balance in this article? I think I've seen ''provides maternal and reproductive health-care to women and couples'' entered and romoved multiple times.

:The issue seems to be:
:*Is PP only about abortions and contraceptives - i.e., '''preventing''' pregnancy and childbirth?
:*Or is it a significant provider of pregnancy and childbirth '''support'''? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I keep trying to make the article but Bananaman keeps erasing it just to say they preform abortions. It's getting annoying and it'd be lovely if someone could ban them or something so I could complete this article to be completely unbias and not lacking any important information.

::I'm sorry that you disagree with me Karyn, but Planned Parenthood is clearly in the busines of performing abortions, funding abortions, promoting abortions as birth control, and using abortion as population control. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that your views aren't wrong. You can take your liberal agenda to WIkipedia, where they support such 'freedom of speech'. --[[User:Bananaman|Bananaman]] 23:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No, actualy it's not. Just because you say it is doesn't mean it's so. Planned Parenthood is an organization that provides reproductive health care and preforms abortions as a last resort type thing. I am not being controversal. I am making a simple clean article. And just because you want be all weird about it is not my problem. Everyone deserves the right to know the truth, and saying planned parenthood ONLY does abortions and does it to be evil is just not right. The article is clean, short and to the point.

P.S. My names Kathryn :) Not karyn. ~

:::I don't ban so quickly as that. You two try to work this out, please. Here is the problematic stuff:

::::Planned Parenthood provides maternal and reproductive health-care to women and couples. They are an international non profit organization that is committed to providing low coast health care. Planned Parenthood offers high-quality health care. [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are.htm] They promote abstinence as the only sure way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, but also provide birth control. [http://plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm] Planned Parenthood Federation of America states that all individuals should have the freedom to make reproductive decisions.They believe that the freedom to make reproductive decisions involves the right to privacy, especially in relationships; the right to education and that every individual should be able to make a informed decisions about sexuality and reproduction; and the right to nondiscriminatory access to comprehensive and confidential healthcare. [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission-and-policy-statements.htm]

:::I'm sure a balanced article can come out of this. Let me know if you need help. I'll check back in a day or two. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay this article keeps getting switched and moved around. I can't tell whats going on. But really, I used no foul language, nothing innapropriate and kept it short and simple. It's not like I wrote stuff like OMG EVERYONE GET AN ABORTION YAY or something, no. I didn't. The article is unbiased. I am neither for or against planned parenting. I'm neutral. I don't know why everyone thinks im evil for writing this article or something, but frankly you guys call wikipedia 'biased' but atleast they provide the truth on subects. I'm simply trying to help out here by providing a neutral view on the subject by creating a clean and short article.

==Typo==

Changing the subject of the discussion page, what exactly is low "coast" health care?[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 01:14, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Brilliance. Since the world is getting warmer the oceans will rise and the coasts will become "lower", [[User:Conservative]] is just ahead of the game.

== Structure ==

Sanger was crazy. Known fact. No-one today favors eugenics, not [[Planned Parenthood]], not anyone. As such, to prevent such an inflammatory statement from being made, I restructured the latter half of the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: Oh, please note that I have deleted no citations, even the ones I think are abominable. This was a neutral edit, and I hope it will be treated as such.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
That edit was all context, and important for your readers. Debate it here before you revert it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Another of Conservative's pet projects, protected & biased, here we come.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Oh, whoops, sorry, was that me who despite protection changed it back to something a little less...inflammatory and biased? Sorry.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 01:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Problem with First Paragraph ==

An organization's own materials are not authority for self-serving claims it makes about itself. This entry is in a revert war so it may not be clear exactly what I'm talking about, but the versions that repeatedly cite to the organization's own self-serving claims are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We are to be more objective than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Unsourced statements being allowed by Sysop NSmyth ==

Unsourced statements are being allowed by Sysop NSmyth. Why are you saying that the present organization is not racist. Where is your proof? Where are the sources?

I suggest reading:

[http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40023 Planned Parenthood charged with racism] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:I'm still trying to find the part of the article that denies racism. The article seems to neither confirm or deny racism, but I occasionally miss subtle things like that. Point it out for me and I'll gladly look for a source, if I can't find one, I'll remove that line in the article.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 02:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)... I'm also good at missing obvious links in talk pages when I'm tired heh. Put that in.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]

:::Please look at my present version and see if everything is supported. Also, I am building a case through more and more research. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Conservative, for probably the first time since I first noticed your edits, I am in agreement with you. I'm perfectly happy with your work on the article at this point.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 07:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==External Links==
Here a couple of external links:
*[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ Planned Parenthood Federation of America]
*[http://www.all.org/stopp/plan.htm American Life League presents STOPP International] Since the article is protected, please add them. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 02:14, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Dear [[User:Conservative]]:

Missionaries to Preborn cites numerous sources. You do not know what those sources say. Go to the library, look them up, make sure they're accurate. Missionaries to Preborn is not a scholarly or journalistic organization. You know absolutely nothing about the level of rigor they used in researching what amounts to be an opinion piece. Likewise, the citizens review online site has copied an article whole hog from Concerned Women for America. That link is dead. Makes it tricky to verify the process doesn't it? The Muse website requires registration. World Net Daily is, sadly, your most reliable source. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Further.... Conservative, is it even possible for you to work on an article without locking it? '''THIS IS A WIKI!''' [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I have checked several statements in regards to the article you cited and they checked out. Again, which statement is in error? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Ok, I'm not going to try and start any fights here. I said some of these sources are uncredible, and I am going to back up what I said. However, I want to apologize for what I did early, I should have given you a reason.

# Missionariestopreborn, first off, uses picture of aborted fetuses, which I feel not only is unethical, but an abomination under God. Secondly, as myk said above, the article is using other sources, we should be using THOSE sources, and not the "missionariestopreborn" page.
# Citzen'sreview seems more credible, I still purport that perhaps we should be using the orginal material, I also wish that the original article could be accessed an not this hosted version.
# The Muse page seems well done, and is attached to a scholarly journal.
# The Eternal World Television has an obvious bias, and many statements in the article are quotes out of context, seen here. [http://web.archive.org/web/20060426020211/www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml]

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." [4]

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." [5]

Both of these quotes are examples of quote mining or mis context of the quote. In the first quote, we can see that she is being Ironic when we look at the context. In the second quote, when we look at the full quote, we see that she doesn't want the word to get out because it would be a misconception.

# WorldNetDaily has an obvious bias and the site is riddled with fake ads about energy pills and the like. Pertaining to the actual article, I do not know whether or not it is what it purports to be, but it is obvious that it is not from a NPOV.
# LifeSite, this site appears much more credible, I have no problems with this site.

--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Forums should not be cited as sources, because anybody can post anything on there. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:What forums?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I did further research to bolster my racism/Sanger claim. Please see additional quotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== current research ==

"George Grant points out in his history of Planned Parenthood, Grand Illusions (1988), Sanger devoted the entire April 1933 issue of Birth Control Review to eugenics. One of the articles, "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need," was written by Ernst Rudin, Hitler's director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene." [http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/american-spectator_eugenics.html]

'''*OK... right there. You quoted The American Spectator but where it was sourced on an MIT host. ''The source is not MIT, it is the American Spectator.'' And... it's not even the American Spectator! it's about a book, Grand Illusions. Have you read this book? You're quoting a website, quoting an opinion piece in a magazine which is discussing a book which talks about a magazine from 1933. Throw Kevin Bacon in there and you have a fun little party game. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)'''

"During the 1930s Margaret Sanger published The Birth Control Review, in which she openly supported Nazi Germany's "infanticide program" in the 1930s, and publicly championed Adolf Hitler's goal of Aryan white supremacy. Prior to World War II she commissioned Nazi Ernst Rudin, director of the dreaded German medical experimentation programs, to serve as an advisor to her organization." [http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a380249a34016.htm]

'In 1939, Margaret Sanger organized the Negro Project, designed to eliminate members of what she believed to be an "inferior race." She justified her proposal because "the masses of Negroes... particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit..."3" [http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a380249a34016.htm]

==MUST==
You lock '''''every''''' article you edit [[User:Conservative| Conservative]]? [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:I have a source:http://www.interlife.org/woman.html Feel free to use it. It's the actual online version of the book that was quoted by the misionariestothepreborn.org site. It's a '''Primary''' source, which ought to be used if available, which, as you can plainly see, it is. Thank you. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Misattributed Quotes==
Not surprisingly, Conservative, you have false information in your article. The second quote you have attruibuted to Sanger ("The mass of ignorant Negroes") was actually said by W.E.B. DuBois in the June 1932 issue of ''Birth Control Review''--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, most of the quotes in the article are examples of quote mining, mis-attributed quotes, or quotes out of context.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I know. Misleading quotes and Conservative are the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup of Conservapedia; they just go together.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:15, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Represent the Good Side (posted on Andy's wall, too) ==

I think the articles gives too little credit for good things that Planned Parenthood does. I have many friends (who have never had sex) who use Planned Parenthood for cheaper birth control pills, to regulate their hormones and control what would otherwise be excruciatingly painful cycles, if you know what I mean. They also use Planned Parenthood for annual gynecological exams at a discounted rate, since having a private practice doctor do the same exam is significantly more expensive. I think we can disagree about abortions, but I think women's health is an absolute positive, and something that Planned Parenthood does well. The article should say so.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:The argument that would be made here is that the only reason the health-care and medicines are so cheap is that the abortions performed at PP subsidize everything else. In other words, a woman gets "gynecological exams at a discounted rate" because she's getting them at the expense of dead babies. In other ''other'' words there is no good at Planned Parenthood only ''less bad'' things. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 10:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::If health care was cheaper in America, women wouldn't have to get cheaper health care at the "expense of dead babies". Personally, I'm all for planned parenthood(notice the lack of capitalization, I'm talking about the idea, not the organization), and I definitly like the idea of health care being more available to women. I don't believe in forcing others to believe what I believe, so I'm pro-choice. If a woman gets an abortion, it doesn't bother me, it doesn't effect me(in any way shape or form, try to tell me that God will smite me because I say this, I do believe the bible says to leave the judgement up to him, that's exactly what I'm doing). I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's not my decision, and it's not anyone else's either. The choice about whether or not having an abortion is right lies with the mother and the father of the unborn child, and only them. I apologize for the semi-rant.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 12:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Don't apologize - it's one of the most lucid, rational things anyone has said here.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

Interesting article, but it really should be named something like "controversial historical issues in PP" given that most of the content has absolutely nothing to do with the modern organization. I have a decent amount of contact with them, and their current organization is completely misrepresented here. It really is a travesty, but I'm not the one to fix it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Indeed. Conservative, out of curiosity, do you genuinely believe that PP has more facilities in "ethnic schools" (as you called them) or neighborhoods as part of a strategy to reduce the number of minorities in the US? Besides the larger POV issue, this entry is not well written. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Advocacy==

PP does not simply "provide health services". It has positions and asserts them loudly.

Here is an example:

"Throughout the year, the federal government steps up its war on women and freedom of choice ... " [snip by Ed Poor for CP discussion]

* The U.S. State Department freezes $3 million in funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) in response to anti-choice objections to the WHO's Human Reproduction Program; HHS Web sites remove medically accurate information about condom effectiveness and the lack of a proven link between abortion and breast cancer; the HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection Charter gives embryos new status as "human subjects;" and "abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Alma Golden is named to oversee Title X, the nation's family planning program. [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/2000-present-9929.htm]

This implies that they strongly oppose abstinence - a point 'fact-tagged' in the article recently. They use this bullet point as 'ammunition' in the 'war' over "women and freedom of choice".

This implies that they favor the POV of the United Nations, as the WHO is completely under UN control.

This accuses HHS of removing "medically accurate information about condom effectiveness", whatever that means. Looks like they advocate condom use for something - is it [[contraception]] and/or [[VD prevention]]? (Sorry about the archaic language, I don't think I'll ever make the switch to 'STD' - sounds like an oil additive.)

This asserts that there is no "proven link between abortion and breast cancer".

A whole bunch of interesting points to keep us busy in coming weeks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's an enormous difference between opposing abstinence and opposing abstinence-only sex ed. Are you sure they're referring to the former? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::It seems pretty clear that their opposition is to abstinence ''only'' sex ed. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 12:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Tsumetai, no, I'm not sure. That's what these discussion pages are for.

:::But I'm also not sure whether there's much difference between (1) opposing abstinence and (2) saying "abstinence would be better, but we don't really think you are capable of it, and since you're going to fornicate anyway, try (blank)". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It's closer to saying, "abstinence would be betterm but if you don't believe in the same things we do, and feel that you must fornicate, use (insert method of birth control here) in order to help keep yourselves from getting STIs and from becoming parents at such a young age."[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 12:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think there's a big difference between the 2. And I suspect the attitude is more "here are some things you should know if you choose to have sex" rather than "because we don't think you can help yourselves." [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 12:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, im not that younger than you, but no one uses VD anymore...get with the times man! Anyway, like I said, I work with them a lot, they have nothing against abstinence, just education that excludes things other than abstinence.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

And btw, to repost the link above, I really think that should clear things up, but what do I know...
http://plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 12:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

And, BTW, I think it is reasonable to debate the racism issue, but it is not a "done deal". Poor minority communities have less access to health care in general, and PP does provide needed services. I do not think their primary motivation is racist, however, it is an interesting point to discuss.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 12:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Planned Parenthood

2007-04-02T17:21:16Z

Dave3172: /* Represent the Good Side (posted on Andy's wall, too) */

Biased, one-sided, of dubious accuracy, and a transparent attempt to demonise an organisation. Welcome to conservapedia. How can this site be expected to have any credability when all it offers is a distorted image of reality? I am surprised I do not see any accusations of deliberate genocide by Planned Par... oh, wait, there they are. My mistake. Now, how long before someone tries to compare them to a certian well-known dictator or his political party? - Suricou Raven.

I'm new at creating articles so any help would be great thanks.

:Thanks, Kathryn. I'm going to "move" your article to [[Planned Parenthood]] with the 2nd P capitalized. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I thought I'd have more time to work on this page but not untill tommorow. So it will be short for now I guess.

"Planned Parenthood vigorously opposes abstinence" -- Their website lists "continuous abstinence" as a form of birth control, with a long discussion of its pros and possible problems. It is in fact the first method listed. http://plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm

"They profit from [[abortion]]" -- They're a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Is it accurate to say they 'profit' from anything at all? [[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 01:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Article is starting out very bias. It is too anti-planned parenting and since it has no sitations I am removing that part of the article and anyone who can help by contributing usefull information that is not bias would be lovely. Thanks :) ~ And also I am unsure how to make citations or whatever so im just adding links as subscripts and hopefully someone can help me out thanks

:Can there be some balance in this article? I think I've seen ''provides maternal and reproductive health-care to women and couples'' entered and romoved multiple times.

:The issue seems to be:
:*Is PP only about abortions and contraceptives - i.e., '''preventing''' pregnancy and childbirth?
:*Or is it a significant provider of pregnancy and childbirth '''support'''? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I keep trying to make the article but Bananaman keeps erasing it just to say they preform abortions. It's getting annoying and it'd be lovely if someone could ban them or something so I could complete this article to be completely unbias and not lacking any important information.

::I'm sorry that you disagree with me Karyn, but Planned Parenthood is clearly in the busines of performing abortions, funding abortions, promoting abortions as birth control, and using abortion as population control. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that your views aren't wrong. You can take your liberal agenda to WIkipedia, where they support such 'freedom of speech'. --[[User:Bananaman|Bananaman]] 23:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No, actualy it's not. Just because you say it is doesn't mean it's so. Planned Parenthood is an organization that provides reproductive health care and preforms abortions as a last resort type thing. I am not being controversal. I am making a simple clean article. And just because you want be all weird about it is not my problem. Everyone deserves the right to know the truth, and saying planned parenthood ONLY does abortions and does it to be evil is just not right. The article is clean, short and to the point.

P.S. My names Kathryn :) Not karyn. ~

:::I don't ban so quickly as that. You two try to work this out, please. Here is the problematic stuff:

::::Planned Parenthood provides maternal and reproductive health-care to women and couples. They are an international non profit organization that is committed to providing low coast health care. Planned Parenthood offers high-quality health care. [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are.htm] They promote abstinence as the only sure way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, but also provide birth control. [http://plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm] Planned Parenthood Federation of America states that all individuals should have the freedom to make reproductive decisions.They believe that the freedom to make reproductive decisions involves the right to privacy, especially in relationships; the right to education and that every individual should be able to make a informed decisions about sexuality and reproduction; and the right to nondiscriminatory access to comprehensive and confidential healthcare. [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission-and-policy-statements.htm]

:::I'm sure a balanced article can come out of this. Let me know if you need help. I'll check back in a day or two. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay this article keeps getting switched and moved around. I can't tell whats going on. But really, I used no foul language, nothing innapropriate and kept it short and simple. It's not like I wrote stuff like OMG EVERYONE GET AN ABORTION YAY or something, no. I didn't. The article is unbiased. I am neither for or against planned parenting. I'm neutral. I don't know why everyone thinks im evil for writing this article or something, but frankly you guys call wikipedia 'biased' but atleast they provide the truth on subects. I'm simply trying to help out here by providing a neutral view on the subject by creating a clean and short article.

==Typo==

Changing the subject of the discussion page, what exactly is low "coast" health care?[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 01:14, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Brilliance. Since the world is getting warmer the oceans will rise and the coasts will become "lower", [[User:Conservative]] is just ahead of the game.

== Structure ==

Sanger was crazy. Known fact. No-one today favors eugenics, not [[Planned Parenthood]], not anyone. As such, to prevent such an inflammatory statement from being made, I restructured the latter half of the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: Oh, please note that I have deleted no citations, even the ones I think are abominable. This was a neutral edit, and I hope it will be treated as such.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
That edit was all context, and important for your readers. Debate it here before you revert it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Another of Conservative's pet projects, protected & biased, here we come.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Oh, whoops, sorry, was that me who despite protection changed it back to something a little less...inflammatory and biased? Sorry.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 01:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Problem with First Paragraph ==

An organization's own materials are not authority for self-serving claims it makes about itself. This entry is in a revert war so it may not be clear exactly what I'm talking about, but the versions that repeatedly cite to the organization's own self-serving claims are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We are to be more objective than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Unsourced statements being allowed by Sysop NSmyth ==

Unsourced statements are being allowed by Sysop NSmyth. Why are you saying that the present organization is not racist. Where is your proof? Where are the sources?

I suggest reading:

[http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40023 Planned Parenthood charged with racism] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:I'm still trying to find the part of the article that denies racism. The article seems to neither confirm or deny racism, but I occasionally miss subtle things like that. Point it out for me and I'll gladly look for a source, if I can't find one, I'll remove that line in the article.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 02:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)... I'm also good at missing obvious links in talk pages when I'm tired heh. Put that in.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]

:::Please look at my present version and see if everything is supported. Also, I am building a case through more and more research. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Conservative, for probably the first time since I first noticed your edits, I am in agreement with you. I'm perfectly happy with your work on the article at this point.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 07:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==External Links==
Here a couple of external links:
*[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ Planned Parenthood Federation of America]
*[http://www.all.org/stopp/plan.htm American Life League presents STOPP International] Since the article is protected, please add them. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 02:14, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Dear [[User:Conservative]]:

Missionaries to Preborn cites numerous sources. You do not know what those sources say. Go to the library, look them up, make sure they're accurate. Missionaries to Preborn is not a scholarly or journalistic organization. You know absolutely nothing about the level of rigor they used in researching what amounts to be an opinion piece. Likewise, the citizens review online site has copied an article whole hog from Concerned Women for America. That link is dead. Makes it tricky to verify the process doesn't it? The Muse website requires registration. World Net Daily is, sadly, your most reliable source. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Further.... Conservative, is it even possible for you to work on an article without locking it? '''THIS IS A WIKI!''' [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I have checked several statements in regards to the article you cited and they checked out. Again, which statement is in error? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Ok, I'm not going to try and start any fights here. I said some of these sources are uncredible, and I am going to back up what I said. However, I want to apologize for what I did early, I should have given you a reason.

# Missionariestopreborn, first off, uses picture of aborted fetuses, which I feel not only is unethical, but an abomination under God. Secondly, as myk said above, the article is using other sources, we should be using THOSE sources, and not the "missionariestopreborn" page.
# Citzen'sreview seems more credible, I still purport that perhaps we should be using the orginal material, I also wish that the original article could be accessed an not this hosted version.
# The Muse page seems well done, and is attached to a scholarly journal.
# The Eternal World Television has an obvious bias, and many statements in the article are quotes out of context, seen here. [http://web.archive.org/web/20060426020211/www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml]

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." [4]

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." [5]

Both of these quotes are examples of quote mining or mis context of the quote. In the first quote, we can see that she is being Ironic when we look at the context. In the second quote, when we look at the full quote, we see that she doesn't want the word to get out because it would be a misconception.

# WorldNetDaily has an obvious bias and the site is riddled with fake ads about energy pills and the like. Pertaining to the actual article, I do not know whether or not it is what it purports to be, but it is obvious that it is not from a NPOV.
# LifeSite, this site appears much more credible, I have no problems with this site.

--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Forums should not be cited as sources, because anybody can post anything on there. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:What forums?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I did further research to bolster my racism/Sanger claim. Please see additional quotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== current research ==

"George Grant points out in his history of Planned Parenthood, Grand Illusions (1988), Sanger devoted the entire April 1933 issue of Birth Control Review to eugenics. One of the articles, "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need," was written by Ernst Rudin, Hitler's director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene." [http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/american-spectator_eugenics.html]

'''*OK... right there. You quoted The American Spectator but where it was sourced on an MIT host. ''The source is not MIT, it is the American Spectator.'' And... it's not even the American Spectator! it's about a book, Grand Illusions. Have you read this book? You're quoting a website, quoting an opinion piece in a magazine which is discussing a book which talks about a magazine from 1933. Throw Kevin Bacon in there and you have a fun little party game. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)'''

"During the 1930s Margaret Sanger published The Birth Control Review, in which she openly supported Nazi Germany's "infanticide program" in the 1930s, and publicly championed Adolf Hitler's goal of Aryan white supremacy. Prior to World War II she commissioned Nazi Ernst Rudin, director of the dreaded German medical experimentation programs, to serve as an advisor to her organization." [http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a380249a34016.htm]

'In 1939, Margaret Sanger organized the Negro Project, designed to eliminate members of what she believed to be an "inferior race." She justified her proposal because "the masses of Negroes... particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit..."3" [http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a380249a34016.htm]

==MUST==
You lock '''''every''''' article you edit [[User:Conservative| Conservative]]? [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:I have a source:http://www.interlife.org/woman.html Feel free to use it. It's the actual online version of the book that was quoted by the misionariestothepreborn.org site. It's a '''Primary''' source, which ought to be used if available, which, as you can plainly see, it is. Thank you. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Misattributed Quotes==
Not surprisingly, Conservative, you have false information in your article. The second quote you have attruibuted to Sanger ("The mass of ignorant Negroes") was actually said by W.E.B. DuBois in the June 1932 issue of ''Birth Control Review''--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Represent the Good Side (posted on Andy's wall, too) ==

I think the articles gives too little credit for good things that Planned Parenthood does. I have many friends (who have never had sex) who use Planned Parenthood for cheaper birth control pills, to regulate their hormones and control what would otherwise be excruciatingly painful cycles, if you know what I mean. They also use Planned Parenthood for annual gynecological exams at a discounted rate, since having a private practice doctor do the same exam is significantly more expensive. I think we can disagree about abortions, but I think women's health is an absolute positive, and something that Planned Parenthood does well. The article should say so.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:The argument that would be made here is that the only reason the health-care and medicines are so cheap is that the abortions performed at PP subsidize everything else. In other words, a woman gets "gynecological exams at a discounted rate" because she's getting them at the expense of dead babies. In other ''other'' words there is no good at Planned Parenthood only ''less bad'' things. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 10:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::If health care was cheaper in America, women wouldn't have to get cheaper health care at the "expense of dead babies". Personally, I'm all for planned parenthood(notice the lack of capitalization, I'm talking about the idea, not the organization), and I definitly like the idea of health care being more available to women. I don't believe in forcing others to believe what I believe, so I'm pro-choice. If a woman gets an abortion, it doesn't bother me, it doesn't effect me(in any way shape or form, try to tell me that God will smite me because I say this, I do believe the bible says to leave the judgement up to him, that's exactly what I'm doing). I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's not my decision, and it's not anyone else's either. The choice about whether or not having an abortion is right lies with the mother and the father of the unborn child, and only them. I apologize for the semi-rant.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 12:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Don't apologize - it's one of the most lucid, rational things anyone has said here.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

Interesting article, but it really should be named something like "controversial historical issues in PP" given that most of the content has absolutely nothing to do with the modern organization. I have a decent amount of contact with them, and their current organization is completely misrepresented here. It really is a travesty, but I'm not the one to fix it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Indeed. Conservative, out of curiosity, do you genuinely believe that PP has more facilities in "ethnic schools" (as you called them) or neighborhoods as part of a strategy to reduce the number of minorities in the US? Besides the larger POV issue, this entry is not well written. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==Advocacy==

PP does not simply "provide health services". It has positions and asserts them loudly.

Here is an example:

"Throughout the year, the federal government steps up its war on women and freedom of choice ... " [snip by Ed Poor for CP discussion]

* The U.S. State Department freezes $3 million in funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) in response to anti-choice objections to the WHO's Human Reproduction Program; HHS Web sites remove medically accurate information about condom effectiveness and the lack of a proven link between abortion and breast cancer; the HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection Charter gives embryos new status as "human subjects;" and "abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Alma Golden is named to oversee Title X, the nation's family planning program. [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/2000-present-9929.htm]

This implies that they strongly oppose abstinence - a point 'fact-tagged' in the article recently. They use this bullet point as 'ammunition' in the 'war' over "women and freedom of choice".

This implies that they favor the POV of the United Nations, as the WHO is completely under UN control.

This accuses HHS of removing "medically accurate information about condom effectiveness", whatever that means. Looks like they advocate condom use for something - is it [[contraception]] and/or [[VD prevention]]? (Sorry about the archaic language, I don't think I'll ever make the switch to 'STD' - sounds like an oil additive.)

This asserts that there is no "proven link between abortion and breast cancer".

A whole bunch of interesting points to keep us busy in coming weeks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's an enormous difference between opposing abstinence and opposing abstinence-only sex ed. Are you sure they're referring to the former? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::It seems pretty clear that their opposition is to abstinence ''only'' sex ed. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 12:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Tsumetai, no, I'm not sure. That's what these discussion pages are for.

:::But I'm also not sure whether there's much difference between (1) opposing abstinence and (2) saying "abstinence would be better, but we don't really think you are capable of it, and since you're going to fornicate anyway, try (blank)". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It's closer to saying, "abstinence would be betterm but if you don't believe in the same things we do, and feel that you must fornicate, use (insert method of birth control here) in order to help keep yourselves from getting STIs and from becoming parents at such a young age."[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 12:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think there's a big difference between the 2. And I suspect the attitude is more "here are some things you should know if you choose to have sex" rather than "because we don't think you can help yourselves." [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 12:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, im not that younger than you, but no one uses VD anymore...get with the times man! Anyway, like I said, I work with them a lot, they have nothing against abstinence, just education that excludes things other than abstinence.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

And btw, to repost the link above, I really think that should clear things up, but what do I know...
http://plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 12:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

And, BTW, I think it is reasonable to debate the racism issue, but it is not a "done deal". Poor minority communities have less access to health care in general, and PP does provide needed services. I do not think their primary motivation is racist, however, it is an interesting point to discuss.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 12:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:ACLU

2007-04-02T13:58:25Z

Dave3172: /* ACLU and Evolution */

== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== In anticipation ==

RSchlafly, I look forward to another edit war with you. These always end with you getting confused, and then me getting banned for a day. Anywho, my version of this article is superior. Yours is full of bias words like "merely," et al, while mine gives the actual cited legal analysis and purpose of the stickers. Settle it here.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lessee... random poster vs relative of the guy who runs the site. In the words of Ho Chih Zen, "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it a bit to reflect what it really says, I'd phrased it wrong, apologies.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit is wrong, misleading, and destructive, as usual. If something is wrong with the text, then please explain it here.
: Your version has several errors. You say that the lawsuit was "for attempting to teach evolution as a theory", but that is misleading. As the reference said, the lawsuit was just over "Stickers Put in Evolution Text". Then you said that the school was endorsing creationism. Again, this is false. The stickers did not say anything about creationism. Then you cited the trial court as if it had the last word on the subject, but in fact that decision was vacated by a higher court. It is extremely dishonest to say that the court did something, when in fact that court was overruled on appeal. Thus there was nothing in your edit that was actually correct.
: I do think that you should be banned for repeatedly making obstructionist edits like this. If you've really been to law school then you should know how improper it is to cite a vacated trial court opinion without at least saying that it was overruled on appeal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am enrolled at the #4 national law school and I can tell you for a fact that, having taken Civil Procedure from one of the century's best litigating attorneys, the term "vacate" is highly context-dependent. The legal effect of the trial court holding is not always overruled by an order vacating the trial court order. In the ''Selman'' case, which I have read (I assume you've read the "Discovery Institute" special reports on it, typos and all), the 5th Circuit vacated the holding as a result of the fact that the evidentiary record was not complete enough to allow an appeal yet. The court explicitly stated in the order vacating the lower court's holding that '''''it passed no judgment on the merits of the lower court's opinion''''', rather finding insufficient evidence to judge this fact.
::Learn to read primary sources, learn to distrust the Discovery Institute, and then put these findings into fact by making useful edits. Until you read the ''Selman'' case and the appellate record, you should not edit a description of it. This is basic common sense and professional courtesy. I assume that you wouldn't lampoon a colleague's mathematical proof without reading it, would you? Then do the Georgia Federal District Court the same courtesy.
::Until you present findings to the contrary based on analysis of primary sources, I am reverting & modifying the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Instead, I just deleted that paragraph; it belongs in the Establishment Clause section, but it's already mentioned there. I clarified the footnote to explain the actual appellate record. Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit was wrong on all 3 counts. Are you conceding that or not? I don't care where you are going to law school, I don't want to citing vacated opinions as if they were good law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Brother, you didn't answer any of my points. Speak to the points, specifically this quotation: "in vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts." (449 F.3d 1320, 1338). Until you answer that point, it will be reverted again. And if you protect it rather than answer any of these compelling points, that you simply drop, you will continue to look like a fool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, instead of mindlessly reverting, note that on your suggestion I noted the procedural posture of the case, thoroughly and accurately, in footnote. Isn't that accurate & fair?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I just reverted and protected the page. I did not do so mindlessly; I did so because you repeatedly and willfully removed good text from the page and inserted false statements. I gave you 3 reasons why your edit was false on this Talk page, and you have ignored them. Was the old text true or false? Was your text true or false?
: Now you say that you will continue to revert it until I address some quote from the appeals court. I was the one who said that the appeals court vacated the trial court. Your quote backs up what I said. What else is there to say?
: Your latest edit says, "re-instating lower court order". Do you have a source for this? Can you show me some document from the court saying that the lower court order was reinstated? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No, no, obviously you know more about law then me. That's just fine. Obviously your analysis of "Vacate" must be more accurate than someone who actually studies law, why should I worry? Also, I'm glad you reverted to keep the shoddy, poorly-thought-out, incoherent structure, and the separation between "ACLU and Evolution" and "ACLU and the Establishment Clause." That division makes ''good sense''. Great job, Roger! Ignoring experts and degrading writing - shucks, time to call it a day!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: And the order wasn't re-instated; it would have been, as the trial went the same way, but settlement was reached out of court leading to the exact same solution. So the stickers were removed without a court order: same result, [http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8797&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 as you can see here].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I guess you are admitting that your edit that said "re-instating lower court order" is also incorrect. That makes 4 errors in only a couple of lines of text that you inserted.
:: It doesn't matter if you are the world's greatest legal expert. That doesn't mean you can insert factual errors into the article. It amazes me that you would continue to insert errors after the errors have been pointed out to you on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]

Perhaps saying, "allowing the court order to stand" makes more sense to you than "re-instating the lower court order." Whichever way you cut it, it's more accurate than your statement is. If you want me to count your errors, I'd be thrilled to, though. First, you misunderstood the subtleties of "vacate." Second, you misstated the holding of the lower court to begin with, or rather, didn't address it. Those are two biggies. What are the other three that I made? But Roger, setting aside my disrespect for you intellectually, and setting aside your anger at me, let's face it - my version, with a slight revision now, is still a better statement of the truth than yours is. It's also better formatted. Re-instate my version, but noting that the court order was "allowed to stand," if not "re-instated," if the distinction makes you more comfortable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've both learned from each other, Roger, making my edits on the whole positive! Now insert what you learned.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The word "vacate" is not even in the article. If there is something wrong with the article, go ahead and explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
I have some problems with the “ACLU and Evolution” section of this article. The first is a minor one and should be easily corrected—the sentence in question starts with a quotation mark, suggesting that the sentence is taken directly from the source, but the sentence is not and so the opening quotation mark should be deleted. Second, the use of the word “merely” is argumentative and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. Third, the use of the word “merely” is false, as the stickers in question had more text than is quoted. (The article referenced indicates the stickers also had the words “a theory, not a fact” on them and from reading the article I can tell there are additional unquoted words on these stickers). Fourth, the articled does not say that the ACLU sued, but rather that the ACLU represented those who did sue – upset parents (a minor point but one that should be corrected). Fifth, the sentence carries the strong implication that the ACLU is engaged in fighting this case simply because it is dogmatically committed to evolution, but the article sighted suggests the ACLU is fighting the case because they believed that the stickers were motivated, in part or in whole, by religious dogma which the ACLU (rightly or wrongly) believes may not motivate what is taught in the schools – that is they objected to the stickers not because of the content alone, but the motivation behind the stickers. Since this article is locked, I request that someone with the authority to make these changes do so.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, but facts don't matter! The ideology must remain supreme!!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Planned Parenthood

2007-04-02T13:41:25Z

Dave3172:

Rush Limbaugh

2007-03-30T20:14:02Z

Dave3172: reverted back - this stuff happened. Just b/c you don't like it doesn't mean you can remove it.

'''Rush Limbaugh''' (born January 12, 1951) is a [[conservative]] [[United States of America|American]] radio talk show host.
[[Image:Limbaugh.jpg|thumb|right|Rush Limbaugh]]
==The Rush Limbaugh Show==
Limbaugh hosts a radio show famed for its blustery denounciations of anything [[liberal]]. He is often at odds with [[liberal]] activist [[Al Franken]]<ref>[http://fireside.designcommunity.com/topic-9993.html Forum thread] discussing a NYT Editorial</ref>. Limbaugh's style has been credited with "reviving AM radio in the United States, and is considered by many to have been a catalyst for the [[Republican Party]]'s 1994 Congressional victories"<ref>[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10813FA3B5D0C708EDDAB0894DE494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLimbaugh%2c%20Rush Radio Talk Show Host Fears For True Conservatism's Fate], New York Times</ref>.
Rush's conservative talk show is nationally syndicated and averages over 13.5 million listeners weekly, making Rush the '#1 Radio Talk Show Host'.<ref>
[http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34 The Top Talk Radio Audiences] Tallkers magazine online</ref>

==The Limbaugh Letter==
The Limbaugh Letter is a monthly publication that contains conservative articles and humor in Rush's style.

==1/2 Hour News Hour==
Rush has appeared on the 1/2 Hour News Hour "comedy" show on the [[Fox News Channel]]. <ref>
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602098.html Fox News Channel's '1/2 Hour News Hour': Right Funny, in Spots] washingtonpost.com</ref>

==Controversy==
Limbaugh has repeatedly been the subject of scandal and controversy.

One of the earliest scandals occurred in 1993 when, "On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time...". Limbaugh, however denied that he was talking about Chelsea, stating that he was not making a joke, and Chelsea's picture was accidentally put up on a screen<ref>MotherJones: [http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1995/05/ivins.html "Lyin' Bully"]</ref>.

Limbaugh underwent a scandal, ten years later, in 2003 when his housekeeper was caught illegally purchasing oxycontin and other painkillers on his behalf. Limbaugh soon revealed that he was addicted to these drugs after massive back surgery. Both critics and supporters were shocked and disappointed by the revelation, since Limbaugh had publicly and repeatedly criticized those who used drugs illegally <ref>A collection of Rush Limbaugh quotes on illegal drug use[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/national/main1753947.shtml]</ref>. He sought treatment soon afterward.

How effective the treatment was is subject to debate, as, in 2005, when Limbaugh was returning from a vacation in the Dominican Republic customs officials found him carrying Viagra prescribed to another man in his luggage.<ref>CBS on Limbaugh's Viagra[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/national/main1753947.shtml]</ref>

Most recently Limbaugh has been criticized for his comments regarding Michael J. Fox's participation in Claire McCaskill's 2006 senate campaign in Missouri. In his radio broadcast, Limbaugh criticized a campaign commercial Fox filmed in support of McCaskill's position on taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research. Limbaugh accused Fox of being off his medication in order to generate sympathy. In the commercial, Fox is visibly swaying and moving in sudden, jerky movements which are the symptom of Parkinson's Disease, and the reason the acclaimed actor quit the hit show [[Spin City]].<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2006-10-24-limbaugh-fox_x.htm], USA Today</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Official Rush Limbaugh website]
[[Category:Biographies]]

Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-30T20:08:43Z

Dave3172: /* No Casus Belli? */

== Removal ==

I have removed the line: "Under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation." because it is simply untrue. I mean, the foremost example that comes to mind is that Indonesia - the world's most populous Muslim nation - elected a female Hindu at its prime minister not too long ago.
[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 03:23, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:This addresses specifically Arab Sunni in Iraq, as the source document states. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Well, firstly, I mean, it isn't cited; the sentence after it links to somebody's testimony before some kind of Senate or Congress panel, but it isn't actually cited. The second problem is that it's simply untrue; as I pointed out, Indonesia - the largest Muslim country in the world - elected a female Hindu as its prime minister not long ago. A lot of Iraqis - most, perhaps - also have secular inclinations from living under Baathist rule for so long, so I think this claim really needs to be questioned. I mean, is it akin to somebody saying that Christians believe in stoning people who cheat on their wives, even though - in spite of what the Bible may say - Christians obviously do not believe in that?[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 14:20, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::The entire passage is cited to Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on Securing America's Interest in Iraq, 23 January 2007.

:::(a) Nowher does the source document discuss Indonesia; (b) this article is entitled "Iraq War", not "Inodonesia". Context of the source document gives relevency. Obviously, the source document was not reviewed before removing the proper citation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Full context:
:::''As all know by now, for even moderately fundamentalist Sunnis, the Shia are disqualified from political power because under Muslim law only Muslims may rule a Muslim state--while the Shia for them are heretics. '''The Salafist subset among the fundamentalists notoriously goes beyond that, defining Shias as apostates, a capital offense in all orthodox interpretations of Muslim law'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow, you're not much of an expert on Islam are you? Salafists are a miniscule, radical minority with little to no support in Iraq, even among the Sunnis, who - being the progenitors of Iraqi Baathism - possess a historical tendency towards forms of secularism. The idea that one American's testimony to some other Americans that "under Muslim law only Muslims may rule a Muslim state" can be held as evidence in the face of mountains of evidence that this claim is totally untrue is utterly insane. I have to wonder: Are you trying to protray this honestly, or do you have a partisan agenda to push with this kind of disinformation?[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 14:56, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::::Wow, (1) I never claimed to be an expert on Islam -- I cited a source. (2) What evidence do you have the source, Luttwak, born in Italy & a former Israeli tank commander, holds US citizenship; (3) Why should that matter? (4) Please address issues; assigning motives in does little to further our agenda of writing this encyclopedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sorry, I will try to remain civil and stick to discussing my problems with this passage. The point is, it's a patently untrue statement. As for person making the claims, do you honestly believe that a member of the IDF is a reliable source of information on Islam? I mean, by the sounds of it, he isn't a Muslim, and lives in a society that's in a perpetual state of war with Islamic neighbours and which discriminates against its Islamic members systemically. Is this really who we should be asking? Why not ask Muslims what Islam is about, just as we would ask Christians what Christianity is about? As I said, Indonesia - the world's largest Muslim country - elected a female Hindu not too long ago. The claim that Islamic law stipulates that Muslim countries must be ruled by Muslims is either untrue or misleading. I mean, as I said, the Holy Bible may claim that people should be stoned for cheating on their wives, but we all know that Christians don't stone people to death, and we'd be liars if we claimed that they did. This situation seems similar to me.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 16:36, 16 March 2007 (PST)
:::::::Thank you. In edit conflict yesterday part of my response was ommitted. I intended to include that the statement, ''The Salafist subset among the fundamentalists notoriously goes beyond that, defining Shias as apostates, a capital offense in all orthodox interpretations of Muslim law'' specifically does what you refer to, the context of all Islam. Mr. Luttwak needs no qualification, and if your not familiar with the source you may wish to check it out. And I'd seriously encourage reading the Testimony which is among the first invited to appear before the newly Democratically controlled Senate Foreign Affairs Committee--for a reason. Mr. Luttwak's testimony gives in detail where US policy was coming from, where it is right now, and where it is going.

:::::::This is a foreign policy discussion, and this article is not a forum for propaganda. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Right, it's not a forum for propaganda. So why are you pasting Zionist propaganda that's demonstrably untrue? The statement that "under Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state" is a lie. That's what I'm saying. It needs to be removed because it simply is not true.[[User:Accidnets|Accidents]] 18:56, 17 March 2007 (PST)
:::::::::Ok, I clarified it a bit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Citations Needed ==

The following statements are not documented, and so may not be reliable:

"2003 Iraq War (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world" - Is the Iraq War really the largest in the world? Where does this claim come from? There are conflicts in the Great Lakes region of Africa that probably dwarf it.

"The war is is crucial to the larger U.S. led War on Terrorism." - Is this a documented fact, or a partisan talking-point? The American government certainly casts the Iraq War as related to some kind of "war on terrorism," but seeing as how the war has actually escalated terrorism around the globe, is counter-terrorism really the Americans' objective in Iraq? Let's get critical here, people.

"Most Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein" - This needs to be linked to a poll or newspaper report that confirms it.

"Among the Arab Shia majority, notably the Jaysh Al-Madhi, have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks." Is this really true? It seems to imply that the United States is acting as a neutral force in trying to prevent an Iraqi Civil War, which is also the American government's claims on the matter. But if that were the case, why would - to quote the USA Today poll linked as number 6 and 7 on the article - "Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents." I mean, the U.S. invaded the country, and is engaged in combat against a popular rebellion; they're a belligerent, not peacekeepers. The wording here just seems off to me.

''"Some believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to Syria, before the onset of the war." - This needs to be linked to a page in which somebody accuses Syria of harboring Iraq's WMD.''
This has now been done, Mar 2007.

"Critics of the Administration insist Saddam Hussein had the country's stockpiles destroyed after the First Gulf War, and that Iraq was at least a decade away from producing more." - This needs to be linked to a page which confirms that Iraq was "at least a decade away from producing more".

[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 13:36, 15 March 2007 (PST)

== General Discussion ==

How about using a cite that doesn't require a $30.00 charge to view the article cited? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: sure, what have you got? I'll take a look as well. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

For starters, how is the war in Iraq "the largest war operation in the world"? That claim isn't even cited, it's just lazily thrown out there with no substantiated evidence. Can whoever wrote that provide some citations for that claim, or remove it if none can be provided?

Secondly, the Iraqi Body Count website is not "robust surveying techniques"; it's a collection of deaths reported by at least two Western news agencies, and the owners of that website acknowledge that their number is inevitably going to be far below what the actual death count is. Due to this, I've taken the liberty to introduce statistics from an actual academic study that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

I've also added an overview of the Iraqi Resistance, and its popularity in Iraq, with several citations to verify what I have written.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 00:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, there is some hard-core censorship occurring here. Everything I've added is true, and has been rightfully cited. Deleting the section on the Iraqi Resistance is straight censorship at its worst.

I can understand disputes about the second Lancet study, as the numbers may be slightly off (either lower or higher) due to the fact that two of the sample zones were merged into 1 in several occasions for the sake of researcher safety on the ground. I think that criticizing that is absolutely valid, but at least acknowledge that the merged sample zones were similar in economic, social and level-of-violence aspects as well. Beyond that please provide your arguments and discuss them in here before simply changing the page. Thank you.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 01:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think there's a little more going on here than just some questions about figures and resistance. I think you're trying to inject some liberal bias into this page on the struggle in Iraq. No matter what way you slice it, that's inappropriate. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 04:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:And if User:Accidents had tried to inject some conservative bias into the article on the "struggle" in Iraq (surely a term that indicates a bias), would that have been objectionable, or is that OK? Just trying to figure out the ground rules.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 06:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How does providing -documented facts- about Iraqis' opposition to the occupation and support for the resistance/insurgency reflect "liberal bias", unless you're referring to reality itself as suffering from a "liberal bias" (which seems to be the case)? The figures I provided are factual, and cited; you can check the source documents themselves if you want. I stand by all of the information I provided, and I think it's reliable. I'm interested in the truth, not "liberal bias". If, in this case, truth doesn't conform to an "American conservative" viewpoint, it's probably your opinion that needs to shift, not mine.

And if you have any complaints about the Lancet study, I'll gladly discuss that with you. I studied statistics at the university level, and read the entire report - and the methodology behind it - last year. Apart from the doubling-up of certain similar clusters, the math checks out. Feel free to reply with any of your complaints. I am reverting the page to my last edit.

--[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 01:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the problem - we're here to state our bias, not to pretend that we're referring to ethereal, disconnected "facts" that are actually used only to bolster a particular argument. Your argument has been made and it is both the dominant and the incorrect argument. You're using the "reputable sources" and "methods" that have been so perverted over the course of the last fifty years. Shaking the voodoo stick of "truth" doesn't alter the fact that what people call "truth" changes based on the perspective of the person who presents statements about a certain subject. All voices are biased, and they need to state that bias. I am a conservative. This is an article for conservatives. I'm reverting the article. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 12:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]], It's true that Iraqi opinion was optimistic in 2003/2004. I sure you can add a section on this, including your references, without obliterating the rest of the article. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The degree of self-delusion and doublethink in Affirmlife's above paragraph is absolutely astounding. Facts are what is scientifically verifiable; for instance, the existence and subsequent extinction of the dodo bird is a documented fact, based on mountains of scientific evidence both that the species once existed and that it has since gone extinct. Just because some kook may argue that the dodo never existed does not mean that that person has a valid viewpoint, because there's no scientific evidence to support that view. Similarly, I have provided facts to this article, citing all of them. Two of the three polls that demonstrate the unpopularity of the occupation by Iraqis come from the occupying powers themselves - the British Ministry of Defence and the American State Department, neither of which is particularly renowned as being a source of "liberal bias," but quite the opposite. I mean, if you know something that I don't know about the polls I'm citing, and have reason to believe that the results have been skewed somehow, feel free to share that and we'll discuss it. But as far as I can see, the mathematics and methodology of the polls cited is pretty standard, so I really don't understand why people insist on hiding these facts. I mean, if we want to educate people on the Iraq War (I do), pointing out the fact that 80+% of Iraqis oppose it seems pretty important to me.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 10:31, 14 March 2007 (PST)

I added a reference to the bit about Iraqis fleeing the country, though a better one will certainly exist. Also, I can't find anything about a MoD Iraqi poll in the first link? [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Accidents, while I sympathize with you on Affirmlife's editing issues, you shouldn't have wiped HIS sourced comments about initial support for the invasion. Those should be added back. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Done, re-inserted the Zogby poll.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 10:41, 14 March 2007 (PST)

:Guys, all I'm trying to do here is remove the liberal bias. This article is meant to give a more nuanced understanding of the Iraq War than that presented in the conventional liberal media. I even responded in good faith to the proposition that instead of deleting liberally biased information outright, I replace it with sounder information that presents a more balanced perspective. So if the goal here is to present an alternative view of the Iraq War, concisely, I think that my direction with the edits is much more appropriate. And I think the goal here is to present that alternative view. That's my bias. Here's my question - what are yours? [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Affirm, you are not "adding" your pieces to the article - you are whole-sale deleting and replacing pieces you do not personally like. If you look at the last version Accidents did, he incorporated your poll numbers into the article. You, obviously, did not reciprocate.

::If you have a contrasting view, ADD it. Don't delete and replace sourced pieces simply b/c they conflict with your personal view of the war. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::But you've just done the very thing you accuse me of doing! What's your bias? Why do these liberal edits get privileged simply because they were first out of the gate? [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Affirm, Accidents merged your poll data into the article. You simply removed his. Your edit has ad hominem attacks against people opposed to the war, you removed any opposing viewpoints, you removed any alternate casualty data. In other words, you delete what you don't like and replace it with your own stuff.

:::::ADD your data. Quit wiping out other people's work simply b/c you personally don't like it. When you do that, I'll stop reverting the article.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Affirmlife, how do my contributions reflect a "liberal bias"? You have yet to explain this. I'm providing DOCUMENTED FACTS, and CITING THEM; you're deleting them and replacing them with undocumented statements that appear to be nothing more than conjecture. I don't understand your position here. I even included your initial Zogby poll and wrote that many Iraqis supported the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:27, 14 March 2007 (PST)

This whole article should be trashed. Huge pieces have been changed then changed back then changed again. I see very little in the way of reliable information coming out of this article if people feel they must delete sections over and over again.

== Bias ==

Folks, let's take this from a different perspective. How about using an alternative viewpoint as a baseline rather than using an article rife with liberal cant as a baseline? Let's take my version as representing a 'conservative' perspective on the Iraq War (which I believe it does). That's my purpose here, and I think that if you are all actually in good faith, you should be attempting to edit the article to hew more closely to a conservative perspective.

If you want conventional, tired liberal wisdom, go check out Wikipedia. We all need to get our thoughts together about this - what is the alternative, unexplored perspective? I don't think any of you would disagree that the framing language to the facts cited in either of the two article versions has a distinct perspective and view. We need to accept that fact, not reject it. The purpose of this article is to present a more nuanced, conservative perspective. If you find that unacceptable, perhaps you should present your perspective on Wikipedia. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 14:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think your version reflects a "conservative perspective" so much as it reflects baseless conjecture, claims that aren't cited, and the blatant suppression of documented facts that contradict your preferred political party's talking points on the matter. I mean, you make a statement as absurd as "less than 65,000 Iraqi civilians have died" without citing it. If you're citing the Iraqi Death Count website, you should probably remind yourself that even the people who run and own that site acknowledge that it is far below the actual death count, as it only includes deaths reported in at least 2 mainstream western newspapers. The Lancet study - as the language I used clearly explains - includes all excess deaths, not just violence, but including the proliferation of disease, malnutrition, etc that has occurred since the 2003 invasion. Unlike the website you seem to be citing, further, the Lancet study actually involved teams on the ground in Iraq, and if I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong on this) they received death certificates for 90% of the deaths they wished to confirm. As for the support for the Iraqi resistance/insurgency, the fact that you're suppressing that is nothing short of partisan censorship.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:55, 14 March 2007 (PST)

:::Oh, I don't know. I think that there's more than enough reason to conclude that certain sources of information are selectively utilized or unutilized by people of different social and political perspectives. My unanswered question is - '''why''' would you present this information in this way? Is the purpose of the article to be a web-based sabotage of the war effort, presented as a conservative perspective on the war? I don't think it should be. [[User:Affirmlife|Affirmlife]] 15:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think the Bush administration is doing a FINE job of 'sabotaging the war' just by following their current [[stratergy]]. Even assuming that any criticism of governmental bungling IS, in some bizarre [[voodoo]] way, going to affect the outcome of the war for the worse, at this point, any nasty things said about their blunders on some webpage is the approximate equivalent of one extra drop of water in the middle of Noah's Flood. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I've done a bit of a re-write, trying to incorporate all the points that have been put in the previous versions. It's not perfect, but I hope it will help make some progress on this. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you! Looks much better now.
-Gasmonkey

:JamesK and RobS, you did a fantastic job. This is exactly what I had in mind when I was suggesting it. Thank you very much. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== WMD ==

''Only about one-third of 36 million pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared. [https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/scope.html]'''

That statement and reference is more than 2 years out of date now. Unless there's a more recent reference it will have to be changed. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Psychic predictions==
This statement,

''On-the-ground academic research in Iraq has determined that approximately 600,000 more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than would have otherwise died in that time frame if the war was not raging.[8]''

even being cited to the New York Times means nothing. Coulda Woulda Shoulda is not news, neither are psychic predictors of facts that never happened. I seriously think this kinda junk needs to be kept out. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:LOL! Do you even understand how casualty studies are conducted, or how the math behind them functions? These aren't "psychic predictors of facts that never happened". There's massive amounts of mathematics and science behind these studies; you can't publish something like that in a peer-reviewed journal like the Lancet without meeting rigorous scientific requirements to ensure reliable results. The study itself is available in PDF format if you Google it, so yuou can read it and take a look at the math behind it for yourself. Perhaps that will help allay your confusion.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (PST)
:Here is a link to the study on the Lancet's website: http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf If anybody has any questions about the methodology or mathematics involved, feel free to ask me and I will try to help you understand. I look forward to putting the Lancet study back into this article, because I see no serious reason to exclude it.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 19:18, 14 March 2007 (PST)
::(Edit conflict:I'll read the rest) Yes, I understand. For example, Saddam only killed 250,000 over thirty years; so using the mathematical model we would have to divide 250,000 human lives by 30 and then add back the average for three years (2003 - 2006). Makes perfect logical and scientific sense. It doesn't preclude the possibility that Saddam may have awoke one morning and decided to go on a pogrom and slaughter 650,000 people in the space of three years, thus upsetting the model. Nor does it consider that Saddam may have met an early demise and Uday or Qusay could have likewise gone on such a pogrom.

::Point here is, this is junk science, beginning with the conclusion that if not for the Bush- Cheney-Rusmfeld cabal, 650,000 Iraqi's would be alive, i.e. laying the responsibility for murderers and terrorists at the US Admins feet (and yes, all that garbage previously was in the intro to this article before it was fixed with facts).

::This is History 101, "If Rommel had 4 more divisions, we'd all be speaking German today". But Rommel didn't have 4 more divisions, and we're not speaking German today. It's the simple difference between historical facts, and speculation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And the historical fact is that there are a LOT of dead Iraqis, and since the USA is currently occupying the country, _we're_ Responsible. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By the sounds of it, neither of you is acknowledging that you understand the difference between casualty studies - which are considered reliable because they're applied with sound mathematical techniques - and baseless speculation. I mean, you're taking a peer-reviewed study and trying to discredit it on the grounds that you don't think science itself is reliable. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me. I mean there are reasons to attack the Lancet's methodology in Iraq - merging certain sample zones, for example - but dismissing it as "junk science" is simply ignorant.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 11:39, 14 March 2007 (PST)

::Scrap: So the coalition is repsonsible for the death by "violence", as the study refers to it, and murderers and terrorist who commited those acts are not held responsible? And there are several other moral issues that can be discussed regarding this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Accidents: While I have yet to get into the details of "method" comparing "casualty rates" prior to March of 2003, by what method were "casualty rates" by "violence", i.e. those murdered by the regime over previous years considered the "norm", or basis of this study? But this is definitely '''not the starting point''' for reviewing this Study, and I shall outline the proper method of review if editors wish to waste their time any further with this stuff. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RobS, I appreciate the fact that even though I provided a direct link to the .pdf of the study itself, you were too lazy to read it and answer your own questions. It explains that - and this is a direct quote - "pre-invasion mortality rates were 5.5 per 1000 people per year". There's also a graph, on the third page, exploring death rates under the pre-war sanctions are as well as under the post-war occupation era. Further, seeing as you obviously haven't read it, I can't help but wonder on what grounds you're even disagreeing with the study. Here's a guess: your partisan bias implores you to disagree with the study's results, because they don't make your current position on the issue look very good. If that's the case, I'd suggest you re-evaluate your own critical thinking abilities and challenge your own preconceptions for the sake of intellectual honesty.[[User:Accidents|Accidents]] 13:26, 15 March 2007 (PST)
::::Accidents, Thank you. Please, cease with the personal attacks. Indeed I have invested time in the Lancet study as you call it. It has several ''primea facia'' difficulties. I do not think we are ready to discuss methods or conclusions. Perhaps, since you may feel strongly about this, begin with properly qualifying the report as to why anyone should pay anymore attention to it than has already been given. Discussing method now is useless. Please qualify the source properly. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Criticisms==

"The American left has been criticized for its objections to the execution of the war." What is the nature of the criticism? Was it criticized for criticizing the war tactics because criticizing the Administration is somehow unacceptable? [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 22:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course it's unacceptable! Don't you know that [[Dissent]] is [[Treason]]? What did you think this was, some sort of "Democracy"? Bush said there would be War, and its our job as Good Citizens to pay for it and die for it, and most importantly, to SHUT UP ABOUT IT. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT) </sarcasm>

== Not-so-current affairs ==

The last good news you could find from Iraq was in 2004? It's like you volunteer Propagandists For Bush aren't even ''trying'' any more. I decided to update it a bit, but I bet it gers diverted or deleted ASAP. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Should Civilian Opinion Surveys be included here? ==

Firstly they're going to be unreliable given the volitile circumstances over there, the language barrier, and the likelihood that they're going to be that truthful if they have a negative opinion of the US Occupation. Secondly, its pretty ridiculous to argue that one poll where Iraqi's say they support the insurgency is invalid because of methods that the another poll seems to adopt, which finds the opposite conclusion, but is submitted without quantification. Either way, they are opinions about opinions and hardly reflect the strict standards for fact that I'm sure the Conservapedia strives for.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:I would agree with this, and particularly if the so-called opinion survey's are non-indigenious, i.e.can be shown to have any relationship at all with the well known Western media opinion surveys's or other manufacturors of "public opinion." Western opinion surveyor's understand Western media and marketing, not Iraqi demographics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Opinion polls==
I count 7 or 19 references in this article are about opinion polls; why so many? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

RobS - I noted that the topic contained a LOT of opinion polls with one viewpoint. Rather than removing those biased entries, I refuted them with countering opinions, polls and documentation (such as articles.)

:I'll state my concerns here. Opinion polls, while interesting, do not define the facts of a situation. Yes, they can be very influential in moving a situation, but they are not in and of themselves determinitive. For example, a user in Wikipedia who is somewhat of an enthusiast on JFK assassination stuff presented an argument that essentially cited opinion polls from 1963 onwards regarding the Warren Commission Report and other investigations that showed 50%+ did not believe those reports. This editors conclusion was the Warren Commission Report is untrue based upon the fact a majority of random samplings didn't beleive it. An ''opinion poll'' was used to determine the ''truth'' that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.

:Another fear is this might make ABC News polls look good. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

RobS; Since the vast majority of the population just takes poll numbers as gospel truth, the refute of the current mindset with other conflicting poll numbers shows that there is room for dissent on these points - that it is not settled public opinion on the matter. Since we are not discussing old events but a current one - unlike the 1960s JFK assassination - what people think about the matter truly does affect Homeland security and an encyclopedia should not be biased to one view. To let the poll result remain there, unchanged, without attempting to bring balance to the presentation seemed an incorrect approach. I had considered deleting the opinion poll entries in question and all references to polls entirely, but if you look at the page before my edits, you will see it leaves very little page to read. Also, I felt that since I just joined, to join and then start deleting other people's work would not show right attitude or character. I was seeking to help with balance and information, not to censor what was already there.

== Cost of war = $9B? ==

"Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war] The numbers are highly debated, however, and other sources put the cost around $9 Billion.[http://costofwar.com/numbers.html Iraq War Cost Calculator Notes]"

From the second referenced page, I cannot find anything that suggests that the cost is $9 billion. Instead, I find pages that point to the total war allocations being $510 billion through fiscal 07 [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf], and $318 billion for Iraq through fiscal 06 [http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3601&from_page=../index.cfm]. The first referenced page suggests that care of the wounded from Iraq over the next decade will be $2.5 ''trillion''. I would suggest that people double check their information for the facts here. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:38, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is a good observation. There is a difference between "cost" and "allocations"; out of pocket "costs" now vs Iraq's ability to hold a large balance of payments surplus, provide needed oil reserves to world markets, and pay for its own security in the future without being a threat to it's neighbors or dependent on international humanitarian aid programs is not considered or calculated in any of these formulas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Duelfer Report ==

Okay this is getting insulting now. The principal finding of the Duelfer report was that Saddam had no WMD or significant WMD production capabilities. Yes it also found that he was endeavoring to get the means to get that potentially running again if the sanctions were removed, but the important thing is that he had no WMD and no significant capacity to produce them. The fact that you're denying this isnt just biased, its insulting to anyone who's actually read the thing. We didnt go to war with Saddam because he was gaming the Oil-for-Food program, we went to war because he was supposed to have these WMDs. It turns out he didnt. Stop pretending otherwise.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:You mischaracterize what the Duelfer Report says; for one "report also found that Hussein's capacity to produce WMDs had deteriorated significantly since 1991", whereas the Report states it was started up again in 1997. Then, the repeated reference to "any remaining WMD-related programs were "not of a militarily significant capability." What? So the coalition was supposed to ''wait'' until Saddam had an operational capability?
:There was much similar discussion in the 9/11 Report; how having all this knowledge, why didn't they act beforehand to avert such a disaster, etc. etc. etc. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::9/11 is inconsequential to the discussion and its pathetically disingenuous for you to bring it up, though I notice theres a new section about it that quotes Tenet without attmepting to substantiate his claims that even though Osama actively wanted Saddam dead, they were working in joyous collusion. Three cheers for dedication to objective unbiased facts, eh? Although considering I got banned for saying that George W Bush was born in Connecticut and Massachusetts has a relatively low tax rate, its hardly surprising here.
::As far as waiting until Saddam had an operational capacity, given that a necessary condition was removal of the sanctions it can easily be argued that maintaining them would be key to minimizing whatever threat he would ever pose. However, this too is inconsequential to the discussion.
::The existing entry on the Duelfer report contains information that exclusively backs up the patently false claim that Saddam posed an existing or even potential nuclear threat to the United States, which goes against the principal finding of the report itself. Objective, bipartisan analysts concluded that there were existing stockpiles or functional capacity to produce them, and that was the key finding of the report. That the entry on the report should quote it so selectively as to support the purely anecdotal argument that the opposite is true is Intellectual Dishonesty writ large.
::You want to quote a dozen people who said there were WMDs? Be my guest. You're certainly free to present that information in your vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth. Lord knows if you all post enough things with exclamation marks and boldface youre bound to convince the sort of people that impresses. However if youre going to use a report, any report, it is an insult to all intellectual endeavor to ignore the report's principal finding and quote selectively and suggestively to prove that same untruth.
::The report does have information that supports the WMD argument. However the report's principal finding contradicts the core of the argument. Stop pretending.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I think you should stop worshipping at the shrine of the Duelfer report, Rex. It isn't as though it is definitive for all time. It is one report. When it is raised to the status of the Holy Bible by you so that its findings are indisputable, it makes you sound like a religious "political" fanatic - set like stone in one very uninspired viewpoint. It is a REPORT.. done by fallible men who were trying to compromise so both parties could get along and make a statement which set aside their squabbling. It also could be characterized as a cop-out compromise for political expediency. You mention "The report does have information that supports the WMD argument," then discount the possibility in the very next breath. How objective is that viewpoint? You also dismiss all argument that there were any WMD. The sarin warheads discovered by the Polish troops and the Iraqi Survey group, those who were treated for injuries from the one which exploded in an IED (read the stories).. the finding of mustard gas bombs.. all don't matter? Look at the evidence. Don't just believe one report like it is your Bible. These are FACTS, not flights of fantasy. Set aside your political prejudice and try and look at the evidence. You might also note that the special investigator for the Pentagon stated of your vaunted Iraq Survey Group who made this report that he had heard of "facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions" but the ISG had IGNORED that and not ever gone there, quote, "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond.." How throrough does that make their report's findings then? How definitive?
:If youre trying to argue that the report is worthless then you're also arguing that it shouldnt be included here without that equivocation. The section currently brags about all the things that tangentially support the idea that Saddam could possibly have posed a nuclear threat, and that exclusively. You havent argued that this is representative of the report, so I assume you concede my point that it isnt. The article is claiming the report as a whole says something it clearly doesnt. If the report is relevant then the anti-WMD stuff needs to be mentioned. If, as you're arguing, its worthless, then it needs to be removed entirely. You cannot have it both ways.
:Also, keep up the belittling personal attacks, there Skies, really bolsters your argument. Good for you.

Personal attacks.. like saying my contributions are vainglorious attempts to prove an untruth?? I was just replying in kind. A wise man once said, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

As for your saying that the report is worthless, it isn't. It just isn't definitive, as you were stating and trying to defend. The report is mentioned on the page, but I didn't post that section and so I cannot defend how it was stated. You say, "The article is claiming the report as a whole says something it clearly doesnt." So, rather than personally attacking those of us who are contributing, what suggestions do you have as to how to modify the entry so that it reflects a more even, balanced and unbiased opinion? The report isn't worthless, it does have some validity (though when it selectively ignores people who plead for them to come and inspect, I do wonder at its veracity, don't you?). I am not arguing for its exclusion, only for it not to be seen as definitive and inspired beyond the pale of "regular" men.. men such as those you deprecate when you say the other information which is posted is only put there and highlighted to "convince the sort of people that impresses." Like the information itself is untruthful and deceptive, perhaps? It is not, and your mockery was what caused the personal reply in kind you received. If you wish to remove it from being personal, why don't you try being civil and discussing methods of improving the information to make it unbiased in a way which refrains from deprecating my contributions.
:That anything here pretends at being "Unbiased" is hilarious. The point remains that the entry on the report itself contains no mention of its main conclusion. It is selectively quoted to prove a point that the report itself is at odds with. You dont want to present the fair view, the one where all the report's findings are discussed, only the ones that support a particular argument. The origional entry included information on all topics. It now included a set so small as to not be objective but argumentative. Anyone reading the article without already knowing what the report was would have no idea that it's principal finding is at odds with the WMD argument, and would instead think that it completely reaffirmed the WMD argument. Do you deny this?
Thank you for being rational and not personal in this post. I appreciate that. You say that conservapedia is "biased" toward conservative viewpoints.. well, it was called CONSERVApedia for a reason, wasn't it? I don't think people coming to this site expect to hear the Liberal viewpoint touted in every article as absolute truth. The site was created to bring out the conservative viewpoint which conservatives see as under-represented at other sites (and edited out at other sites, as well.)
Now, I could point out that the Liberapedia.. called Wikipedia is not without its flaws, either, quote: "The website Conservapedia.com has a long list of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace – even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he’d edited thousands of articles with flair. The Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation is aware of its website’s reputation. Board member Erik Moller was very frank in a recent essay. One of their ten things they wanted you to know about Wikipedia is "We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/11549 </ref>

I think the Conservapedia strives to be conservative in outlook but with a degree of trust concerning keeping the site as close as it can be to what is factual. Yes, there is a conservative viewpoint expressed in the articles, but that is expected. Do you expect to join the Republican party and then campaign for Democrat issues and viewpoints? You wouldn't get very far doing so, and you won't go far trying to bring non-conservative views out here. But just because a certain viewpoint is unapologetically set forth and adhered to, that does not mean that the articles are all trash or "hilarious" as you called it, and many of us appreciate the refreshing atmosphere where a conservative view is encouraged. You say, "The point remains that the entry on the report itself contains no mention of its main conclusion." I shall work on the entry and note that their conclusion was that there are no huge stockpile of WMD in Iraq.. but with caveats because I do not see the point of quoting the report as "gospel truth" when so much of the rest of this entry refutes its conclusion as flawed and leave its conclusions open to disputation.

As for presenting "all the report's findings", this is an entry on Iraq War.. not on the Duelfer Report. They are not synonymous. It is not unfair to discuss only parts of the report rather than the entire thing. For further study the links are given. When you say, "Anyone reading the article without already knowing what the report was would have no idea that it's principal finding is at odds with the WMD argument, and would instead think that it completely reaffirmed the WMD argument." I do doubt this conclusion. As stated now in the entry, the principle finding was not what the media spun it to be. QUOTE: " Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No." I have noted how the debate has moved to another agenda and away from the central findings under the section "Misreporting the Duelfer Report."

As you know, almost everyone knows what the report was, and perhaps the original poster merely worked from the idea of already known facts and moved forward. It is easy not to state the obvious. As I said, this is not my contribution and I have not touched it, but I will now work to encorporate a mention that the WMD were seen by the report as not existing. I will, however, mention something to the effect that the servicemen who were treated for injuries from the exploding sarin IED bomb would think they did not have a hallucination, and that sarin is actually a WMD. Do you deny that point?
:Firstly, its generally incorrect to assume that anyone researching a subject already knows enough about it. Considering too that half the articles on this site are presented as "proof that everything you knew about Sally Fields' Hairstylist is a lie" its not difficult to see how someone thinking that the Duelfer report refuted major WMD claims that upon coming here they would reach the conclusion that it said nothing of the kind.
:Next, no I dont deny Sarin is a WMD as considered by the UN (and we know how much the UN is to be trusted) the same way I'm sure that you wont deny that, given that the shell predated the 1991 Gulf war that it doesnt prove Saddam had hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons.
:Also, I care what you're opinion on the Wikipedia is. I entirely do. No, seriously I actually do because the way youve described it is as something that presents facts at odds with conservative views, and that Conservapedia does not think it necessary to incorporate facts that challenge the opinions of Neo-cons. Instead of elaborating on subjects for the purpose of furthering discourse and strengthening everyone's ability to debate productively on such topics, lets just list all the things we like to think and ignore everything else. In the past six hours I've seen people misquoted, called on it, and ignored, Ive seen nonexistant chatroom transcripts mentioned to indict people, and Ive seen, and who is surprised, a desire to have a report correctly represented as blind devotion to the document as though it were a holy book to the pious. After all, why have intellectual discourse when we can pat ourselves on the back for agreeing with each other?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 16:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
No, the wikipedia does not present facts at odds with conservative views. The edit all conservative views out, including the facts conservatives bring up. It is called Censorship. Ask any conservative news site or bloggers.. they try to post there and within minutes, all they post simply disappears. So when you accuse conservapedia of, "lets just list all the things we like to think and ignore everything else", I think that is the pot calling the kettle black. I agree it is incorrect to assume people know what the reports are so I gave a little more background and expanded the section. AND I did mention that both Kay and Duelfer said that no huge stockpiles of WMD were found. I hope you approve (but I somehow think you will find fault.. ??) Just remember, it is all due to you. :)
:I personally wouldn't have phrased the central thesis of the report so tersely and dismissively, but I do thank you for at the very least including some mention of the core thrust of the report in the section intent on discussing it.
:And yes I know all about the 3vil wikipedia's bias, how they use CE, which has no christian basis, instead of AD, which given that most estimates put christs birth at around 5BC, also has no christian basis. And how they insist on providing explanations of how theres no legitimate causal relationship between abortions and breast cancer and alternative explanations of that correlation, oh how dare they try to be objective. Also, did you know that their entry on Ronald Reagan contains no mention of him being the resurrection of Christ, nor how he won the cold war by punching Gorbechev into the sun. The audacity.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 17:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::''9/11 is inconsequential to the discussion ''
::No it's not. Not as it relates to process, or how these reports are covered in the press or perceived by the public. "Failure to contect the dots...", Remember that one? The Duelfer Report says things quite different than how it was being used here. The Duelfer Report clearly states Saddam was pursing WMD programs, and it extensively details complicity with non-Iraqi companies, governments, NGOs, & individuals. As the report said, Iraq is only half the story.

::WMD does not singularly refer to (a) stockpiles, and/or (b) production facilities. A simple illustration: when we says "United States Army", we are not talking about tanks, guns & hardware, we are talking about persons employed in the enterprise. Same is true about NASA; we are not talking about the end result of manufactured rockets and satellites, we are speaking about persons. The same is true about NSA. We are not talking about sophisticated communications technolgy, we are refering to the persons employed in the business. When WMD programs were discussed in 2003 as one reason, among several reasons, for pursuing the object of regime change, nobody ever said it was just stockpiles and production facilities.

::Later on, partisan critics and journalists, for whatever reason, tried to make light of the popular misconceptions regarding what WMD programs are--and used this misinformation to invent mindless partisan arguements that serve no discernable purpose other than some domestic political agenda totally unrelated to US securtity needs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the interesting thoughts and contributions, RobS, appreciate it. Rex, I see you bring to the discussion on Iraq War a bunch of baggage from the other site about dates and previous administrations (Reagan), etc. I don't feel they merit any response when the topic is Iraq and that appears to be truly covered now. Thank you both for the discussion, Skies.

== No Casus Belli? ==

Is there some REASON we're not supposed to talk about how President Bush led us into war in Iraq?
----

:We should talk about it. But edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 this] belong on the talk page - not in the body of the article.

:When there are opposing views, shall we just enshrine one as The Truth? That will degrade trust, and that's the weakness of Wikipedia. It (1) says it won't take sides but (2) routinely takes sides.

:I suggest we here acknowledge the existence of opposing views. It's ridiculously easy to detect them, when they are dimetrically opposed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::You oppose me adding a few FACTS to the article? My [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&curid=8014&diff=72839&oldid=72151&rcid=75431 edit] was nothing but documented truth and when I have more time, I will add more. This may be a conservative site, but truth knows not philosophical bounds. If you cannot accept the WHOLE story, do not read ANY of it - history is not YOURS to decide. - [[User:PKBear|PKBear]] 16:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"just enshrine one as The Truth" You realise that is horrendously hypocritical? By removing the edits which gave that point of view, you have merely left the original one by itself, enshrining '''it''' as truth. Don't accuse Wikipedia of taking sides when articles such as [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] exist. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Cut from intro:
:Oddly enough, though, the Bush administration has also acknowledged that no ties existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda - a claim which had been used for years to justify the war.

Got a source for this "acknowledgment"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, but it's all on sites CONTAMINATED WITH HIDEOUS LIBERAL COOTIES, so I'm sure it'll all be rejected out of hand.
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
:http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=1916
:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

:On the other hand, Bush Said So, so it must be True: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html (Whatever happened to that mistrust for government that the Right nurtured when the Evil One was President? Did it all get shed like a burning coat on January 21th, 2001?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 23:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::Of course it did. Intellectual honesty is for suckers...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==End of first phase==

Was did Bush's May 1, 2003 claim, of "Mission Accomplished," really mean?
#That the US won the war - and that it is supposedly over
#That [[major combat operations]] had ended - and the war was in a (milder) new phase

What do you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

A "milder" phase? How in the name of all that's holy does something in a "milder" phase have an higher average death rate than the actual war itself?

an accomplished mission is one that has gotten to a point that American men and women no longer come home in a box. Res Ipso Loquitor. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 23:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why do you Hate America(tm)? Don't you understand that REAL Patriots '''don't ask questions'''. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 23:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: It wasn't Bush's claim, I don't think. It was a military sign. The obvious meaning was that the USA won the Battle of Baghdad. It did not mean "war over" or "all problems solved". The word "mission" doesn't mean the whole war, just an operation within the war. So I say that both of Ed's interpretations are wrong and contrary to plain english. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I just reverts AmesG's change, because he overrode my edit and also inserted a silly and misleading comment about the "Mission Accomplished" sign. He is welcome to discuss it here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for clarifying that, and knocking down those two straw men I had put up. As a former military man, I followed the progress of the war as closely as I could from unclassified sources. Bush was praising the troops for destroying Iraqi sovereignty (or "toppling the dictatorship"). When the Iraqi troops took off their uniforms and went home, that was a victory of sorts.

:::Nonetheless, one operation is not a war - and no victory has been achieved. The next phase is [[counter-insurgency]], which is not being done the way I would do it. But since I never even made Corporal (let alone an officer rank), it's probably not my place to criticize. Anyone can be an armchair quarterback.

:::The conduct of the [[Iraq War]] will undoubtedly be an issue in the [[2008 US presidential election]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

False premise. (a) Bush never said "mission accomplished"; (b) no evidence Bush implied "mission accomplished" as to objective of regime change; (c) Tommy Franks explained that incident. (d) This is just another gross lie Bush and Iraqi War critics complain about. Now, if critics could find some valid basis other than provable, manufactured lies of this nature that there is over reliance upon, they could develope credibilty. Til then, it's not worth the time responding to. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Holy Roman Empire

2007-03-30T18:25:46Z

Dave3172: edited out ridiculous claim that God abandoned the HRE and Catholicism.

{{Progress}}

[[Image:Western_Empire_887.gif|thumbnail|right|300px|The Empire in 887]]

Ca. 900 to 1806 AD, A wide stretch of land mainly in [[Europe]], ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor.

==Origins==

The origins of the Holy Roman Empire lie with the [[Carolingian]] empire founded by the Frankish Emperor [[Charlemagne]]. After the death in 840 of Charlemagne's son and successor, [[Louis the Pious]], the Frankish Empire fell into civil war among the three sons of Louis, [[Lothair]], [[Charles the Bald]] and [[Louis the German]]. At the [[Treaty of Verdun]] in 843, the three sons agreed to split the Empire in three parts and divide them among themselves.

Louis the German gained the eastern part of the Empire, and was made King of East Francia. In 962, his descendant [[Otto I]] inherited the Imperial crown as the last surviving heir of the Carolingian dynasty. At this point, the Kingdom of East Francia became the Holy Roman Empire, although this name was not common until later centuries.

==Nomenclature==

The name "Holy Roman Empire", which became common in the 12th century, reflects the self-perception of its emperors as descendants of the [[Roman Empire]]. Through a process called [[translatio imperii]], the old Roman Empire continued in the shape of the Holy Roman Empire.

In the 16th century, the full description ''The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation'' was usually used in formal references.

In 1756, [[Voltaire]] famously described the Empire as "neither [[Holy]], nor [[Rome|Roman]], nor an [[Empire]]", in his ''Essay on the Manner and Spirit of Nations and on the Principal Occurrences in History''.

==Political==

Throughout its history, the Holy Roman Empire was an unstable political structure. Power in the Empire was very decentralized, and mostly held by strong noble families and ecclesiastical princes. The power of the Emperor was often dependent on both his personal lands and resources, and on his ability to negotiate or coerce the other powerful nobles of the realm.

The Emperor was chosen through election by the so-called Prince-Electors, or ''Kurfürsten''. For the greater part of the Empire's history, there were seven Electors: The three Archbishops of Mainz, Trier and Cologne, the King of Bohemia, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the Duke of Saxony, and the Margrave of Brandenburg.

==Religion==

By the 1400s, the Holy Roman Empire had begun to decline, due to numerous clashes with the [[Ottoman Turks]] and French. The Reformation also contributed in causing the Holy Roman Empire to fall.

{{stub}}

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-03-29T19:04:23Z

Dave3172: /* You're incredible */

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== You're incredible ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Are you guys serious? Ames is clearly one of the better personalities on this site. You're alienating one of the better editors Conservapedia could ever have. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 13:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, though it is a little amusing to see sysops slowly turn this site into a parody of itself. [[User:Bob2|Bob2]] 13:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Maybe you should block yourself, Schlafly. Edit wars require more than one actor. You're just as blameworthy as Ames. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 14:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::*Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit '''''did not''''' say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:: You should have tried to work with him instead of giving him a time out. [[User:Bob2|Bob2]] 14:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow, he's been blocked...again...it's amazing what gets done when peoples POV clash. Shame that one of the best contributors to this site has been blocked (as i said before, again). You sysops are actually funny to watch. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:25, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-03-29T18:19:48Z

Dave3172: /* You're incredible */

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== You're incredible ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Are you guys serious? Ames is clearly one of the better personalities on this site. You're alienating one of the better editors Conservapedia could ever have. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 13:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, though it is a little amusing to see sysops slowly turn this site into a parody of itself. [[User:Bob2|Bob2]] 13:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Maybe you should block yourself, Schlafly. Edit wars require more than one actor. You're just as blameworthy as Ames. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 14:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:: You should have tried to work with him instead of giving him a time out. [[User:Bob2|Bob2]] 14:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-03-29T18:16:18Z

Dave3172: /* You're incredible */

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== You're incredible ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Are you guys serious? Ames is clearly one of the better personalities on this site. You're alienating one of the better editors Conservapedia could ever have. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 13:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, though it is a little amusing to see sysops slowly turn this site into a parody of itself. [[User:Bob2|Bob2]] 13:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Warren G. Harding

2007-03-28T23:13:43Z

Dave3172: /* This Is A Suspect Article */

== This Is A Suspect Article ==

'''Would someone be so kind as to fact-check it, including all citations, and repair it? It is mainly the work of the deceitful (now blocked) Liberal Sysop Richard. There are many factual inaccuracies. Thanks!''' --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:For the record—and since I’m sick of seeing “liberal” used to describe any behavior we don’t like—Richard does not describe himself as liberal—in fact in his post about this issue he writes: “I still don't consider myself a "liberal" (except in the classic sense) as I'm no fan of socialism nor do I buy the concept of "economic justice". <ref>Richard’s post [http://linuxintegrators.com/acoliver/blog/2007/03/27/x-0310.html]</ref>. “Liberal” has a meaning, and that meaning is not “anything I don’t like”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not ideological; it is an issue of good faith. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I am not commenting on anything other than the misuse of the word “liberal” by [[User:TK|TerryK]] and others on this site. I’m not commenting here on what Richard did, other people (like you) are making the same points I would make, and, as I see it, the remaining issue (how to make sure this doesn’t happen again) is one the administrative team is going to have to handle and is not something I have any expertise in and so is something I’m not going to say anything about. However, labeling Richard a “liberal” just because his behavior on this site was dishonest is a clear misuse of the word “liberal”—“liberal” does not mean “anyone we don’t like” and using it to mean that is something I find very distasteful and something I can do something about. Let me be clear, I condemn Richard’s actions I am not writing in support of them, I am making one point and one point only—that Richard did something wrong does not make him a “liberal”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 19:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Everything he wrote is accurate. He just left other things out and phrased it in such a way that it comes off as a fawning lovenote to the guy instead of a genuine critique. Which, again, is the whole point. TPTB (and esp. Andy) were all content to let it stand b/c he had the "proper" political viewpoint. Andy even SysOped him b/c of this article. Isn't THAT the issue you should be more concerned about? It's like a doctor just revealed a tumor and you're more concerned about the doctor finding it than finding a cure.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

So, in other words, leaving things out is honest and the mark of a scholar? He boasted in his own blog he added false citations. Talk around it all you like, gentlemen, obsfucate all you like. He and his work are dishonest. Self-admittedly so. Try making this a political debate all you want, but try it on someone who isn't a professional in the field. He joined voluntairly, particpated willingly, all for only one pupose, to play "gothcha". --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:35, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::And how long did you let it stay here? Why didn't you, or Andy, or anyone else check his work? Why, with such a supposedly shoddy article, was Richard made a SysOp? THESE are the things that should be concerning you, not that I found it funny or that he did it in the first place. It never could have happened if there were better controls and a lack of a denied - but painfully obvious - bias towards what passes for conservative thought these days.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Do I agree this is a bad article? Last time I read it, yes. Did I say anything about the article in my comment? Last time I read it, no. My point was that some people on this site—and you [[User:TK|TerryK]] are one of them – use “liberal” to mean “anything I don’t like”. That is not the meaning of the word “liberal”. Your claim that this article “...is mainly the work of the deceitful (now blocked) Liberal Sysop Richard” is false – the sysop Richard is not a liberal. That was my point. I said nothing about the quality of the article, nothing about the quality of Richard’s edits, nothing about Richard’s moral character, and nothing about anything else in your response. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I apologize, Reginod, when I first read this page, it appeared you were not the only person posting here. My eyes are getting older, so perhaps they fool me now and then. :p And no matter what Richard says, he is not a Conservative, by any honest appraisal of his actions or words. Attacking me, and lumping me in with whoever else is helping on this project is deceitful and dishonest, and dis-proven by my posts. Shame on you. Spend some time fixing the article so it worthy of its topic, rather than just posting your disagreement with me. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:No you were right, and at first I thought you may not have been addressing me, but then I read your post again “Talk around it all you like, gentlemen, obsfucate all you like.” The key word there being “gentlemen”, plural, and there were only two people, besides you, involved in the discussion at the time—so I assumed you were responding to me and the other person who had commented. I never said that Richard was a conservative – I read his post and based on what he had to say I would call him centrist—there are more than two political positions that a person could hold and “liberal” does not mean “anyone who is not conservative”. You have done exactly what I have said you have done (misused the word “liberal” to mean something totally different from its meaning) and you’ve done it here—but that is all I am saying you have done. Anything I haven’t said, I haven’t said—I’ve said everything I wanted to and nothing more or less, so please do not try to read anything more than that into my words.
:As far as fixing the article goes, I’m not much of a historian (and most of my historical knowledge is about time periods other than the one President Harding was active during) and I’m working on something else at the moment, but I thought this was a teachable moment so I took some time out to make, what I believe to be, an important point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

----

How could this marvellous article have omitted to include a family-friendly description of the zany, madcap antics engaged in by Nan Britton and "Mr. Harding" in the White House coat closet, amongst the galoshes? Note: irony. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:30, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: even wikipedia admits harding was innocent here: "Warren G. Harding was not, directly, personally or otherwise, aware of the scandal. At the time of his death in 1923 he was just beginning to learn of problems deriving from the actions of his appointee". I think you expose your Liberal bias. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 21:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh, Nan Britton was associated with a different scandal, not Teapot Dome. She was... how to say this... the Monica Lewinsky of the Roaring Twenties. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: says harding's critics and the MSM. There is no unbiased source to substantiate that [[User:Richard|Richard]] 21:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ummm....Teapot Dome, anybody? Biggest scandal ever in an administration? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

if you haven't noticed, the article is one big stupid joke... [[User:Splark|Splark]] 20:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: What makes you say this is a joke?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::"Mr. Harding's unassailable character was an exemplary example for all Americans" Keep in mind all of his scandals, extramarital affairs, and everything else that was omitted (including his admission to be not mentally up to the job). I think you're being tricked by a liberal smart-aleck. [[User:Splark|Splark]] 20:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: And do you have unbiased sources that actually substantiate those claims? This is just like McCarthy, who has been proven right by history. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 21:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Note that the article is referenced. If you feel other material that is sufficiently factual and ideologically compatible then please add it rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks against my character (calling me a liberal) [[User:Richard|Richard]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Splark, with all due respect, I think you've been duped by liberal history books. Harding was one of the most conservative presidents and was maligned by liberals because he was conservative. Do you buy everything the media says about other conservatives, such as [[Anita Bryant]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::With all due respect to you, Aschlafly, Warren Harding did say "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here." (http://www.trivia-library.com/b/u-s-president-warren-g-harding-quotes-from-and-about-harding.htm). Also, the article does not even include the Teapot Dome scandal, where Harding secretly leased naval oil-reserve lands to private companies. (http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0380900-00). While the media is quite biased against Harding, the article should at least include the Teapot Dome scandal and his two extramarital affairs (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/warrengharding/p/pHarding.htm) I know this site is biased, but the facts remain. -[[User:Splark|Splark]] 22:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I agree that the teapot dome issue should be handled. I'm researching it. Patience, the article didn't exist until today. Granted the teapot issue looks rather small compared to whitewater or other incidents and seems more appropriate for an article on the secretary of the interior than Mr. Harding, but it did bother him and happened on his watch so it should be at least mentioned. As for the quote, I've no idea where, when or if he actually said that. The affairs cannot be substantiated even wikipedia treats them skeptically and Britton seems to be a scurrilous character. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Harding#Extramarital_affairs). Let's fill out the article but not be mislead by period and later liberal biases and innuendo. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 22:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Also, we have a rule against gossip here. It's a distraction at best and misleading and destructive at worst. Truth is often impossible to determine and relevancy is often dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Ahh I removed the death speculation. Probably qualifies. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 02:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

= League of Nations =

I disagree with the removal of the league of nations paragraph. It is true that the senate did not ratify the treaty under Wilson but part of the Harding landslide was that he promised to keep us out and the American people rejected Wilson's internationalist policies. In context of the presidency Harding was a key figure in keeping us out of the League. Had we avoided the Truman period we might have dodged the United Nations bullet as well. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 22:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I disagree. The Senate was already on record as opposing the League. Harding's assumption of the Presidency did nothing to enhance or reduce that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Avoiding the League had nothing to do with not entering the Spanish Revolution or the beginnings of WW2, especially WW2 since the League was for all intents defunct by 1939. Even had we joined, we'd have avoided either conflict. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: One of the reasons that the league went defunct was America refused to join it. Obviously it would have lasted longer and we'd have been involved in many conflicts sooner had we gotten involved. The United Nations proves that. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 23:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::You are making an assumption that cannot be supported by the facts. US involvement in the League wouldn't have led to involvement in Spain. Neither France nor the UK got heavily involved though both were League members. One of the two countries that did (Germany) left the League.

::And the WW2 contention is just not correct. By war's beginning the league was a joke. The war began due to occurences outside the League's influence. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Gentlemen the fact is that the League was a joke because the most important nation, whose (former) leader proposed it, stayed out of it. Without the US, it was a European talking shop like the UN is today when not backed by US force (the real tea dome scandal). You can claim up and down that not joining the league didn't keep us out of wars that were not in our interest but history and the facts simply don't support you. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Richard, you can't claim a negative. You cannot prove that staying out of the League kept us out of Spain and the beginning of WW2. So, for that reason alone, you can't rightly add it here. It's not factually accurate. To be frank, its a ridiculous assertion.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fine we can leave it out. I think you're pushing your liberal agenda a bit far but I insist we DO include that he helped continue to keep us out and I added a reference TO that effect. We'll leave it to the reader's imagination the negative effects that would have come to pass if we had joined that unholy "supergovernment" as Harding referred to it. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Richard, I think the current paragraph is fine. And while you'll continue to deny it, I think this entry is one of the finest pieces of satire I've ever read. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 07:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On big failure of the League of Nations was the inability to deal with the problem of "foreign national volunteers" entering Spain to engage in belligerency. A "foreign national volunteer" in 1936-38 would be akin to an "unlawful combatant" today. The discussion of "unlawful combatants" today always centers on the Geneva Convention of 1949, which had both the Spanish Civil War & WWII in perspective, but the problem in the 1936-38 period was persons from non-belligerent member states, like the US, UK, France, Netherlands, etc., crossing international boundaries to engage in an armed conflict within a League of Nations member state, not unlike Eygptians, Saudis, etc., crossing into Iraq to engage in active belligerency against coalition forces or the current iraq government.

Where the problem arises, is when these private combatant volunteers from a neutral (or even allied) state return home for R&R, and then go back into the zone of belligerncy, because then Spain, or Iraq today, can accuse the foreign government of harboring belligents engaged in actively trying to overthrow the legitimate government where the belligerncy is taking place. Hence what is possible is, "foreign national volunteers" or "unlawful combatants", whichever term you wish to use, can actually draw their native country into a war that the citizens and government of their native country have no interest in being invloved in (something like this scenario occurred in 1970 when the territory of Cambodia was being used to launch attacks against the government of South Vietnam). In my view, the League never saw this as a possiblity when it was created, failed to deal with it when it happened in the late 1930s, and is one of the major causes of the failure of the League. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

= Teapot =

I added a section on the Teapot that puts most of the blame on Fall (where it belongs). I hope I wasn't too unfair to Robert M. LaFollette (Sr). Also do you think it is inappropriate to mention the innuendo around Harding's death and its possible connection to Teapot? I tried to balance that out by making it clear the rumors were instantiated, but the fact is that his death did cause loads of speculation. I felt it should be treated. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Warren G. Harding

2007-03-28T13:28:39Z

Dave3172: /* This Is A Suspect Article */

User talk:MountainDew

2007-03-28T03:13:09Z

Dave3172: /* Nice chat with... */

Archive: [[User talk:MountainDewarchive1]]

== [[User:Conservator]] ==

I can't tell what he's doing. He seems to be adding extra-huge amounts of content to articles, but every time I try and go there, it errors out. Just fyi. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 16:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Anarchocapitalism ==

The user created a redirect to that page at Free Market, and it looked like a crank article.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry for any time that I wasted. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[God]]==
I unlocked [[God]] to registered users since around 8 days have passed since it was locked. Probably a good idea to keep an eye on it, so I thought I'd let you know. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[User:Conservative]]==
The debate over [[User:Conservative]] is going on at [[Talk:dinosaur]], and the section above the one you just created at [[User Talk:Aschlafly]]. I must agree, it is somewhat disturbing that the notion "Conservative's worldview is the ONLY worldview" has gained acceptance. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== New User ==
The New User log has been installed. You can see new account creations now. Thanks for the tip! [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

===Judaism==

You have to revert that page to an older version, ASAP. There is slander in there I think you missed - like saying that the real Jews are white Europeans and that Jews descended from Satan.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Judaism -- the version you have protected is the wrong one ==

Hi MountainDew -- a note to let you know that the version of [[Judaism]] which you protected is an innacurate one, filled to rants by someone who subscribes to the widely discredited [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity Christian Identity] school of racist thinking which goes so far as to reject the notion that the Jews of today even *are* Jews, and says they are descended from Satan. Please revert to an earlier accurate version if you are going to protect this entry!

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==User names==

Thanks for that block. If I were an admin, I'd have done the same. Keep up the good work! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== CP:AID ==

Hello, You recently expressed your opinion at [[CP:AID]]. After voting, it has become obvious that the first article to improve is [[Germany]] and any related articles. Details will be posted soon at [[CP:AID]], check there tomorrow for details. Thanks! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlock ==

Now that the rash of vandalism seems to have passed, could you unlock my user page? I need to make some edits. Thanks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks, feel free to delete this little thread. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
==Spoon==
why did you block him?? All he did was quote the Bible. If you don't think it belongs where it was put, delete it, but don't block the editor. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He was only posting verses that post the Bible in a bad light. I will unblock him, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

User Ilikebigbibles should be blocked. Are you going to be up a while? If not, then I'm inclined to block him now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks much. He's from Australia (near Sydney) based on his IP, and his edits and name highly suggest the need to block. Unless you see a reason not to, I'd recommend blocking before you sign off. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:40, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Alien==
Please explain your justification for deletion of the content i added to [[Alien]]. [[User:Ilikebigbibles|Ilikebigbibles]] 02:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== confused ==

Tsumetai said to ask someone on the list and you had a cool name, so I'm asking you. What did i do that was vandalism? and what am I a not good parody at? I thought we were supposed to add true things here, not like at Wikipedia were you have to have npov and liberal bias. [[User:Gabriel|Gabriel]] 13:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Dispute Resolution Process ==

Erm, not sure if you meant to, but you overwrote my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&diff=58850&oldid=58846 here]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK, thanks for the quick response. I was getting worried for a minute. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks for the quick block ==

Wow, you were really quick on that last block! Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Gah, you're way too quick with these obscenity-laden usernames! Hopefully this message will distract you long enough for me to nab one. Mwuahahahaha! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sockpuppet/Troll Stalker! ==

I know you are the same person as that hoji...you ain't fooling anyone, pinko liberal godless soul!

*Sorry, Dan...I apologize. I thought you would realize the humor, the joke, being since you were posting on hoji's page too. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 03:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Blocked user==

I just got an e-mail from AmesG that he was blocked by conservative, he wanted me to ask another admin to look into it. I am not sure the surroundings but there is a decent chance it was pre-mature. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thank you all again!!!-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Poor AmesG. You're like the red-headed stepchild of the family. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Like the gingers from South Park! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*ROFL! Cheer up....I haven't banned you yet! :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: I totally am. But getting banned by Conservative is good for the soul.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Bans need not be permanent. Does a user block here also stop the user from posting on their own user talk page? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*If one is banned, they cannot sign into the site. They could, I guess, post as someone else on their banned page. Perhaps the Webmaster needs to remove the pages of banned users... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please Stop Removing Page Protection ==

It is ''especially rude'' for you to unprotect pages, without consultation with the Sysop who locked it. Is there some explanation for doing it, other than just your idea you know better? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== BillOReillyFan ==

I'm not sure if this has surfaced in the discussion over [[User:BillOReillyFan]] yet, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AConservapedia&diff=117389986&oldid=117378784 this edit] to Wikipedia by somebody who seems to be BillOReillyFan is quite incriminating. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can't we call him something else, some cool code name? BillOReillyFan...meh....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 03:04, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just say BORF. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ha! Thats perfect actually. You are on a roll tonight! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 03:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia Threat number zero-five-two-nine, abberviated at CON-T0529. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Have fun BORF hunting, I will see you tommorrow! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 03:15, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I think [[User:Pacman]] might be a BORF. Lots of good edits (esp. in knowledgeable areas) and then complete silliness. Anyway, he's blocked for a day now. I guess we'll see. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:If nothing else, he likes the nickname you gave him. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Unblock==
Thanks for the unblock, MountainDew. I had no idea how sneaky people were, what with the edits by "BORF". Thanks for redeeming me. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]] 03:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientology ==

Can you provide some justification for your edits on Scientology? I was fixing a rather overzealous edit by a user called Terryeo.

: I am he. Since the discussion seems to go on at [[User_talk:Pacman#Revert|Pacman's Page]], I replied to him there. The data Pacman is introducing is already in the article. It is in the [[Scientology#Controversy|Contoversy Section]] of the article and has been there for some time. Tmloulouse introduced the data on 19 March at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&oldid=47501 editing difference]. He and I worked out a compromise wording that we could both live with, but he introduced the idea and documented it pretty throughly. Pacman seems to want the data taken out of controversy and put into basic beliefs, which would be incorrect. That's why he and I are working that out. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler, whatever... ==

Were you able to block him with no problems? Every time I tried to, it said no user of that name existed. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Same problem here :( [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I had to remove the underscores from his name and type the plus sign in myself. It took me several tries. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Why the heck ins't his IP blocked? [[Special:Checkuser]] says the same IP has been used by all of the "hitler" vandals. I'm confused. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure. I suspect that the names are being created by somebody who has an established account here already; I'm going to go run some checkuser inquiries. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

See what you may glean from the users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.93.21.97 talk page on Wikipedia]. Evidently, it's an AOL Proxy, and I will try to block this IP. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:38, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Aschlafly's talk page ==

Hop over to Aschlafly's [[User Talk:Aschlafly|talk page]] and tell me what you think of the banner at the top, I spent some time trying to get it presentable... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 02:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ashens ==

I'll block him if he continues. Fred Phelps is a phsyco, and it's our job to paint him as such! I like your request to him, by the way... I'll go CheckUser him. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 02:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:He says he's going to "report us for hounding him". Shall I just block him now, and delete all traces of his existence? Yes? That sounds like an excellent idea! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::We should give him one warning for name calling first. Whether he's broken any rules seems borderline, even though he's here to cause trouble. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*This is what I mean. Do either of you understand what other Sysops think when reading these kind of posts? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The whole communication thing, right? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*In order for a page to be on a sysops watch list, one has to enable watch manually, or have auto watch enabled so, if a sysop hasnt posted on your page, mine, or hoji's, they dont know the convo is happening = exclusionary. I have had other Sysops express the same frustration. We just can's assume they will see the topic on their watch lists. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Recent Blocks==

I'm confused about some of these. Kiowa and Tmtoulouse mainly. I know there's probably good reasons, but I never saw anything against the rules in any of their entries that I saw.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 04:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*Most of it was on Andrews page. I wasn't a party to, nor do I agree that Tmtoulouse should have been blocked, and until I saw your post, didn't know he had been....yet. His feelings were hurt, and he lashed out. That isn't the way to handle such things. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:He did actually suggest being blocked. That said, I do disagree with the blocking, but it's not my call. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*If he asks for a second chance (he has my IM), I wouldn't oppose giving it to him. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Kiowa was placed on a short block for subtle vandalism of Americium and a couple of other articles

==Stub2 Deleted==

The webmaster deleted the stub2 template and now we have a ton of pages siting around with a broken template. I have been fixing them, but I'm tired and need sleep, could you help when you log on. All the pages with broken links can be found here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Stub2
:(Issue has been fixed via Template Redirect.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*I appreciate you letting me know about the problem, sid....I sent email to webmaster, didnt get an answer, but main thing its fixed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**Main praise goes to Elamdri for actually spotting it. (The initial alert didn't come from me, it's an unsigned entry by Elamdri.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*That was sarcasm. None of these guys answer their email, so I don't know why I bothered. And of course, you messaged that the problem was being worked on, but not to me. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I tracked down the people Elamdri alerted and left the "No worries, it's been fixed" notes underneath Elamdri's posts to avoid the alerted people from going all "OH NOES!". Not much use to leave a message on ALL sysops' pages going all "There was some problem, but it's not there anymore, so this message is fairly pointless.". ;) If you check Elamdri's contributions, you'll notice that only a few people have been alerted.
**Besides, you showed that you keep your eyes open by checking other User Talk pages. That definitely speaks for you. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*No worries, I'm on a tear about communication...I should have it worked out of my system by this evening, lol. :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== McCain v. Reagan ==

Hey MD- Just a heads up.

*Ronald Reagan, born 2/6/11, took office 1/20/81. 69 years 11.5 mos.
*John McCain, born 8/29/36, would take office ~1/15/2009. 72 years 3.5 mos.

I've had to fix that a couple of times and mentioned it on the talk page. Jus ta heads up. (Personally, I think the entire section about "electability" has got to go but someone disagrees with me. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Eric ==

No, just a friend of his. You must admit, however, that he has his fair share of Google hits (and an interesting biography that you can read here [http://bio50.wikispaces.com/Lord+Eric+Mukherjee%2C+Grand+Guru+of+Science].

Anyway, he wouldn't be enough of a loser to put his own name on somebody's wiki. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 15:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Civil War, et al==
It used to be a stub...now it's filling out. Slowly, but it's filling out. The subheadings that are there already (before 1861) are going to be filled with detail before I add the rest. What do you think so far? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==DDT ban==

Hi, don't know if we met yet. I've only been here a week. Thanks for your edit to [[Rachel Carson]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:44, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
it seems the name of the picture can only be 4-5 characters long and can only contain alphabetical letters.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 03:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative==

I'd consider it a badge of honor to be on your list of conservatives.

==Nice chat with...==
I had a nice chat with a certain someone, and I pointed out that the problem was not only with Richard, but with those people here who gave him a pat on the back for what I saw was an attempted destruction of Conservapedia. Should they get booted? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure. On the one hand, I think we should keep all the troublemakers who have no intention of positive contributions out On the other, some of these people have made contributions, and I don't want us to get accused of ideological banning any more than we already have on blogs. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

You have raised a very valid point, Karajou. If one's actions are disingenius, like Richard's, lacking honor, yes, they should be booted as well. The rub is in the proof. I posted for several days about his actions, and yet no one in authority acknowledged what I was saying. I emailed a certain someone about his actions, never received a response. :S --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

There are a couple people here who have approved of what Richard had attempted to do, and they enjoyed it. I'm for removal for at least six months. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:About the SYSOP status I just sent Andy a letter reminding him that Richard is still on it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Karajou, are you referring to what people have said in the "Vote: Keep Richard?" page? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

*He's (Andy) been posting, within the last hour on the board, he is aware. And what is the vote page? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not a vote page, I referred to it wrong. I mean the discussion on Andy's talk page that AmesG branched off to this page: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Keep_Richard_Around%3F [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:30, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Picture someone who's just desperate to force a rules change to an article, like the evolution article, and then picture him as being gleeful when someone else comes along and does something to destroy Conservapedia's reputation. That kind of individual. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Richard is gone from the SYSOP list at this time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:47, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

You both have AIM, perhaps that would be easier, although I did message Karajou before, and she never responded...... --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Sorry for the lack of response, TK; I thought it was a one-liner. And who's a she? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm just not sure, to be honest, if somebody doesn't actually do anything malicious with editing (or publicly exposing the site as Richard did). I think that really sets us up for accusations of ideological bias. They must certainly never be considered for sysop status. That being said, I'd think those users should be warned and receive an infinite ban upon any infraction. Ultimately, it's up to you/Andy.

Also, thank you for checking with Andy on the SYSOP list.
[[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

*I messaged you on both Yahoo and AIM the other day, love. Maybe you had finished posting, and left. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's interesting how tweaked you all are over what Richard did and none of you are even the least bit concerned that he exposed the single biggest flaw on Conservapedia - the willingness to overlook problems if someone professes to be a conservative. Anyone could have read what he wrote and realized he was goofing. But since he said all the right things, he was SysOped. If you worried more about that and less about the fact that some of us found it funny, this site would be the better for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Keep Richard Around?

2007-03-28T00:44:52Z

Dave3172:

'''Block:''' I say take his Sysop privileges away and block him. He has proven useless for anything except an "interesting" talking point. I still see no reason why he is even ''that''. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:41, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Keep:''' I could see de-sysoping him (though personally I wouldn't do that), but he violated no Commandments. All his edits and articles were cited and factual. The fact that The Powers That Be willingly blinded themselves to what he was truly doing b/c he was a professed conservative should be your real concern, not Richard himself.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Joseph McCarthy

2007-03-27T20:16:44Z

Dave3172: /* Overall evaluation */

This article is horrendously written. Truly. Would someone with some good sources tear it apart?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I'd take a look at it now, but I'm going to work soon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)

It seems a shame to mention only the horrid propoganda about this true American hero. Maybe we can work out a compromise. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 12:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The latest version, although stripped down, is more respectful to this great man. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 14:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Although the wikipedia article continues to smear and blacken the name of this great American, I was able to use some of it as a base to flesh out this article to provide some more detail about the great Senator. I hope you like it.
{|
| style="background:orange" | [[Image:ccbyncsa.png|right]] This comment was left by [[User:frijole|frijole]]. This, as well as all contributions by this user, is covered by a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike US] license. This has important ramifications for your use or reuse of this material. See the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ license page] for more information.
|} 13:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Long live the Communist Party of the United States! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==General discussion==

VENONA Files section should be a separate article in my view.

Well... I hate to go against the grain but the only reason why he's notable is because of the bad things that he did do. And this is the new century, do we really need to keep acting like communism is still the big bad enemy? Last time I checked most communist countries fell out of power, sans China, and democracy still reigns over most of the world. And are the flowery words really needed? Of course it's heroic, what kind of a liberal fool are you to have to be told as such? --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 21:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Go ahead and list the specific bad things that he did. Just don't put meaningless generalities, such as saying that he was "discredited". I put in the actual censure finding against him. Someone else put in how he exaggerated his war record. Do you have anything else to add? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Would mentioning that he never came forth with his evidence could as a "generality"? I mean he sure made a lot of accusations and ruined a lot of people without really doing anything but either calling them a communist or having them investigated. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Basically what happened, IMO, as one who has studied this period at length, the FBI & NSA kept Venona evidence a closely guarded secret for several reasons, so they needed evidence ''from other'' sources to go into a court of law. Now, if the FBI led McCarthy to a prime suspect, that would tip the KGB that the US had evidence to suspect such a one. And the Communist conspiracy, which in fact was found to exist based upon several US Government Reports from the 1960s on, was extremely large scale indeed. No fewer than 400 involved, most likely at least 800, and possibly as high as 1200. There were two CPUSA organizations, the "open party", and the "underground apparatus". In my view, the FBI gave McCarthy basically dead-end files.

:::Here an understanding of the relationship between Hoover & McCarthy is necessary. McCarthy was an ex-judge, and Hoover a cop. So the relationship was not unlike any routine law enforcement official going before a judge asking for a search warrant based upon the evidence in hand. But this was not a Court, and McCarthy was willing to use his Legislative Committee to more or less perform an Executive and quasi-Judicial function. The FBI didn't want to tip its hand regarding its real suspects, and the Communist Party membership was quite often an intimate family affair. So the FBI in many instances would hand McCarthy a file of, say, a brother-in-law to the real suspect. Now the person called before Committee may have been a member of the open party, and may have even known his family relative was involved in some questionable things, and the persons' FBI file may have had some dirt or embarrassing thing in it, so they were essentially being blackmailed -- rat out somebody you know, or all this junk in your file becomes public.

:::That's moreless my picture of how it worked. The question remains did McCarthy know he was getting bogus info from the FBI, and I would likewise say he did not. This infact explains the Army-McCarthy hearings, cause Army Signals Intelligence is who handled Venona, and I think at some point McCarthy realized the files from the FBI were dead end, and that info originated somewhere in the Army, so it appeared the Army was hiding something, which indeed they were, the Venona project. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Let me give 3 illustrations how this theory works. Communist Party cells worked as ''cadres'' often using family members.

::::(1) Ruth Greenglass's testimony sent her brother and sister-in-law, Julius & Ethel (nee Greenglass) to the electric chair.

::::(2) Oppenheimer was a member of cadre that consisted of his wife, Kitty Harrison, and his brother Frank Oppenheimer.

::::(3) Alger Hiss, according to Venona, lead a group "largely consisting of his relatives", i.e. his wife Priscilla Hiss and brother Donald Hiss.

::::(4) Here's a forth; Flora Wolschin, and her parents, Maria Wicher and Enos Wicher were all Venona spies.

::::(5) Here's another; John Abt married Harold Wares widow. Abt was a KGB operative identified in Venona and Ware once headed the group Hiss, Chambers and Harry Dexter White all belonged to.

::::So it very often was a family affair. The FBI decided it would not use VENONA materials to prosecute cause that would reveal to the USSR that the US had broken its codes. The US was faced with two problems: (1) remove security risks, both known & unknown from sensitive jobs; (2) prosecute, if possible, using evidence ''other than'' Venona those known to be in the service of the KGB ''without disclosing in an open courtroom the nature of the proof''. But as a matter of priority, given the serious dangers at that time of the Soviet Union gaining nuclear know-how from American citizens, removing them from sensitive jobs ''was more of a priority'' than prosecuting for espionage. And there remained the problem that many code names had yet to be identified, i.e. the FBI knew they were there but didn't know who they were.

::::So this is were my theory of Hoover's relationship to McCarthy comes in. Hoover most probably held back the files on the prominent suspects involved in espionage activity, but often had files on relatives or close friends who in many instances also had been party members at one time though not necessarily invovled in espionage.

::::The closed door transcripts were released about four years ago. Some are quite interesting, others have remarkably shocking drivel, like it being revealed someone had once been arrested in a public mens room with another man. This sort of stuff, in a closed door hearing, smacks of strongarm intimidation tactics. Though I do not beleive McCarthy knew he was being used by Hoover this way. McCarthy probably got the idea from Hoover that whoever they were investigating was either the big fish or was gonna lead them to the big fish, probably not knowing the FBI had little more evidence other than a certain family member had once been a member of the open, or above ground party, and guilty of some embarassing stuff at one time. Needless to say on the other hand, these sort of intimidation tactics to get somebody to rat-out a family member who perhaps was facing the electric chair, by exposing in a public forum all sorts of things someone may not wish to have known, has generated the intense hatred for McCarthy that still fuses some people with anger at the mention of his name. But the story doesn't end there. There is moral responsibility on the part of cowards who knew the "conspiracy" was real, and let innocent people be abused while pretending to be victims themselves.

::::One final comment, the perception of the threat of nuclear war was very real, as was the perception the US government under both Truman & Ike (Dem & GOP) was covering something up. And yes, now we know they were covering up the fact the US was reading Soviet codes. But the real threat was to remove all known & suspected security risks.

::::As Moynihan said, "Ignorant armies clashed by night". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Addendum: McCarthy being ridiculed for not have caught a single spy really should be regarded as a credit to keeping secret the VENONA program of reading Soviet codes. Pity such secrecy failed in keeping secret [[Atomic bomb]] secrets which led to the insane nuclear arms race of the [[Cold War]]. And the cost in domestic partisan warfare. [[Richard Nixon]] rose from an obscure backbencher to the Presidency by putting in jail the first General Secretary of the Hope of Mankind, i.e. [[United Nations]]. The vendetta to get Nixon for that is what [[Watergate]] is all about.

:: So how many innocent lives were ruined by McCarthy's false accusations? There are lots of articles that say that McCarthy did harm, but hardly any that specify the harm. If you can specify the harm, then go ahead. Just saying that he ruined people is worthless. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean by "ruined?" As far as I know, there is no point by point, alphabetical list of the names of people whose lives were badly affected by McCarthy's irresponsible accusations, but it's certain that careers were needlessly damaged, some of them ended. The people McCarthy injured include Reed Harris ( lost his job), Dr. Julius Hlavaty (long career in the NY public schools ended), and Raymond Kaplan (suicide). I don't know how many people were in Mr. Kaplan's family, but I'm pretty certain he had a wife and children, so their lives were undoubtedly pretty badly affected. And if I take a page from the entry here and credit to McCarthy people the HUAC investigated, the list of damaged lives expands dramatically.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am looking for actual facts, not conclusory propaganda. Reed Harris resigned his government job. He was asked about writing an essay that favored Communists teaching in the schools. Raymond Kaplan was not accused of anything, and had not been called to testify. He was an engineer with knowledge of VOA transmitters not functioning properly, and he might have been called if he had lived. But how is McCarthy to blame? Are you saying that the Senate should not have been investigating the VOA transmitter failure? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::''"if I take a page from the entry here and credit to McCarthy people the HUAC investigated"''
::Yes, we had these debates ''in extensio'' in Wikipedia. For example, Harry Dexter White who died three days after a HUAC hearing in August of 1948, nevertheless was a "victim of McCarthyism", nevermind the '''fact''' that he was (1) dead and burried when McCarthy waved his list of 57 Communists in February of 1950; (2) was dead and burried when McCarthy held hearings; (3) never testified before any Senate hearing chaired by Joseph McCarthy; (4) Joseph McCarthy never served in the House of Representatives. Now, per Wikipedia's own policy of WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:AWT, no one ever produced any evidence Harry Dexter White "denied charges before a McCarty era hearing". I burried Mr. White umteen times only to have him resurrected to deny charges before a "McCarthy era hearing". In this instance, I would suggest Conservapedia implement Wikipedia's own policies which they steadfastly refused to do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact that Harry Dexter White died shortly before McCarthy waved his famous "list" does not make him any less a victim of "McCarthyism" though I would not call him a victim of McCarthy himself. We still use the word "Boycott" to refer to what happened in Montgomery in the 1960s even though Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott had been dead for decades. I've also heard the word "Maverick" used to describe nonconformists who lived and died well before Samuel A. Maverick had his ranch in Texas and nonconformists who lived long after Mr. Maverick himself had died. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK, those are good points. So the discussion has gone from writing an accurate historical narrative to "framing issues" for propaganda purposes. I think we need to establish facts (which I have an extensive contribution list in Wikipedia) and deal with propagating interpretive views of facts some other time. Richard Gid Powers 1995 book separates "irresponsible anti-communism" from "responsible anti-communism". The deliberate use of invidious pejoritives after users have been "politically profiled" in Wikipedia is something I do not think is practiced here. Here, by precedent, I hope we can write straight forward historical narritives and leave out conclusionary premises. It simply a matter of employing the historical method, not beginning with a conclusion we intend to end up with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Censure==
AmesG has repeatedly removed the actual grounds for censuring McCarthy, leaving the reader the false impression that McCarthy was censured for his anti-communist investigations. In fact he was exonerated McCarthy on all substantive charges. McCarthy was censured for failing to cooperate with the subcommittee that was investigating him, and for insults to the committee that was trying to censure him. If there is some error in my description, then please address it here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is the actual Senate resolution that passed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Resolved, That the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, failed to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in clearing up matters referred to that subcommittee which concerned his conduct as a Senator and affected the honor of the Senate and, instead, repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members who were trying to carry out assigned duties, thereby obstructing the constitutional processes of the Senate, and that this conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, is contrary to senatorial traditions and is hereby condemned.

:Sec 2. The Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, in writing to the chairman of the Select Committee to Study Censure Charges (Mr. Watkins) after the Select Committee had issued its report and before the report was presented to the Senate charging three members of the Select Committee with "deliberate deception" and "fraud" for failure to disqualify themselves; in stating to the press on November 4, 1954, that the special Senate session that was to begin November 8, 1954, was a "lynch-party"; in repeatedly describing this special Senate session as a "lynch bee" in a nationwide television and radio show on November 7, 1954; in stating to the public press on November 13, 1954, that the chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. Watkins) was guilty of "the most unusual, most cowardly things I've ever heard of" and stating further: "I expected he would be afraid to answer the questions, but didn't think he'd be stupid enough to make a public statement"; and in characterizing the said committee as the "unwitting handmaiden," "involuntary agent" and "attorneys-in-fact" of the Communist Party and in charging that the said committee in writing its report "imitated Communist methods -- that it distorted, misrepresented, and omitted in its effort to manufacture a plausible rationalization" in support of its recommendations to the Senate, which characterizations and charges were contained in a statement released to the press and inserted in the Congressional Record of November 10, 1954, acted contrary to senatorial ethics and tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity; and such conduct is hereby condemned.

::Basically, McCarthy was "condemned" for name calling. My we've come along way, I routinely hear Seantors engage in invidious name calling of other Senators or the President on televsion. And many of McCarthy's detractors today have little more than name calling to impugn McCarthy with.

::As to discussing "McCarthyism" and its "victims", Venona evidence shows many "McCarthy vicitms" were not victims at all. ''In fact'', now we must judge the moral responsibilty of guilty parties who kept silent and allowed others to be victimized by their silence. This is as important an aspect of the investigation as anything else. If McCarthy was a demon witchhunter, those guilty parties who feign innocence and allowed others to be smeared, basically to save thier own tails, so to speak, are EQUALLY guilty of creating an atmosphere of "hysteria", or however you wish to characterize it. So this whole discussion really begins with examining Comintern activities which started about 1919, and about 1921 in the United States. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

What did the Venona Papers say about Annie Moss? Julius Hlavaty? Raymond Kaplan? Reed Harris?

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Rschlafly-- Facts ==

What happened to Reed Harris, Dr. Julius Hlavaty, and Raymond Kaplan is not "conclusory propaganda, but fact. Reed Harris was not just questioned, but repeatedly attacked by McCarthy for opinions he'd expressed as a student twenty one years before in a book about the commecialization of college sports, KING FOOTBALL. The book had included a defense of the right of Communists to teach. Do you seriously consider the statement "Communists have the right to teach" so outrageous that it calls for someone to be forced to resign from their job? As for Raymond Kaplan, his rather lengthy and detailed suicide note makes it plain that it was being called to testify before McCarthy's committee that terrified him. ""You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect," he wrote. "I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can't take the pressure upon my shoulders any more." Given that Harris had been forced to resign for something he'd written more than two decades before, Kaplan's fear was not unfounded. And the VOA hearings were not just some sort of technical inquiry into why a transmitter malfunctioned. McCarthy's contention was that it was part of a dastardly Communist plot within the VOA, and his investigation included questioning witnesses about their church attendance and religious beliefs and purging VOA overseas libraries of such dangerously "subversive" authors as Dashiell Hammett and Theodore H. White. --PF Fox 13:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: I do believe that it is fair game to ask a govt official about a pro-communist opinion that he expressed in a book. But my opinion is irrelevant. If it is somehow notable that McCarthy asked these questions, then go ahead and insert that into the article. However it is just false left-wing propaganda to say that McCarthy ruined any innocent lives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How is it "pro-communist" to say that communists have a right to teach? Are you pro-liberal? Do you think liberals have a right to teach? Does the fact that I think libertarians have a right to teach make me "pro-libertarian," even though I generally disagree vehemently with libertarians?

And yes, in the context of a discussion about McCarthy and what made him so unpopular, the fact that McCarthy got people fired, drove at least one man to suicide, needlessly ended the career of at least one popular and valuable teacher in the New York public school system, purged books by noted and important authors from VOA libraries and grilled people about their religious beliefs in hearings is "notable." Under what circumstances would it NOT be "false left-wing propaganda" to say that a politician had "ruined innocent lives" if not to say it about a politician who repeatedly impugned people's loyalty and ended their careers for simply having political beliefs he disliked? What would McCarthy have had to do to qualify in your mind as "ruining innocent lives?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: As I said, my opinion about whether public colleges should be promoting communism is irrelevant. I just want facts. McCarthy had no dislike for Kaplan's political beliefs, and did not drive him to suicide. Kaplan's suicide was all the more reason for McCarthy to investigate what VOA did. Whether McCarthy acted "needlessly" is a matter of opinion. Some people think that McCarthy did not do enough to uncover communists.
:I am looking for facts here, not just conclusory leftist opinions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you consider it a "fact" that believing communists have a right to teach makes you "pro-communist?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: There is no need to debate my personal definition of "pro-communist". The facts are that Harris published some communism-related opinions in a book, and McCarthy asked about those opinions. If asking that question was McCarthy's greatest sin, according to his leftist enemies, then go ahead and put it in the article. Just don't put in your leftist propaganda. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

There is nothing unreasonable about asking you to define your terms. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 03:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: To answer your question, I was using the term "pro-communist opinion" in the sense of expressing an opinion in support of communists. Harris did that in his book. It doesn't necessarily mean that Harris belonged to the Communist Party or anything like that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How does saying "Communists have the right to teach" qualify as an "opinion in support of communists" unless you equate supporting the rights of a group with supporting that group's aims?

: Expressing an opinion that Communists have a right to teach in the public schools is obviously expression an opinion in support of those Communists who want to teach in the public schools. McCarthy gave Harris an opportunity to explain his opinion. If you want to know more about Harris's opinion, read the transcripts instead of asking here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Joe Stalin, who CPUSA members served under, also "ruined innocent lives". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he did. What's your point? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Comparing a mass murderer of 40 million people with someone who allegedly inspired somebody to commit suicide is a bit disportionate, don't you think? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Where and when did I compare McCarthy with Stalin?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:The same language "ruined innocent lives" can be applied to Joseph Stalin and to Joseph McCarthy. Let's not talk past each other. As to the question, "can a Communist teach in a public school?", what ''is'' the question? Can a government employee also be a member of the Communist party?, or can a government employee, i.e. a public school teacher, while not being a CPUSA member, nonetheless hold Communist ideology? Please be specific. No need to parse this junk anymore. Most of these people are dead, and we do have a record of facts now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

First of all, I did not introduce the expression "ruined innocent lives" into this discussion. I responded to RSchlafley's question about whose lives McCarthy ruined by asking what he meant by "ruined," whether it applied to getting someone fired or ending their career. Second, you're twisting English usage here in an attempt to ascribe a comparison I would not have made even if I HAD stated "Joseph McCarthy ruined innocent lives." The fact that the expression "ruined innocent lives" could be applied to Stalin as well as McCarthy does not make the statement "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" a comparison with Stalin any more than saying "Bernie Ebbers is a convicted felon" qualifies as comparing the ex-Worldcom CEO to Jeffrey Dahmer. Applying the definition of "comparison" as you have here would make the definition of the word so broad as to be meaningless. If you feel "no need to parse," don't post arguments that defy the basics of common english usage.

I think the question being posed when someone asks "can a Communist teach in a public school?" is pretty clearly "can a Communist teach in a public school." The answer, as far as I know, is "yes," since I am aware of no law that bars people from government service based on their politics. If there are some Red Scare era laws still on the books that bar Communists in this manner, I suspect they would not stand up to a constitutional challenge, any more than some past laws barring atheists from testifying or adopting children or making atheism a criminal offense, or defining Communist parents as legally unfit would stand up. The answer to your other question, "can a government employee, i.e. a public school teacher, while not being a CPUSA member, nonetheless hold communist ideology" is also a "yes." It also prompts the question of what you consider "communist ideology." I've seen advocacy of limited gun control, membership in the ACLU, and support for Howard Dean's run for the presidency described in that manner.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK. So that gets to some of the specifics. I don't believe the question here is whether a person can teach today holding those views, and I agree with you on that. Holding those views and communicating them today in a classroom as doctrinal is different discussion for a different time and place. The question for this bio page is, Was it illegal for an employee of a local school district to hold CPUSA membership, as I understand the question to be. Merits of the law is an entirely different matter.

:Then I can assume we also may agree using the same language to describe McCarthy that has been used to describe a few recent despicable mass murderers in history is clearly over the top and out of bounds. Was McCarthy a monoster? I don't know, perhaps. Was he human? Yes. McCarthy is the godfather of two of Robert F. Kennedy's living children. Clearly, clearly, the depictions of McCarthy elsewhere as a subhuman, if not inhuman, or non-human really say more about McCarthy's detractors than the do McCarthy.

:An editor here in Conservapedia, who identifies himself as being 16 yrs old, told me Arthur Miller testified before McCarthy's Committee. Where did her learn that junk? These are the living lies I hope we can finally put an end to.

:Simply put, McCarthy was half right, and half wrong. Likewise many of McCarthy's critics were then, and remain, half right and half wrong. Let's not whitewash ''the facts that we do know now'', any further. "Ignorant Armies clashed by night". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the question is, does getting someone fired and/or ending their teaching career qualify as "ruining" someone's life. I believe it certainly can. At the least it is a detriment. And I don't know why you assume "we may also agree" that saying "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" qualifies as a comparison to Joseph Stalin. I can only assume you missed my response, so I'll repeat it here and italicize it so you'll be sure to see it.:

''I did not introduce the expression "ruined innocent lives" into this discussion. I responded to RSchlafly's question about whose lives McCarthy ruined by asking what he meant by "ruined," whether it applied to getting someone fired or ending their career. Second, you're twisting English usage here in an attempt to ascribe a comparison I would not have made even if I HAD stated "Joseph McCarthy ruined innocent lives." The fact that the expression "ruined innocent lives" could be applied to Stalin as well as McCarthy does not make the statement "McCarthy ruined innocent lives" a comparison with Stalin any more than saying "Bernie Ebbers is a convicted felon" qualifies as comparing the ex-Worldcom CEO to Jeffrey Dahmer. Applying the definition of "comparison" as you have here would make the definition of the word so broad as to be meaningless. If you feel "no need to parse," don't post arguments that defy the basics of common english usage.

''
There was an Arthur Miller mentioned during the McCarthy hearings, though I don't know of Miller himself actually being called before McCarthy. Given that he also called in Howard Fast for grilling, it wouldn't be surprising if he were. Miller did quite definitely get called before HUAC, however, and was convicted of contempt for refusing to name names. His play about the Salem Witch Trials, THE CRUCIBLE is a parable for McCarthyism, drawing some pretty biting parallels between the mentality behind Salem and the mentality behind much of the Red Scare.

The claim "McCarthy was right" presumes, by the way, that at issue was the premise that espionage was taking place. It should be noted that nobody during the Cold War, liberal or conservative, denied the existence of Soviet espionage. At issue was McCarthy's methods which, as I believe I've illustrated, were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody denied Soviet expionage?! There were plenty of leftists who denied that Alger Hiss or anyone else was a spy. I also don't agree that you have illustrated what you say. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly the same as denying that espionage itself took place. And how have I not illustrated that McCarthy as reckless, irresponsible, and dishonest? I've described instances where he lied, accused, and misrepresented. The declassification of the Venona papers don't change that behavior. In fact, Venona shows that the majority of those he named as "disloyal" did not deserve the treatment he gave them. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:48, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Support from Ann Coulter ==

What the hell is this? Why does this belong in an encyclopedia article? Ha Ha Ha you guys are insane. -- --[[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 10:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Technical problem==
I created the [[Board of Economic Warfare]] which links from the mainspace but still shows up as a red link. Can anybody help? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==205 or 206==
[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22 FBI Memo Belmont to Boardman, November 26, 1957]

:''Based on the investigations from [Venona project] information we have identified 206 persons involved in Soviet espionage activities who have at one time been active in the United States or which activity has had some United States ramifications. Of this number we already had received information from other sources including espionage involvement on the part of 87 of these persons. However, 119 persons were not previously known to us as being involved in espionage and have been identified through investigation in this case.

''A chart explaining these figures in more detail is set out.

<center>''SOVIET ESPIONAGE AGENTS IN [VENONA] CASE</center>

{| border=1
! ''Total Number Involved in Soviet Espionage''
! ''206''
|-
! ''Number Previously Known to Us from Other Information''
! ''87''
|-
! ''Number Not Previously Known to Us
! 119 ''206''
|-
! ''Soviet Officials Not Now in the United States''
! ''61''
|-
! ''Other Persons Not Now in the United States
! ''40''
|-
! ''Persons Deceased''
! ''11''
! ''(Burd, Duggan, Golos,a. Ivancic, Kournakoff, Lauterbach, Malisoff, Sabatini, Staple, White,b. Briggs)''
|-
! ''Persons Now Cooperative with Us''
! ''14''
! ''(Bentley ,c. D. Greenglass,d. R. Greenglass, Black, Elitcher, Gold,e. Menaker, Miller, Moczulski, Morros,f. Jack Soble, Myra Soble, York, [redacted])''
|-
! ''Persons Who Have Been Prosecuted''
! ''15''
! ''(Brothman, Coplon, Fuchs,g, Gold, Greenglass, Gubitchev,h. Moskowitz, J. Rosenberg, E. Rosenberg, Slack, Sobell, Jack Soble, Myra Soble, Perl, Hiss)''
|-
! ''Persons Involved in Silvermaster Network''
! ''29''
|-
! ''Persons Involved in Mocase''
! ''5''
|-
! ''Other Persons Now in United States''
! 43 218
|-
! ''Less Those Counted Twice, Described Below''
! 12 ''206''
|}
==Pointers==
*''Restoring talk page comments removed by'' [[User:PF Fox]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=prev&oldid=32304]
'''Let me make three pointers to concerned editors & Admins about the army of sockpuppets who will attack this article''':

(1) they will try to define [[McCarthyism]] and the "McCarthy era" as dating from 1948 onwards;

(2) they will try to define "the Second Red Scare" as dating from 1948 onwards & make it synonymous with McCarthyism.

(3) they will impugn and slander the sources of information in absence of any valid rebuttal.

This blatant propagandizing which they view as a high priority should be resisted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Where am I guilty of #1?

Where am I guilty of #2

Where am I guilty of #3?

And what did I post that was untrue? I'd really like to know.

As I said earlier, if I removed comments it was inadvertant.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:There was a section between where you edited and what you deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=prev&oldid=32304] The comment removed specifically refered to an army of sockpuppets who will attack this page. One such sockpuppet attack [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=44074&oldid=44069] just occurred as you were adding a volume of content, some of which has been deprecated by its own authors. Pardon me, but this Wiki ''deja vu'' all over again.

:While the page is protected you can place your proposed inclusions here on Talk. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't remember even seeing a comment about sockpuppets, so if I removed such a comment it was accidental. And I'm not sure what you mean by "sockpuppet" here. My understanding is that it's an online term referring to a post under an alias by someone already taking part in a discussion. I don't do that and I hope you aren't implying that I do.

You still haven't explained what I posted that was untrue, or why you removed, not only that small reference to Schrecker, but references to actual transcripts of the hearings and an audio. I'd really like an answer. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:There is an obvious effort by sockpuppets to disrupt editing. You are welcome to propose language for inclusion here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest you add:

_____

It was McCarthy's charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department that shot him into prominence. During his famous February 9th, 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia at the Colonnade Room of the McClure Hotel he stated:

And ladies and gentlemen, while I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as active members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205 – a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”[6]
The State Department denied McCarthy’s claims. In a radio interview in Utah the following day, McCarthy had changed the number to 57, and on February 11, in Reno at the Mapes Hotel, McCarthy again invoked the number 57 instead of 205, and named Robert Service, Gustavo Duran, Mary Jane Keeney and Harlow Shapley as being on the list. Several days later, when McCarthy was speaking to the Senate in Washington DC, the number had changed to 81.

The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments. There was no mention of either Communist party membership or names in that letter. The names McCarthy later offered in Reno came from a 1948 report by an ex-FBI agent Robert E. Lee on “incidents of inefficiencies” in the state department that had subsequently been passed on to the HUAC.

Thomas C. Reeves painstakingly well-documented 1982 biography of McCarthy includes part of the exchange in the Senate between Senator McCarthy and Democratic Majority Leader Scott Lucas on February 20th, during which McCarthy offered evidence for his claims by going through the Lee list. There were marked differences between what the Lee report actually said, and what Senator McCarthy claimed on the Senate floor. For instance, the Lee list read:

“The subject was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism as an experiment but his political philosophy is in keeping with liberal New Deal social reform under democratic processes of government; ‘he is a very ardent New Dealer; he is a live liberal;’ but an informant who also lived in the International House at one time said ‘He was one of those accused of being a Red here but the people who do get up and talk communism are refuted.’”

McCarthy read this as “He was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism and by his roommate at the International House as a communist.”

Where the Lee list read "This employee is with the office of Information and Educational Exchange in New York City. His application is very sketchy. There has been no investigation. (C-8) is a reference. Though he is 43 years of age, his file reflects no history prior to June 1941. Case is awaiting a report from the New York Office."

McCarthy read: "This individual is 43 years of age. He is with the Office of Information and Education. According to the file, he is a known Communist. I am not evaluating the information myself, I am merely giving you what is in the file. This individual also found his way into the Voice of America broadcast. Apparently the easiest way to get in is to be a known Communist." [8]

___

I have removed the single reference to Schrecker Material. If there is anything here you consider untrue, please point it out.

I suggest you add:

McCarthy made charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department and the administration of President Truman and a United States army research laboratory. In 1953 McCarthy claimed that employees at Voice of America, were engaging in deliberate sabotage, selecting sites for transmitters that would make it easier for the Soviets to jam signals. Attention was also focused on the content of VOA broadcasts, which in Truman’s time had a policy of “balanced presentation” that did not exclude communist writings. VOA overseas libraries were scrutinized, and among the several hundred books that ended up being purged from the libraries at the urging of McCarthy’s staff were works by Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, Jean Paul Sartre, and Theodore H. White.

The VOA hearings that resulted often involved closely questioning witnesses, not about the transmitters, but about their past and present political or religious orientations. Director of Religious Programming Roger Lyons was asked if he was or had ever been an unbeliever. Lyons insisted “I am not an atheist. I believe in God.” When he mentioned that he had studied in Switzerland under associates of Carl Jung, McCarthy asked if “this professor” attended a church or a synagogue. [9]

Reed Harris, acting chief of the IIA, was repeatedly questioned over three days of testimony about statements he’d made in a book he’d written twenty one years before as a college student at Columbia University. (The offending statement had been the assertion that communists had the right to teach in the public schools.) Harris resigned from his job shortly after appearing before the committee. [10]

Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher of Mathematics at Bronx High School and the first Chairman of that prestigious target school’s mathematics department, was called as a witness because of a broadcast he’d made in 1952. After being questioned about his personal beliefs and asked if he were a Communist, Dr. Hlavaty refused to answer, which resulted in his dismissal from the New York School system. [11]

One potential witness, Voice of America engineer, Raymond Kaplan, was so frightened at being called before McCarthy's committee that he committed suicide after writing a lengthy suicide note, which specifically referenced the issue he was being called to testify about, that being the placement of transmitters. "I guess I am the patsy for any mistakes made," he wrote. “....You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect,” he wrote. “I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can’t take the pressure upon my shoulders any more.” [12]

After the VOA investigation, many of its problems were corrected. No evidence of sabotage was found, but hundreds of employees were fired, some overseas libraries were closed, and some foreign language programming discontinued.

___

This used no Schrecker material. If any of this is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

___

McCarthy’s 1953 investigation into the United States Army Signal Corps Center at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, was prompted by a defecting East German Scientist’s claim of having seen microfilmed documents from that center..” [13] An investigation had led officials to the conclusion that he was unreliable, but Senator McCarthy’s subcommittee still began holding hearings on the case, suspending, among others, researcher Aaron H. Coleman. Coleman had been suspended in 1946 for not keeping classified documents he’d taken home in a safe with a three combination lock. Army officials had determined that the documents, which were of little importance, had been used for personal study rather than any attempt at passing on information, but McCarthy declared that Coleman, who was guilty of having been a college classmate of Julius Rosenberg, “may have been the direct link between the laboratories and the Rosenberg Spy Ring. [14]

The Army averred that no documents were missing and its own investigation had found no evidence of a spy ring, maintaining that what the defecting scientist had seen had probably been Signal Corp data that had been shared with the Russians during the War under Lend Lease. Still, the investigation went on. When electrical engineer Carl Greenblum broke down and wept during Roy Cohn’s cross-examination and had to be led, visibly upset, from the closed door session, McCarthy announced to the press that “I have just received word that the witness admits he was lying the first time and now wants to tell the truth.” Greenblum’s name was leaked to the press and he and his family were harassed, a hammer and sickle was painted on the door of their house. Greenblum explained that he'd been upset about the death of his mother two days before, and that after he’d broken down he’d “sent word that I wanted to go back and tell my story from the beginning. That may have been interpreted to mean I was lying but that certainly was not the case.” Greenblum was fired from his job, but reinstated in 1958. [15]

The fifteen hearings resulted in no indictments of any individuals, and established only that a few Communists had worked at Fort Monmouth from 1941 to 1947 – something that was already known by the Army -- and that there had been a small communist cell at one of their subcontractors in Nutley New Jersey. There was no substantive evidence to connect these groups or individuals to espionage.

___

None of this contained any Schrecker material. If there is anything here that is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

What ultimately destroyed McCarthy’s career were the famous Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. McCarthy had already alienated the Army with his treatment of General Ralph Zwicker, the Commander of Camp Kilmer who had angered McCarthy by refusing to defy an executive order that forbade him to release names to McCarthy during McCarthy’s investigation into the promotion of an army dentist named Irving Peress who had invoked the Fifth Amendment while filling out the military loyalty questionnaire. McCarthy had implied Zwicker was lying and strongly implied that this World War II veteran, who had served at Normandy and the Ardennes and had been awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Bronze Star with two Oak Leaf Clusters and Arrowhead, the British Distinguished Service Order, and the French Legion of Honor and Croix de Guerre with Palm, and that he was “not fit to wear that uniform.” [16]

The focus of the Army-McCarthy hearings was the accusation that McCarthy had sought special treatment for an army private named David Schine, a friend of Roy Cohn’s who had been added to McCarthy’s committee as an unpaid consultant and who, it was claimed, had through this association enjoyed special privileges. It is unclear what Schine’s qualifications were for being on McCarthy’s committee other than his friendship with Cohn.

From the day he addressed the Senate in 1950, paraphrasing excerpts from the Lee List, Joseph McCarthy had based much of his momentum on showmanship. In the Army McCarthy hearings he met his match in the army’s counsel, a 62-year-old Republican attorney from Boston named Joseph Welch who succeeded in baiting McCarthy into displays of open sarcasm and malice. As a result, the press coverage that had, before, been McCarthy’s best friend now became his worst enemy.

The most famous exchange from the hearings is the “have you no decency” speech that many people today see as the fatal blow to Senator McCarthy’s public career. It happened while Welch was cross-examining Roy Cohn about the work Schine had had done with Cohn for the committee. When the interrogation seemed to be going badly for Cohn, McCarthy excused himself, left, then returned and, contrary to an agreement earlier made with Welch, launched into an attack on a young law associate of Welch’s, Fred Fisher. Cohn was horrified by this breach, and sent McCarthy a note reading, “This is the subject which I have committed to Welch we would not go into. Please respect our agreement as an agreement because this is not going to do any good.” (The agreement had been that if Welch would not bring up Cohn’s military history, McCarthy would not bring up Fred Fisher.) McCarthy acknowledged this only with the comment, “I know Mr. Cohn would rather it have me go into this," then went on to say:

“In view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, initially, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party…I am not asking you t this time to explain why you tried to foist him on this committee. Whether you knew he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don’t know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that, while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don’t think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist party.”

This was, as Roy Cohn knew, a miscalculation, likely only to genuinely infuriate an opponent who was not going to become flummoxed or lose control as past opponents had. It was a bit of showmanship – McCarthy knew full well about the agreement and knew Welch was aware of Fisher’s past – being unwisely used against a superior showman.

“Until this moment,” Welch responded, “I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…” Welch went on to explain that he had discussed Fred Fisher’s membership in the Lawyer’s Guild with Fisher, and had decided not to recommend him for the committee because he feared that membership would be used against Fisher. He concluded with the now famous words, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” [17]

___

None of this contains any Schrecker material. If anything here is untrue, please point it out to me.

I suggest you add:

McCarthy’s most enduring legacy may be in giving a name to the conflation of dissent with disloyalty, a tendency to cite criticism of an administration as if it were evidence of treason, or even treason itself – “McCarthyism.” Perhaps an inevitable result of the Cold War era, “McCarthyism” was the acceleration of something that had existed before McCarthy became famous, and waxed and waned long after he had dropped from public sight.

If any of this is untrue, please point it out.

I suggest you add:

The overwhelming majority of those who McCarthy named and whose lives he affected, however, are not mentioned in Venona. Reed Harris is not identified as an agent. Nor is Aaron Coleman, or Gustavo Duran, or Harlow Shapely, or Fred Fisher. Nor are most of the many, many teachers, writers, performers, filmmakers, and workers who lost their job and even careers as the result of McCarthyism.

If any of the above is untrue, please point it out. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you. I will review it in detail (may take sometime). It is a bit lengthy, and there are several other things that need to be discussed; for example, what does "McCarthy named" mean? There are numerous examples of "being named" a CPUSA member, yet not involved in espionage. Or what does it mean to "be investigated"? Giving testimony is not necessarily "being investigated". And another point, McCarthy primarily was investigating institutions, not persons. So we have about 50 years of much bad information to unravel. So let's try and find some common ground to begin with. Thank you again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

By "McCarthy named," I mean he either stated outright or announced his suspicions in public, as he did with with Durand and Service, or summoned individuals as witnesses and cited them as possibly disloyal. Yes, indeed, there are numerous cases of people "being named" as communists but not involved in espionage. The resulting damage to an individuals career could still be pretty bad.

As for the word "investigated," giving testimony certainly qualifies as being investigated if that testimony consists of you being interrogated about your beliefs and your personal and professional life, AND having other witnesses being questioned about your beliefs and your personal and professional life. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:(a) "being named" is not specific enough; should read "being named as holding CPUSA membership", or "being named a spy". Those are two ''entirely different'' things. (b) giving testimony is not the same as being investigated; the person giving testimony may have been subpoenaed to answer question about the activities within an institution, organization, or of other persons. Further, the fact the person giving testimony may have held CPUSA membership, but was not themself being actively investigated, hardly qualifies them as being a victim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:(c) Argueing over numbers, i.e. was it 205, 87, 57 etc. is moot at this point. Would you agree?

According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "investigate" means "to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry." That most certainly applies to testimony in which the witness is repeatedly questioned about his or her beliefs and his or her personal and professional life.

And I'm not "arguing over numbers." There is no question that McCarthy gave three different numbers within a few days, and no argument about that. It's not "moot to this point" because it was that variation in McCarthy's claims that caused many observers to be skeptical about them. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:07, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Page protection==
I have protected this page because of evidence of trolling. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am losing track of the changes. I do think that the article should describe some criticism of McCarthy's methods. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Me too. But this above is a bit lengthy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The above was already posted. You could easily have left it in place and removed the single source you objected to earlier.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:PF Fox: I have unlocked the page for editing. For the time being, I propose leaving out all the specualtion regarding "was it 57 or 87?", etc. I hope you will review this information regarding the Lee List [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html], and between the two sources we can craft langauge. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::But what I included was not "speculation." It is a FACT that McCarthy gave three very different numbers on three different occasions. I don't speculate on WHY he did this, but I simply point it out. Why should that fact not be included? And I've already seen that piece on the Lee list. How would it change anything I posted? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm suggesting these are two separate issues. (1) Attacks on McCarthy's credibilty & character regarding the Tydings Committee, etc., and (2) McCarthy's abuse of the Committee's function toward witnesses. Why don't you go ahead and put in some stuff about his mistreatment of witnessess, etc., and I'll work on combining some information regarding the Lee List.

:::In actual fact, what we know now is that while McCarthy was conducting "witchhunts", KGB Agents were personally and simultaneously argueing cases before the United States Supreme Court. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

How does the fact that these are "two separate issues" justify omitting the facts surrounding the very statements that catapulted McCarthy into national attention? And you still haven't explained what I posted about the Lee list that is untrue. I'd really like to know.

What KGB agents were these, and how would that render people like Annie Moss, Fred Fisher, Julius Hlavaty, and Carl Greenblum less innocent?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I can see we maybe speaking two different languages. Let me ask again, have you read the Appendix's to the Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report? [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/index.html] Specifically, these:

:Chairman's Foreword
:Loyalty
:The Encounter with Communism
:The Experience of the Second World War
:The Experience of The Bomb
:The Cold War [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm speaking English. I use the OED and Websters. Are you speaking a different language? What dictionaries are you using?

I've read all this. Please point out exactly where it renders something I've posted untrue, and what it renders untrue. You still haven't offered a single specific that shows anything I've posted as being counter to the facts.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK, so now we need to summarize information. The above is a bit lengthy, can it be condenced? I offered one solution, please wait on all the "he said/she said" stuff and go ahead and insert some damage McCarthy did to truelly, innocent people.

:The Lee List stuff only has been reviewed up to 1952, and that by only a few scholars. And we also must bare in mind somethings still remain classified, or other evidence is missing. This is what I'm refering to as two different issues. Now, if you think this article is gonna be just another cut & pasted hit piece that says McCarthy was third in command behind Satan and Hitler, that's unlikely. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I will certainly reinsert what I already posted about McCarthy's behavior during the VOA, Army Signal Corps, and Army-McCarthy hearings, but before I do that I want to know "he said she said stuff" you're talking about.

What I posted about the Lee List, i.e., the text of the Lee List and the exchange between McCarthy and Lucas on the Senate floor, in which McCarthy fudged what was actually said in the Lee Listk is not classified, is not a matter of dispute, and therefore requires no review by scholars.

I don't post "cut and paste" pieces. My writing is my own. I DO consider it important to back up what I say with cites and that is, I was given to understand, in fact one of the "commandments" for posting here.

Please point out where I stated or implied that "McCarthy was third in command behind Satan and Hitler."
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's a bit lengthy, can you summarize some of it? The he said/she said is the controversy around did he say 87 or 57 etc. Presumably, the 87 refers to [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s deposition. Also, the telegram McCarthy sent to Truman at this time reads "known to you". Now, why did McCarthy put those words in writing, "known to you"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== McCarthy edits ==

:It's a bit lengthy, can you summarize some of it? The he said/she said is the controversy around did he say 87 or 57 etc. Presumably, the 87 refers to [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s deposition. Also, the telegram McCarthy sent to Truman at this time reads "known to you". Now, why did McCarthy put those words in writing, "known to you"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll try to edit down some of the army-mccarthy hearing material.

Actually the numbers are 205, 57, and 81, and it's not a matter of "he said/she said." It's strictly HE said, he being McCarthy. The different numbers McCarthy cited were certainly considered important at the time, so important that they became a part of popular culture. The original MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE film starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury even includes a reference to it.

Exactly what telegram are you talking about?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes & no. It's largely depracated and moot, and in the scheme of history, will be forgotten. Ignorant armies clashed by night. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==[[United States Army Signal Corps]]==

:''Aaron H. Coleman. Coleman had been suspended in 1946 for not keeping classified documents he’d taken home in a safe with a three combination lock. Army officials had determined that the documents, which were of little importance, had been used for personal study rather than any attempt at passing on information, but McCarthy declared that Coleman, who was guilty of having been a college classmate of Julius Rosenberg, “may have been the direct link between the laboratories and the Rosenberg Spy Ring. [11] ''

What is the relevence of this? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

How does "yes and no" answer my question about what telegram you're referring to? And yes, I know that there are many aspects of McCarthy's career that some would like to be "forgotten." They must not be forgotten, and I intend to do my best to ensure that they are not.

The Coleman case was one of the major bones of contention in the Signal Corps hearings. The passage I cited is yet another indication of McCarthy's tendency to inflate his claims.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:The telegram I'm trying to retrieve right now; yes & no refers to your comment "certainly considered important at the time" which I assume refers to public perceptions based upon an uninformed media, etc., and is largely irrelevenat cause EVERYBODY was in the dark. Then we have the Rosenbergs; is this to recycle arguements that they were not guilty? Strictly speaking it don't mean diddly-squat that the docs were determined ''ex post facto'' of little importance, his actions demonstrate he was a security risk. And the Army is not the final arbiter here anyway. This is moot. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I look forward to seeing that cite about the telegram. And the media were quite well informed about McCarthy's behavior given that much of it took place before TV cameras. Nobody was "in the dark" about McCarthy's tendency to exaggerate, and I've posted cites illustrating that tendency, as in the differences between what the Lee List actually said and what he claimed it said, the difference between why a witness had broken down and why McCarthy claimed he'd broken down, etc. And yes, the importance of the documents does mean much more than "diddly squat" when you are conducting an investigation and publicly claiming that the breach of security is on par with a case that ultimatley resulted in two executions. You seem to consider an awful lot of undisputed facts "moot." Sorry, but they're not.

Now, I have reviewed the conservapedia commandments, and I cannot find any that would be broken by my posting the account of McCarthy's inconsistent claims about the number of names on the list. It is true and verifiable. It is not copied from Wikipedia or some other non-public domain source. I have cites on the ready. I do not post things that aren't "family-friendly" or contain "gossip or foul language." And it is not a matter of my personal opinion that McCarthy first gave the number on the list as 205, then as 57, then as 81. It's a matter of public record. If reposting that information violates a rule here, please cite that rule. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Haven't retrieved the photcopy of the Feb. 11 1950 telegram McCarthy to Truman (originated in Reno Nevada) yet. The cite about Coleman IMO may do a disservice to the anti-McCarthy view because it is somewhat labored to make a point that may not even exist (taking the material above at your word); IOW, it discredits the more salient points of the argument. I hope to avoid parsing each jot & tittle, which is a characteristic noticable among McCarthy critics for half a century. We need to summarize some of this information to make the article of encyclopedic quality.

:No one's disputing your integrity or motives here, indeed we welcome your valuable close to first-hand knowledge of these events--and it is extremely necessary that this retelling of events be fully, and properly understood and preserved. In McCarthy's case, again IMO, the ''overkill'' may even generate sympathy for McCarthy, because often it's nakedly prejudiced. I hope you consider this criticism.

:One does not have to work hard to expose McCarthy's flaws as a human being; but one also has to remember that's what he was, a human being, not a monster or animal. And all these tales we read too often directly conflict with the accounts of family and friends, even political opponents who worked closely with him, that personally he was quite different than the way his detractors depict him.

:Let's return to my earlier proposal: divide these two issues (1) the Lee List (and other lists); (2) abuse of witnesses. I invite you to write the whole section about "Criticism of methods", keeping in mind some economy of scale for an encyclopedic entry. Then we can collaborate on the Lee List, and this reference doesn't actually have to be more than a few sentences.

:What sometimes happens when there is more than one view on a subject, the article turns into an arms race, each side piling up more and more source for thier side or to trash the other; let's set some limits on how far we will go in this direction. As I said before, your close knowledge of this matter is ''extremely valuable'' and needs to be articled in a good quality encyclopedic entry. Thank you very much. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's it is, [http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/telegram.htm McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your kind words.

Everyone who is the subject of an article here is a human being instead of monster or animal, including Hillary and Bill Clinton and Salvador Allende. Their family and friends, like Joseph McCarthy's, also have accounts that conflict with what their detractors say. And yes, I've heard that in person, even some of his opponents found Joseph McCarthy quite likeable. I've heard the same about Bill Clinton, Fidel Castro, and Patrick Buchanan. Whether these human beings are gracious hosts or can tell a good joke and what their children or siblings or spouses have to say about them is, for the most part, beside the point when describing their public careers, and belongs in a section devoted to their personal life.

Yes there is more than one view on a subject. There is not, however, more than one set of facts, and the inclusion of those facts, whether or not they make the subject of an article look good, is not "moot." Setting aside a separate section of "Criticism" comes across here as an attempt to weed out those facts that are unflattering to Joseph McCarthy and separate them from the whole, as if they were a sort of footnote. I don't notice similar "Criticism" sections in Conservapedia articles on Salvador Allende, John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, and while Hillary Clinton's article has one, Whitewater and other criticisms of her policies mentioned in the article as a whole are not restricted to the Criticism section. For that reason, I am not inclined to put the issue surrounding McCarthy's conflicting statements about numbers or the discripancies in his reading of the Lee List under "Criticism." It belongs in a discussion of how he became a household name, and therefore early in the main body of the piece. It's up to the reader to decide how these facts reflect on Senator McCarthy. I appreciate your concern about a sort of "arms race" building up in the article, but the facts surrounding McCarthy's rise as a public figure are important.

I will comment on the telegram later tonight. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:How's this; let's place the Coleman material & whatever else is relevent in [[United States Army Signal Corps]]. Here's another good first hand account [http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/watt_interview_3.pdf Transcript of an interview with Ruth Young Watt], via Senate.gov --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy to Truman 11 Feb 1950==

Well, the telegram you've cited starts out with a flat-out untruth. McCarthy did not say in Wheeling that he had a list of 57 Communists. The figure he gave was 205. This business of only 80 out of 300 state department employees certified for discharge being dismissed -- and that after consultation with Alger Hiss -- is simply nonsense. So far I've seen no evidence that Hiss was "consulted" on this issue and the letter from which McCarthy got those figures was written in 1946. Since McCarthy admits he has no access to the records, how does he know that no more dismissals followed in the years following that letter? I have been unable to find the phrase "known to you" in that telegram, so I can hardly answer your question about why McCarthy put those words (which I'm unable to find) into writing. Care to give it a shot?

I have no problem placing the Coleman material in a section WITHIN THE MCCARTHY PIECE devoted to the US States Army Signal Corps investigation. I notice, however, that you have locked this article for editing. Why?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK. The 205 is a leak from the FBI [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22] and refers to persons active in Soviet intelligence operations.
:I misspoke. The context reads,
::"I KNOW [ABSOLUTELY] THAT OF ONE GROUP APPROXIMATELY 300 CERTIFIED TO THE SECRETARY FOR DISCHARGE, HE ACTUALLY DISCHARGED ONLY APPROXIMALTEY 80....THE DAY ...HISS [was exposed]...YOU SIGNED AN ORDER FORBIDDING THE STATE DPEARTMENTS GIVING TO THE CONGRESS ANY INFORMATION...DESPITE THIS STATE DEPARTMENT BLACKOUT, '''WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPILE A LIST OF 57''' COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT.THIS LIST IS AVAILABLE TO YOU, BUT YOU CAN GET A MUCH LONGERT LIST BY ORDERING THE ....LIST OF THOSE WHOM YOUR OWN BOARD LISTED AS BEING DISLOYAL....
:'''Analysis of the above'''.
:What McCarthy was referencing as "known to you" is the previous list of 300, of which McCarthy distilled 57 "avalable to you" which supposedly Truman already knew.

:In the mainspace article [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Joseph_McCarthy&action=edit&section=2] we have a reference to the June 1947 Senate Appropriations Committee communication to George Marshall which I beleive comes from the Moynihan Commission Report. This link [http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm] uses the same language and gives us more context:
::''The memorandum listed the names of nine of these State Department officials and said that they were "only a few of the hundreds now employed in varying capacities who are protected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security." On June 24, 1947, Assistant Secretary of State John Peurifoy notified the chairman of the Senate subcommittee that ten persons had been dismissed from the department, five of whom had been listed in the memorandum. But from June 1947 until McCarthy's Wheeling speech in February 1950, the State Department did not fire one person as a loyalty or security risk. In other branches of the government, however, more than 300 persons were discharged for loyalty reasons alone during the period from 1947 to 1951.
:The Hiss reference I could probably dig up a cite if I had to, but its on hold for the time being.
:You say, ''Since McCarthy admits he has no access to the records''; untrue. McCarthy didn't have complete records and had gained much in oral briefings from Hoover. McCarthy made the reference to 205 10 February 1950; the source document states,
::''A total of 206 persons have been identified as having been active in Soviet intelligence operations for the MGB in the United states and a chart breaking this figure down is set forth in this memorandum. This memorandum was initially prepared for the Director on 10-26-50 ...'' [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]
:so one more had been added to the FBI's investigation of persons active in Soviet espionage between 10 February 1950 and 26 October 1950, when this memorandum was initially prepared for J. Edgar Hoover, the Director.
:I didn't lock another Admin did; there's persistent vandalism when unlocked. That's why we're using Talk page. ![[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The document you reference is "“concerning the activities of the MGB in San Francisco DURING THE 1940S...These messages cover San Francisco-Moscow traffic AND ARE IN THE 1943-1946 PERIOD." (emphasis added) so as an attempt to bolster claims McCarthy that there were 57 "card carrying Communists" in the State Department in 1950 it's pretty useless. In fact, the number "57" had referred to State Department statistics from 1948 which showed that 57 of the 108 on Lee's list (who were not identified as Communists, by the way) were still employed at the State Department, more than half of whom had been investigated and cleared by the FBI, 22 of whom were still being looked into.

The quote you cite about John Peurifoy comes from a plainly partisan source. I rather doubt that the Moynihan report contains language like “Guess what Armas was doing just before he became President of Guatemala?” and if it does that doesn't say much for it as an unbiased cite. And I'm sorry, but until you offer a convincing cite for that Hiss reference, there is no reason for anyone to believe it just because Joe McCarthy said it in a telegram to the president that opens with a falsehood about what he'd said at Wheeling.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:(A) the number 205 came from briefings with Hoover ''prior'' to A.H. Belmont, author of the memo, putting it down on paper in October 1950;
:(B) the 57 number, as the McCarthy to Truman telegram plainly states, "WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPILE A LIST OF 57 COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT", i.e. McCarthy and staff extrapolated these 57 from the Lee List (Lee List was the State Departments internal investigation after the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concerns to Sec. Marshall in June 1947;
:(C) in context, "57 COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT" is actually understated, becuase the 205 number refers to '''''persons involved in espionage activities''''', not simply just party members. This is where the confusion lies, and on several levels. Hoover told McCarthy orally something to the effect that the FBI was investigating 205 persons in the communist conspiracy. Whether Hoover told McCarthy (i) there was evidence of espionage activity, or (ii) the 205 were security risks, or (iii) the 205 were CPUSA members, we just don't know. But the evidence now, based upon declassified Venona evidence is the 205 number was very real, and '''''was not''''' talking about simply party membership or security risks. The 205 were very active espionage investigations. And further, this 205 refers to '''identified''' persons, i.e. were a true name identification had been made from a codename.
:(D) Undersecretary Puerifoy, a Democrat appointed by Truman and confirmed by a Democratic Senate, is defending his reputation in that statement from the Arlington National Cemetary from the alleged "McCarthyite" charge that ''he'' was involved in covering up the State Department's failure to disharge known security risks. Hardly partisan when you are defending yourself from McCarthyite smears. Is this the contortions you now are willing to bend into to keep stale points & arguements alive?

:Summary analysis: The evidence now shows the controversy around these numbers was not a matter of McCarthy's imagination, and in fact is related to (1) the FBI, and (2) contemporaneous journalists failure to clarify precisely the varying degrees of complicity based upon the difference between (a) espionage activity, (b) CPUSA membership, (c) a generic security risk. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy himself said in an interview with US News and World Report that the 205 number had come from the Byrnes letter. And even if it’s true that it actually came from Hoover, the memo you’ve cited makes it very clear that it’s referring to THE 1940S – something you seem very intent on ignoring.

As for that cite you posted on Puerifoy, it is NOT from the official Arlington National Cemetery website (which is http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org.) As is plainly indicated by the following note near the bottom of the page: ”This is a privately owned and maintained, not-for-profit, website which is supported privately. AS SUCH IT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR THE UNITED STATES ARMY.” (emphasis added)

I’m not sure what “contortions” you’re talking about other than the “contortions’ of noting dates (like the fact that memo you cite refers to the 1940s – not 1950), quoting accurately, examining cites and using the commonly understood meanings of commonly understood words like “investigate.”
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:''it’s referring to THE 1940S ''
:Not true. Those were active espionage investigation at that point; some of the 205 (or 206) had left government service, some were never employed in government service, and some remained in government service. And most importanly--that number of 205 '''''only refers to persons identified'''''--there remains to this day something on the order of 178 '''''unidentified''''' code names, unidentifed after a 38 year investigation.

:Further, the partial decrypts were only a fraction of the total messages sent between 1942 and 1945.

:Let me have a cite on the Brynes letter; what is obvious is in Feb 1950 Hoover was talking about information he was getting from the FBI liaison to Venona, but it wasn't summarized on paper until Oct 1950--probably due to the fact the confusion some of these numbers were making in the press.

:And the most obvious aspect of all this is, McCarthy was being used by Hoover & the FBI without knowing it. McCarthy probably never realized the FBI was feeding him information on people who the FBI knew it wasnt worth pursueing, but they perhaps could be embarassed or coerced to turn on family members or associates they knew to be involved in the [[CPUSA#Secret apparatus]].

:The Puerifoy cite, < http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jepeurifoy.htm > I would assume was put up by his family, and probably may have been written by Peurifoy himself before his death. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The memo you’ve cited to support the allegations in McCarthy’s Wheeling speech most certainly DOES refer to the 1940s, and repeatedly refers to that fact. The header reads: “Operations of the MGB Residency at New York, 1944-45” The text twice refers to it as covering that time frame: “This source has been able to furnish us information regarding MGB operations IN THE 1940’s,” “In the Spring of 1954, [Venona project began furnishing data concerning the activities of the MGB in San Francisco DURING THE 1940’”s and “These messages cover San Francisco-Moscow traffic AND ARE IN THE 1943-1946 PERIOD.” (Emphasis Added). And the fact “the partial decrypts were only a fraction of the total messages sent BETWEEN 1942 AND 1945” does not change that. I can’t figure out how you come to the conclusion that it does. The fact remains that if McCarthy was using that memo and not the Byrnes letter as he claimed, it was out of date information.

The reference to the Byrnes letter comes from McCarthy himself, who cited it in a September 7, 1951 interview in US News and World Report. He said:

“Up in West Virginia we read to the audience a letter written by Jimmy Byrnes, the then Secretary of State, to Congressman Sabath, in which he said that out of 3,000 employees screened – employees who were being transferred from other departments into the State Department – they found 284 unfit for government service. He said of the 284 we discharged 79, leaving a total of 205. That night I called upon Acheson and the President to tell us where those 205 were, why they kept them in if the President’s own board says they were unfit.”

As I already observed, and as McCarthy tacitly admits above, the Byrne letter had no reference to Communist Party membership, which renders flatly untrue McCarthy’s claim in the Wheeling speech that “I have here in my hand a list of 205 – a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party…”

Why would you assume that the Puerifoy cite from that privately operated NONofficial Arlington Cemetery Website was written by either him or members of his family? What evidence do you have for this?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Criticism of McCarthy's methods==
The Criticism section is too long and unbalanced, with a lot of false and misleading innuendo. I'd like to pare it down to something with actual facts and criticism. Here is the gist of what's there:

:McCarthy has been widely criticized for his aggressive investigations. McCarthy made charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department, the administration of President Truman, Voice of America, and a United States Army research laboratory. The VOA hearings involved the content of broadcasts and transmitter difficulties, and found serious problems. Critics say that McCarthy did not proved deliberate sabotage. Critics also say that McCarthy only uncovered a few Communists in the United States Army Signal Corps Center at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. McCarthy also had an argument with Boston attorney Joseph Welch in televised hearings.

If the exchange with Welch is to be described, then it should also include McCarthy's point of view. If it is to include trivia from witnesses, then it should also explain just what the criticism is, and also give McCarthy's side. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And exactly what is currently posted in the article that is not an "actual fact?" It sounds like you actually want to remove facts -- not add to them.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:PF Fox, it's not an issue of facts, it's an issue of scale. There's just too much material that makes a redundant point. I suggest a paragraph or two could be moved to [[United States Army Signal Corps#PSI investigations]]; other material also may fit elsewhere. Perhaps you may wish to start [[Joseph Welch]] and place the famous exchange in there. But this article needs some proportion to it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The section is filled with trivia like McCarthy asking the VOA Director of Religious Programming about his religious beliefs. What is the criticism? Do some people think that this was an unfair question? Who? Why?
: It describes Kaplan's suicide, but fails to say how this is a criticism of McCarthy. It is not clear how this is a criticism of McCarthy, except to suggest that McCarthy is responsible for Kaplan's death. Who says that? Why? It is irresponsible to put such a suggestion in, without at least giving McCarthy's side of the story.
: The Welch incident is completely one-sided and misleading. Welch had asked McCarthy to name someone, and McCarthy named Fisher because his name and history was already known.
: The section includes unsupported opinions like, "McCarthy's support and popularity began to fade due to his lack of actual evidence and defendant convictions." Whoever wrote this seems to think that McCarthy was a prosecuting attorney. He was not. McCarthy was a US Senator, and it was not his job to convict defendants.
: This whole section perpetuates a lot of false myths, and should be slashed and fixed. If I do it, then I would remove most of it, as it is unbalanced, misleading, and I don't even see the point to most of the so-called criticisms. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think the overkill nature of it backfires and generates sympathy for McCarthy. But McCarthy's critics just can't seem to grasp that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Grilling someone about their personal religious beliefs in an investigation that is supposed to be about sabotage is completely irrelevant and inappropriate. And only someone who has not read the actual transcript of the exchange between McCarthy and Welch would claim that "Welch had asked McCarthy to name someone and McCarthy named Fisher because his name and history was already known." In fact, McCarthy had already agreed to NOT mention Fisher in the course of the hearings. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

: The VOA investigation was not just about sabotage. I have watched the video of the Welch-McCarthy incident, and the description that was in the article was extremely biased and misleading. I think that it is fine to put the Welch-McCarthy incident in the article, but only if it includes McCarthy's justification for doing what he did. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I made some changes to the Criticism section. I think that it is important to summarize the significant criticisms, as McCarthy was criticized a lot. What I don't want is just unsupported statements that McCarthy ruined innocent lives when no one can give an example. The Senate did censure McCarthy, and we have the text of that resolution, so we know what that criticism is. That criticism is described. If there are other specific and significant and documented criticisms that I missed, let's include those also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

You know perfectly well that I have supported and documented my statements.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The description of the Welch-McCarthy exchange comes from transcripts. What in it was untrue? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Cropped section placed here for discussion==
:The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments. There was no mention of either Communist party membership or names in that letter. The names McCarthy later offered in Reno came from a 1948 report by an ex-FBI agent Robert E. Lee on “incidents of inefficiencies” in the state department that had subsequently been passed on to the HUAC.

:Thomas C. Reeves 1982 biography of McCarthy includes part of the exchange in the Senate between Senator McCarthy and Democratic Majority Leader Scott Lucas on February 20th, during which McCarthy went through the Lee list. The Lee list read:

:“The subject was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism as an experiment but his political philosophy is in keeping with liberal New Deal social reform under democratic processes of government; ‘he is a very ardent New Dealer; he is a live liberal;’ but an informant who also lived in the International House at one time said ‘He was one of those accused of being a Red here but the people who do get up and talk communism are refuted.’”

:McCarthy read this as “He was described in reports by various witnesses as interested in communism and by his roommate at the International House as a communist.”

:Where the Lee list read "This employee is with the office of Information and Educational Exchange in New York City. His application is very sketchy. There has ben no investigation. (C-8) is a reference. Though he is 43 years of age, his file reflects no history prior to June 1941. Case is awaiting a report from the New York Office."

:McCarthy read: "This individual is 43 years of age. He is with the Office of Information and Education. According to the file, he is a known Communist. I am not evaluating the information myself, I am merely giving you what is in the file. This individual also found his way into the Voice of America broadcast. Apparently the easiest way to get in is to be a known Communist." <ref>The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography, Thomas C. Reeves, pg 240."</ref>

:In 1953 McCarthy claimed that employees at Voice of America, were engaging in deliberate sabotage, selecting sites for transmitters that would make it easier for the Soviets to jam signals. Attention was also focused on the content of VOA broadcasts, which in Truman’s time had a policy of “balanced presentation” that did not exclude communist writings. VOA overseas libraries were scrutinized, and among the several hundred books that ended up being purged were works by Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, [[Jean Paul Sartre]], and Theodore H. White.

:The VOA hearings often involved closely questioning witnesses about their past and present political or religious orientations. Director of Religious Programming Roger Lyons was asked if he was or had ever been an unbeliever. Lyons insisted “I am not an atheist. I believe in God.” When he mentioned that he studied in Switzerland under associates of Carl Jung, McCarthy asked if “this professor” attended a church or a synagogue. <ref>Time Magazine, March 16, 1953</ref>

:Reed Harris, acting chief of the IIA, was repeatedly questioned over three days about a book he’d written twenty one years before as a college student at Columbia University. (The offending passage was the assertion that communists had the right to teach in the public schools.) Harris resigned from his job shortly after appearing before the committee. <ref>”McCarthy Hearings, 1953-54 Vol 1. February 23, 1953</ref>

:Dr. Julius Hlavaty, a teacher of Mathematics at Bronx High School and the first Chairman of that prestigious target school’s mathematics department, was called as a witness because of a broadcast he’d made in 1952. After being questioned about personal beliefs and asked if he were a Communist, Dr. Hlavaty refused to answer, which resulted in his dismissal from the New York School system. <ref>“Time Magazine, March 23, 1953"</ref>

:One potential witness, Voice of America engineer, Raymond Kaplan, was so frightened to testify that he committed suicide. In a lengthy suicide note which specifically referenced the placement of VOA transmitters he wrote, "I guess I am the patsy for any mistakes"...."You see, once the dogs are set on you everything you have done since the beginning of time is suspect," and “I have never done anything that I consider wrong but I can’t take the pressure upon my shoulders any more.” <ref>The life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography, Thomas C. Reeves, pg 485</ref>

:No evidence of sabotage of VOA tranmitters were found, but hundreds of employees were fired, some overseas libraries were closed, and some foreign language programming discontinued.

:During Senate debate on the Communist Control Act of 1954, [[Senator Hubert Humphrey]] proposed making membership in the CPUSA a [[felony]]. <ref>McAuliff, Mary Sperling (1978). ''Crisis on the Left: Cold War Politics and American Liberals, 1947-1954''. University of Massachusetts Press, 142. ISBN 0-87023-241-X.</ref><ref>Art Preis, [http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/preis/1954/xx/liberals.htm ''A Case of “Midsummer Madness”? Police-State Liberals''], From Fourth International, Vol.15 No.4, Fall 1954, pp.111-114. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).</ref> If implemented this proposal would have resulted in the United States openly prosecuting individuals strictly for their political views.

:What ultimately destroyed McCarthy’s public career were the famous [[Army-McCarthy hearings]] of 1954. The focus of the Army-McCarthy hearings was the accusation that McCarthy had sought special treatment for an army private named David Schine, a friend of Roy Cohn’s who had been added to McCarthy’s committee as an unpaid consultant and who, it was claimed, had through this association enjoyed special privileges. It is unclear what Schine’s qualifications were for being on McCarthy’s committee other than his friendship with Cohn.

:The most famous exchange from the hearings is the “have you no decency” speech that many people today see as the fatal blow to Senator McCarthy’s public career. It happened while Boston attorney Joseph Welch was cross-examining Roy Cohn about the work Schine had had done with Cohn for the committee. When the interrogation seemed to be going badly for Cohn McCarthy, contrary to an agreement earlier made with Welch that he would not bring up the subject if Welch did not bring up Cohn's military history, launched into an attack on a young law associate of Welch’s, Fred Fisher:

:<blockquote>
“In view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, initially, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party…I am not asking you t this time to explain why you tried to foist him on this committee. Whether you knew he was a member of that Communist organization or not, I don’t know. I assume you did not, Mr. Welch, because I get the impression that, while you are quite an actor, you play for a laugh, I don’t think you have any conception of the danger of the Communist party.”
</blockquote>

:“Until this moment,” Welch responded, “I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…” Welch went on to explain that he had discussed Fred Fisher’s membership in the Lawyer’s Guild with Fisher, and had decided not to recommend him for the committee because he feared that membership would be used against Fisher. "Little did I dream you would be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true he is with Hale & Dorr. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale & Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you..." Welch added the now famous words, “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” <ref>”http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html."</ref>
----
Some of this material may good for [[Army-McCarthy hearings]] or other articles. Some was placed in [[United States Army Signal Corps]]. Let's see if we can find a home for it.

I have reprotected the page from editing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: Moving it seems like a good solution for now, but I really don't think that any page should have innuendo that McCarthy caused Kaplan's suicide when McCarthy was conducting a legitimate investigation of VOA problems. I do think that the McCarthy page should have a criticism section that explains that a lot of people hated McCarthy for exposing the problem of Communists in the govt, and there should be some representative sampling of the dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Given the amount of innuendo I've found in the article devoted to Hillary Clinton -- "Hillary Clinton's best friend Eric Bauman supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under SUSPICIOUS mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide," why do you object to the inclusion of the FACT that Ray Kaplan's suicide was the result of being called before the McCarthy Committee? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:PF Fox, valid complaint about the Hillary article which bares scrutiny. As to the suicide, this is not the only alleged case. Recently it has been postulated Sen. Robert Lafollette committed suicide [http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=141607] in fear of being subpoenaed before the PSI. I would dispute the claim that Lafollette feared McCarthy personally. Lafollette feared having to testify publicly, under oath, to the fact that (A) he '''''did''''' in fact have no less than four underground CPUSA operatives on his staff since 1938, and (B) he '''''knew''''' he had no less than four underground CPUSA operatives on his staff since 1938. As a Wisconsin native, I find this extremely interesting, and view the entire Communist controversy, or second Red Scare, as claiming the lives of no less than two United States Senators, '''''both''''' from Wisconsin. Further, while there is strong evidence McCarthy knew of these relationships on Lafollette’s staff, there is no evidence McCarthy intended to sadistically abuse his predecessor, an opponent he had already beaten, in a public hearing. And I will go so far as to state McCarthy's knowledge of Lafollette knowing and tolerating KGB operatives on Lafollette’s staff for nearly a dozen years explains much about own motivations as an elected representative of the people of Wisconsin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

So what if the Kaplan suicide is not the only "alleged" case? It is certainly the most well documented given that the note he wrote left little room for doubt about his motives. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Analysis of obsolete sources==

'''Specific objections to above material''': I am going to invoke '''WP:ATTFAQ/What kinds of sources are generally regarded as unreliable?''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_generally_regarded_as_unreliable.3F]
, which states
*'''An obsolete source''' is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources. Let's examine these passages:
::*''"...I have here in my hand a list of 205 – a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party "''
Venona now makes it known (a) the 205 number came Hoover; (b) Hoover did on earlier occasions similarly manipulate the source of his information (Venona) by adding '''other''' names [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/hoovlet.html] which were not implicated in Venona, to wit,
::"on May 29, 1946, [Hoover] sent George E. Allen, a confidant of the President and head of the [[Reconstruction Finance Corporation]], a four-page letter... The Director reported that [Venona] had revealed “an enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington.” Of some fourteen names listed, [[Alger Hiss]] was there, as was [[Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]]. But these names were well down the list. The name at the top was “Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson.” The third name was “Former Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy.” Further on was “Bureau of the Budget—Paul H. Appleby.” ...Further, that it automatically discredited the other accusations..." (Chairman's Forward, Moynihan Secrecy Commission Report [http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/foreword.html] ([http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/hoovlet.html Hoover to Allen Letter, May 29, 1946], pages 1 and 2); [https://www.cia.gov/csi/books/venona/preface.htm Benson and Warner] continue:

::"The tacit decision to keep the translated messages secret carried a political and social price for the country. Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain. Anti-Communists suspected that some spies—perhaps including a few who were known to the US Government—remained at large. Those who criticized the government’s loyalty campaign as an over-reaction, on the other hand, wondered if some defendants were being scapegoated; they seemed to sense that the public was not being told the whole truth about the investigations of such suspects as Julius Rosenberg and Judith Coplon. Given the dangerous international situation and what was known by the government at that time, however, continued secrecy was not illogical. With the Korean war raging and the prospect of war with the Soviet Union a real possibility, military and intelligence leaders almost certainly believed that any cryptologic edge that America gained over the Soviets was too valuable to concede—even if it was already known to Moscow.19

(c) Venona makes it known McCarthy understated the reference regarding "members of the Communist Party" because the 205 figure from Hoover referred specifically to active espionage investigations, not simple party membership.

::*''McCarthy had changed the number to 57''
Objection: redundant and no mystery because the [http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/telegram.htm McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950], specifically states :”we have been able to compile a list of 57” which came from the earlier 1947 Congressional investigation of Security risks in the States Department and internal Lee List. This was not information from the Hoover and the FBI, yet comparing both lists there is overlap. Here the qualification of (i) an active espionage investigation (ii) CPUSA membership, which ‘’’was’’’ illegal among federal employees, and (iii) a Security risk, is necessary.

And further examination is necessary to understand what precisely was the US Governments goals at this time. The “Tensions of the Times” subhead lays out the background, how the United States was at war with a former ally; how the former ally obtained nuclear weapons know-how from American citizens and federal government employees in the service of a foreign government during wartime. And most specifically, it was determined by the decision makers in the United States Government that prosecution of individuals involved in the conspiracy was virtually impossible; so the FBI & McCarthy’s primary concern was to remove Security Risks from sensitive US Government positions which had (a) subverted the foreign policy to Roosevelt, and (b) transmitted nuclear weapons technology know-how to the Soviet Union. IOW, meeting the standards of proof of evidence before a jury of one’s peers was not the standard employed [http://cryptome.org/fbi-nsa.htm#IV.D]
to remove security risks from these sensitive positions.

::*''McCarthy...named...[[Mary Jane Keeney]]''
McCarthy was dead on with this, and only missed naming her husband, [[Philip Keeney]] as well (another example of a family unit in the CPUSA secret apparatus).

::*''The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments.

This information is obsolete based upon recent Venona scholarship.

::*''Thomas C. Reeves painstakingly well-documented 1982 biography of McCarthy..."''
Same as above; obsolete and deprecated material. 1982 is pre-Venona. Any material as a source that pre-dates 1995 is suspect, and to characterized it as "painstakingly well-documented" only applies to the state of knowledge at that time, i.e. 1982. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Please cite that specific "deprecation." How was Reeves' biography "deprecated," and by whom? And how does Venona render invalid and inaccurate actual TRANSCRIPTS from the McCarthy hearings? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Overall evaluation ==

My take is that McCarthy has been demonized. His name has been made synonymous with overzealous rooting out of evil - or mean-spirited and partisan intimidation of innocent dissent.

All of this is a smokescreen. Communists murdered tens of millions of people. Support of communism is support of murder.

The way they slam Joe McCarthy makes him (in Liberal eyes) as bad as Hitler. Yet it is the Communists who are as bad as Hitler, or worse. Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, [[Mao Tse-Tung]], etc. If anyone needs demonization, these men do. Not McCarthy.

And guess who else used to round people up and intimidate them into ratting out their friends and coworkers? The Communists themselves. And these betrayals cost people their lives. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: here here! McCarthy was a great man. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 14:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Was Augusto Pinochet a Communist? Rios Montt? D'Aubisson?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::IMHO, McCarthy & McCartyism is viewed as a onetime aberration in the early 1950s of partisan excess. This is not true. McCarthy was a pioneer in modern mindless partisan warfare,and his tactics & techniques have become the mainstay of Washington media and other rabidly partisan types.

::'McCarthy's objective was basically threefold. (1) to remove Security Risks from an opposition Executive Branch at a point in time when the US was at war with enemies who had gained nuclear weapons & know-how from American citizens inside the US Government. (2) Demonize opposition POVs as untrustworthy and anti-American. (3) Payback or a vendetta for twenty years in the wilderness as the minority party.

::McCarthy largely accomplished the first two, but created lasting vendettas with the third. But numerous illustrations are available today to show how McCarthyite tactics are employed regularly in Washington. Ten years ago, for instance, Gingrich appointed a new Historian to the House of Representatives. Unproven McCarthyite smears were used to tar her as an anti-Semite. She was forced to withdraw, and months later recieved a clean bill of health from the Anti-Defamation League. But the damage was done, and the purpose of the wreckless smear was to grandstand, create headlines, demonize Gingrich as allegedly supporting fascists, force an innocent person disprove a negative, etc. So the perpetrators of this vile smear accomplished what they intended--that's all that mattered. Ten years after the fact, the vile smear was still being repeated in Wikipedia, and only after it was brought to the attention of an Arbitrator, the Epopt, did Wikipedia then see fit to rectify the slander.

::In this regard, McCarthy is the teacher and mentor of all contemporary partisan political operatives. Learning the lesson about the [[blowback]] engendered by such methods should be equally important as any short-term advantages that can be gained. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

McCarthy and McCarthyism is only viewed as "a onetime aberration in the early 1950s of partisan excess" by those who have not troubled to research the subject. Since I have never made such a claim, what is your point in bringing it up here? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::McCarthy was a drunk, scaremongering reprobate who got exactly what he deserved from the judgement of history. And it says a lot about the fallen state of the Republican Party that a man like this is the latest saint of the Right.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Gardasil

2007-03-27T18:27:33Z

Dave3172: /* Condom effectiveness */

Talk:Gardasil

2007-03-27T16:06:54Z

Dave3172: /* Condom effectiveness */

Talk:Gardasil

2007-03-27T15:44:21Z

Dave3172:

Talk:Gardasil

2007-03-27T15:43:40Z

Dave3172:

Talk:Brown University

2007-03-27T13:39:26Z

Dave3172:

If there's no citation for the info about Brown and the slave trade, the information should be removed.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, it looks like gossip against Brown and doesn't help Conservapedia's goal of no gossip. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 13:51, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe it would just be easier to keep the information, and get rid of the "no gossip" goal. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe it'd be easiest to keep conservapedia, and get rid of all the people who read it? --[[User:Mittromney|Mittromney]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
== Sayles Hall ==

Sayles Hall is neither one of the oldest buildings on campus, nor was it built for religious purposes; it was (and is) a lecture hall, bult in 1881. A chapel, known as the "Little Chapel", was added in a side-room in 1945, and indeed is still there -- but it would be misleading to imply that the building's primary use was ever for the holding of religious services.

see the entry on the Hall in the [http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=S0050 Encyclopedia Brunoniana] [[User:Boethius|Boethius]]

Sayles was used for mandatory chapel services from 1906 to 1969, so the previous description as "where required religious services was once held" is accurate. See the [http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=C0330 Encyclopedia Brunoniana] entry on "Chapel". I'll include a better description of the hall. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 16:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::The sentence "where required religious services was once held" does not seem to me to be relevant to this story (if indeed the story is relevant). It paints a deceptive picture of the Queer Alliance partying where once solemn chaplains condcted somber services, whereas at the time Sayles handn't been used, nor had attendance been required, for 30 years or more at the time of the party. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]]

If this page is going to be a list of criticisms of Brown, it might as well contain some valid ones. [[User:Scriabin|Scriabin]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== A coatrack article ==

Let's see: Conservapedia has a very short ''but factual'' stub on [[Harvard University]]; nothing at all on [[Yale University]], [[Princeton University]], [[University of Pennsylvania]], [[Columbia University]], [[Dartmouth College]], or [[Cornell University]].
How odd, then, that there should be an article on Brown, ''ten times as long'' as the article on Harvard, and that by an amazing coincidence it should appear shortly after an allegation that someone on the Brown campus vandalized Conservapedia... and that three of the article's four paragraphs just happen to be unflattering:

*a drunken party that sent some students to the hospital (a regrettable but routine event at every college; it doesn't even rise to the level of notability unless someone ''dies'' of alcohol poison, as happened at MIT);
*someone vandalizing Conservapedia (and if that gets you on Conservapedia's front page I'm sure all the other colleges will soon be having contests to see who else can achieve this);
*a story about the origins of the Brown fortune in the slave trade. (Yes, and the cod hanging in the Massachusetts State House commemorates the role of Massachusetts in providing cost-effective slave chow for Caribbean sugar plantations).

This is what has been called a "coatrack article." The usual defense is "but it's factual." Yes, but the only purpose of the article is to be a coatrack onto which to selectively hang facts that support a tendentious thesis: in this case, I suppose, something profound like "Brown sux! Conservapedia rulz!"

This all seems rather like the "gossip" that, Conservapedia charges, "pervades" Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Dpbsmith, I'd agree with you on the first two items. But Brown actually has expressed a great desire to publicize its self-study of its relations with slavery and the slave trade -- that should be at least mentioned. The other material since added would place it in context. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]]

Boethius, Dpbsmith - Thanks for turning this into a reputable article. While its, by no means, a perfect school, the hack job that was being done to it was a complete travesty.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Brown University

2007-03-27T13:36:16Z

Dave3172: /* Famous Graduates */ - two more

'''Brown University''' is an American university located in Providence, Rhode Island. It is a member of the Ivy League, and was rated as the 15th best U.S. college in 2007 by U.S. News and World Report [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php]. Brown was founded in 1764; the University motto is ''In Deo Speramus'', which means "In God We Hope" or "In God is our Hope". The current President of Brown is Ruth J. Simmons; it has 628 full-time faculty members and 7,595 students.

==History==
Brown was founded by Ezra Stiles, a Congregationalist Minister, and James Manning, a Baptist Minister; it was originally known as Rhode Island College. It charter was granted on March 3, 1764; among the sixty-odd signatories were the wealthy brothers John and Nicholas Brown, and the College was located in Warren, Rhode Island. The charter specified that "into this liberal and catholic institution shall never be admitted any religious tests, but on the contrary, all the members hereof shall forever enjoy full, free, absolute, and uninterrupted liberty of conscience", and as such was considered liberal and nonsectarian. Brown and Penn both have claims to be considered the first nonsectarian institution of higher learning in the United States

The College moved to Providence in 1770, and in 1804 was renamed Brown University in honor of Nicholas Brown, a nephew of John Brown, who had given a bequest of $5,000.

According to the university, the Brown family participated in the slave trade and the proceeds contributed to the funding of the university during its early days.<ref>[http://www.brown.edu/Research/Slavery_Justice/report/index.html Slavery and Justice Report], Brown University Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice</ref>

The 1833 Brown catalog—or "catalogue," as it was spelled—lists the names of the entire student body: 43 freshman, 60 sophomores, 45 juniors, and 41 seniors. Candidates for admission were required, among other things, to
:bring satisfactory evidence of unexceptionable moral character, and be thoroughly acquainted with the Grammar of the Latin and Greek languages, be able to construe and parse... the Historical Books of the New Testament, or three Books of Xenophon's Cyropædia, and translate English into Latin correctly.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=00Dr0QOabAjYypfexv&id=4xEWeUleibIC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=%22brown+university%22&as_brr=1#PPA13,M1 The Catalogue of Brown University], 1833</ref>

Brown did not admit women until 1891, when a women's college named Pembroke College was founded. Brown became coedicational in 1971 when the undergraduate school merged with Pembroke College.

Brown had "compulsory chapel"—a requirement that students attend Sunday services—from its founding until 1872.<ref>[http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=C0330 Chapel], from ''Encyclopedia Brunoniana.''</ref> After 1872 services were, of course, still conducted and students encouraged to attend them. At some point, services again became mandatory (although not strictly enforced) until the requirement was finally abolished in 1959. A 1904 book of student verse includes a lament by one C. S. Mitchell entitled "Chapel Bell:"
:Hark! the bell—brazen bell 
:What a world of agony its clanging notes foretell 
:To the slumbrous sleepy student 
:As he bids his rest farewell...<ref>Boone, Ilsley (1904), College Hill Verse: Being Selections from Student Publications of Brown University, 1894-1904, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0Ov889qyeUnxOVt4ej&id=zufLsuEUEHgC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=%22brown+university%22&as_brr=1#PPA4,M1 p. 4]</ref> 

==Hypertext==
Brown University has been a pioneer in the development of [[hypertext]]. This technology was championed by Andries van Dam, who founded Brown's computer science department and chaired it from 1975 to 1989<ref>[http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/avd/ Andries van Dam]]'s home page</ref>. The first hypertext editing system, HES, was developed at Brown in 1967 by Ted Nelson (coiner of the word ''hypertext'') working under van Dam's direction.<ref>[http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/cpace/ht/HTatBrown/BrownHT.html Hypertext at Brown]</ref>, short summary by George P. Landow, professor of English and Art History]. Brown's Iris Intermedia project was important and influential; several significant bodies of hypertext developed in that system have since been ported to the Web, notably [http://www.victorianweb.org/ The Victorian Web], an encyclopedic collection of information and source texts about the Victorian era.

==The New Curriculum==

Brown prides itself on its "New Curriculum," first established in 1969, which allows students to take virtually any course they want, with no general distribution requirements. Traditional letter grades are optional. [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=adp5xdxUBo78] However, the current undergraduate curriculum is currently under review, with recommendations set to be made in the spring of 2008. [http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2007/03/01/CampusNews/New-Task.Force.Will.Review.College-2751247.shtml]

==Recent events==

In 2005, Brown University's "Queer Alliance" threw a raucous and drunken party in a university building. The event was covered by disguised reporters for [[The O'Reilly Factor]], causing bad publicity for the university.[http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/04/27/CampusNews/Chaos.And.Management.Failures.Marred.Sex.Power.God-1880141.shtml?norewrite200605012032&sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com]

==Famous Graduates==
* [[John Hay]], Abraham Lincoln's secretary, later Ambassador to Great Britain and Secretary of State.
* Dhani Harrison, son of [[George Harrison]] of the [[Beatles]]
* Thomas O. Paine, third administrator of NASA
* Donald Carcieri, conservative Republican businessman and current governor of [[Rhode Island]]
* Richard Holbrooke, U.S. ambassador to the [[United Nations]], 1999-2001
* Chuck Colson, chief counsel to U.S. President [[Richard Nixon]]
* John F. Kennedy Jr., son of U.S. President [[John F. Kennedy]]
* Mary Chapin-Carpenter, singer-songwriter
* Chris Berman, anchor/announcer at ESPN
* Joe Paterno, current head coach for football at Penn State

==Notes and references==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/ Encyclopedia Brunoniana], good source of information of Brown's history, customs