Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:DirkB

2008-09-13T20:48:34Z

DirkB: Wikipedia isn't perfect, but this site proves that it could be a lot worse.

I came here because I (as a conservative) felt that Wikipedia was slightly biased in favor of Obama. I was hoping that here, I would find a project that tried to be honest, avoiding bias and instead trying to be factual. After all, it was founded because Andy Schlafly was tired of Wikipedia's bias (or so I read).

However, this place apparently tries to counter perceived left-wing bias by completely over-the-top right-wing bias. It attempts to smear everything that Andy and his helpers see as "liberal" while blindly praising everything they regard as conservative.

At the same time, anybody who doesn't 100% agree with them will be bullied, reverted and subjected to completely arbitrary interpretations of fuzzy rules ("13 out of your last 15 edits have been talk, talk, talk"). Oddly enough, these warnings always come when people make good points.

And if there aren't warnings, there are personal remarks, including calling me a liberal. Apparently, you're only a conservative if you think that Conservative's "articles" are totally okay. If you think they barely qualify as an essay, much less as a real article, you're a liberal.

So with the 90/10 warnings, the censorship, the incoherent ranting and vilification of anything classified as "liberal" (including evolution, of course - because all ''real'' conservatives are Young Earth Creationists, I guess) and the personal remarks, I don't see much that is keeping me here.

I would like to thank the people here, though. You made me realize that Wikipedia isn't so bad, after all. It's not perfect, but this site proves that it could be a lot worse.

I didn't break any commandment, but I guess that this page will be deleted soon enough and that I will be banned for... well... I'm sure somebody will think of something.

User talk:DeanS

2008-09-13T20:30:44Z

DirkB: /* "Debate about news articles is not allowed on this project." */

Just tell me how could we protect better the Mormon articles? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:What do you mean by "protect better" Joaquín? This is a wiki and we try to avoid protecting the articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

: OK, I will do my best to patroll them. At present I am out of home. Just keep doing your wonderfull work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Joaquín, Thanks for Patrolling the articles and dealing with JimmyP. As I mentioned on the church talk page, he needs to explain in detail why he has a problem with that link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:27, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I am out of town. I will be back untill August 6th. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:16, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Good to hear from you Joaquín. I hope you have a great vacation! --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:26, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi DeanS, what a great article 'Breaking Speaker Pelosi's News Blackout'. I love the strategy, proud of my GOP 'ers, it is so patriotic!--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:50, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jpatt! Now if only President Bush would make Congress come back in session to deal with this issue. They don't deserve a five-week vacation. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 02:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks, Bro! ==

I thought your guys are gonna ignore me again, but Nah, I got wrong ideas. Thank you, May the Lord bless you! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=497248] I wish I was brave enough to do that! But only I'm could is to support them to do so, "sigh".--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:36, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:Your welcome Tago. I think the pic is a nice addition as well. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:39, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::I must say, that picture is much better view then the source had.--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:50, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. I followed the pic to its source and was rewarded with this version. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Welcome==

Thanks for the welcome! This website is actually a god-send, a perfect oppurtunity to actually make use of my summer holidays. Hey by the way, I was wondering what CP's policy on science articles are, as this will probably be the aspect I'll be contributing to quite a lot. Thanks again- [[User:Jl2000|Jl2000]]

:Just start editing and you'll find out soon enough ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:21, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:I researched this person's edits and found much of the material to be false. There was also information on that other site which made it very clear that he was just another of their parodists. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::Interesting. They're supposed to be on a boycott of CP right now. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:29, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Christian solidarity==

Hi, Dean. I like your [[:Image:Beijing arrests.jpg]] but I couldn't edit the caption. Can you crop the image and put the caption in the image link? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:30, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Ed. How about this cropped image? The caption is in the image info. [[:Image:Beijing arrests2.jpg]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:24, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks and a request or two. ==

Thanks for pointing me at that list of admins. Two things - [[Conservapedia:User rights]] is full of broken links but is locked - can you or someone else fix these? Also can you unlock [[Rape]] for me as well - the current wording includes the phrase "seducing a child" - as seduction as a concept can suggest an element of consent I'd like to rephrase the article. Thanks in advance. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 21:39, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pre-screening of News stories==

Just curious - why the "No article prescreening" policy, and why delete what I thought were constructive comments, instead of responding to them on the page? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:44, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:The reason there will be no article pre-screening by you (or other liberals) is because myself or another admin will be prescreening the articles.

:I deleted your comments because those project pages are only for project members, and I'm not going to have nonmembers influencing the project. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 20:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, all that makes sense, but if you read my post, I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen, because I know non-conservatives like me aren't welcome on the sub-project. I had the sense that there was no pre-screening by anyone, and your edit-comment seemed to bear that out. Thanks for clarifying.

::Also, can I ask a blunt but serious question? Do you ever find that the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" are taken wayyy too seriously here, resulting in an all-or-none, black-and-white division between the two perspectives? I never post here to make trouble, only to offer a viewpoint that's usually more nuanced than the black-hat/white-hat exchanges that often take place. I hate labels myself, because in my case I'm libertarian on most social issues, conservative on fiscal ones, and still trying to figure out the spiritual - "Unitarian/Universalist" is probably closer than "Agnostic", but neither one is a strong enough fit to apply to myself.

::So if you want to create sub-projects for the true-believers only, go for it. I've just observed that while this is Conservapedia and not Neutralapedia, the "feel" of the place has become more polarized and combative, with less tolerance for dissent or even respectful disagreement, and a corresponding drop in the number and quality of contributors.

::As I said though, good luck with the news project, and I'll post my comments on the Main:Talk page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:17, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Dinsdale, You said, "I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen". What is this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikiproject:News&diff=prev&oldid=502069 "... I'd be glad to participate in article screening..."]

:::No, I don't find the labels are taken ''too'' seriously here. I have a problem with liberals and their way of thinking. Liberal viewpoints are wrong.

:::I find very little of the "respectful disagreement" from liberals; mostly I see great examples of [[Liberal Style]], vandalism, parody, troublemaking, obscenity, etc.

:::Your comments here are respectful; therefore I have responded in kind. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 21:39, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the courteous response. As for my statement on volunteering, the ''complete'' statement was "I'd be glad to participate in article screening but I don't qualify to be on this sub-project." Hey, I'd love night-editing rights, too, but I'm about as qualified to get that, too ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:05, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::LOL --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
==Didn't mean to step on toes==
I'm just a huge fan of Cherone's and his ability to not alienate people when discussing Christianity and why abortion is wrong. So, I'd rather stick his "line in the sand" in there, if you don't mind. He has stated that anyone who really wants to be taken seriously in this debate at least needs to recognize that a woman has a right to live, if / when a baby directly threatens that. It's a position, being a woman wanting children, I happen to share. :-) If you really think it's liberal bias, let me know or a third party know, and we can "let the majority vote" (as it were).--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 22:43, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: Btw, I DO mind. There is NO majority vote when an administrator removes liberal bias. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:59, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::I guess I don't understand what "liberal bias" is in this case, then. Are you asserting that Cherone is a liberal? I really have no idea his political preference, just what he has said about abortion. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 23:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::No, I'm not saying that Cherone is a liberal. See my comments at [[Talk:Extreme]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Wikinews==
DeanS, Wikinews, my spelling error on the Ayers story. Unrepentent should be unrepentant.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Could you add int link for Stephanie Tubbs Jones? Tanks in advance!--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jp. This mistake has been [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=502572&oldid=502384 corrected].

:The wikilink was added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=502578&oldid=502572 here]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:53, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

==Thank you!==
For stepping in. Whoever that person was, he was doing bad things to my blood pressure :) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 10:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:You're welcome Jessica. He was an imposter and was dealt with accordingly. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:10, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I got really annoyed... --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 10:32, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:No wonder you were annoyed. I'm sorry this happened to you. We have enemies of this site, and they don't care who gets hurt or how much damage/disruption they cause. This incident reminds me of homicide bombers. All they care about is themselves and how much damage they can cause.

:Be on the alert for imposters. You can check their contributions like [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/JasonH this]. JasonH's contribs started today. Also JasonH created his account [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=JasonH today]. Since we know [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jinxmchue the real Jinxmchue] has been editing for a while, that would also be a clue that JasonH was an imposter. Finally, he used this obvious deceitful <nowiki>[[User:JasonH|Jinxmchue]]</nowiki> [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DiEb&diff=prev&oldid=503259 signature.] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

==Thank You for the Unblock==

I appreciate being restored given that my comments aren't mainstream here, and I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:Phillip explained why I was wrong, and I wanted to fix my mistake. Even though I don't agree with your views, I won't block you for expressing them. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:58, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

== Wikinews Project ==

Mr. DeanS,

Why exactly do you think I'm a liberal? I've tried to make it clear that I am anything but.

--[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:Joseph, I don't think you're a liberal. I thought I explained the reason clearly in the email. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:36, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I see you have had great success with wanted pages via Wikinews. Since you have run out of new topics, I thought to suggest adding some words from [[Special:Wantedpages]]. Just to keep the pac motivated.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:43, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:Jp, even though that is an interesting suggestion, I prefer to link to items on the news section; since this is a news project. If you want to suggest items, look at the news articles and see where the wikilinks are missing. Sometimes it's because the poster didn't bother to use existing wikilinks; other times it's because the article hasn't been created yet. It's quite challenging to go through the news articles and find these wikilinks. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:14, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:: No problem. Before I submit a news item, I wikilink almost every word then use the preview to see which is or isn't listed. If you like, I can immediately add words that don't appear to the wanted section. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:45, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:::That would be great! If you could add missing wikilinks for the other suggestions, that would be even better. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:51, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Outdated news item ==

The main page has a news item that says: "According to RealClearPolitics, for the first time in the 2008 Presidential race, John McCain overtakes Barack Obama in the Electoral College poll 274 to 264." You may want to remove that from the main page since it is no longer accurate, and the link provided leads to a page showing Obama leading McCain 273 to 265 (that is what is how right now, anyway). [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 13:54, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Done. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:22, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== IP's ban ==

(Not sure if this is proper procedure, but I'm still fairly new).

I disagree with your ban of Impm; there was no 'edit war' that could be perceived based on his recent (see five minutes ago) edits of the Barack Obama article. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Jirby, MYOB or ''you'' will be blocked. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:50, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Wow, they're really obsessed with me ==

How many people have created accounts referencing me? Quite a few, it seems. At least 3, to my recollection, including today's "Lowjinx." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:02, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

:They're obsessed alright; with you, all of the Conservapedia sysops and Conservapedia itself. They are also obsessed with vandalism, parody, deceit, and every other element of the [[Liberal Style]].

:I prefer to call them "possessed". They are possessed of a lying and evil spirit. They're sowing wickedness, and will reap wickedness at the judgment day.
--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:01, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

::A little less [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks|talk]], please. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Good, steady work==

Dean, thank you for your longstanding, careful attention to the main page. No one keeps up with current events as well as you do.

I also like your "wiki gnome" work, like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Indian-American&curid=72030&diff=506590&oldid=506571 this minor copy edit]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:You're welcome Ed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:53, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==False quotes in News story on Obama speech==

I wasn't sure if you saw my comments about the false statements in the headline about the Obama speech. Do you consider the headline correct in it's current form? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I read your comments. I would like Chippeterson to respond to you and provide a link for reference. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Understandable, but here's a [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/us/politics/28text-obama.html link] to the transcript of the speech, which clearly shows the headline is false and misleading. Chippeterson should respond, but only a sysop has the ability to edit news postings on the main page, and as the link shows, it's wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:10, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Bear in mind that ''The New York Times'' is the leading liberal news source, so their "factual" claims must often be given close scrutiny. They have even misreported science news, e.g., publishing the assertion about open water at the North Pole (which was later shown to be historically inaccurate) just in time to influence public policy on [[global warming]].

:::Although liberals refer to the NY Times as the "newspaper of record", conservatives don't give it as much credence. (They have the legal write to print opinion as fact, you know; see [[First Amendment]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:36, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:It's not '''"the"''' transcript (as in the only one possible); you left out "as recorded by CQ Transcriptions". Part of the strategy of liberal news media is to pick their sources carefully to give the impression they want. If you do a little research, you can find where a Boston Globe editor declared this quite openly. Would you like that as a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:40, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Republican Convention Headline ==

Last phrase should read "Democratic Vice Presidential nominee", not "Democrat Vice Presidential nominee." Thanks --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:40, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:Fixed. Thanks for the correction. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:21, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== RIP Bill Melendez ==

Thanks for that news, sad as it is. An unsung hero and icon of American culture whose legacy will live forever in our hearts. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jinx. The article was submitted by Benp and I just posted it. Can you start an article for [[Bill Melendez]]? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:29, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll have to see how soon I can get to it. Going to bed now. Have some yard work to do in the morning and work work from the afternoon through tomorrow morning. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:21, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:::No problem Jinx. Thanks for your contributions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:31, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

==Sysop Q==
How does one become a sysop? I've only been here a few days. [[User:JY23|JY23]]

:See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Administrators Conservapedia:Administrators/Promotion]. Sysops are selected as needed from the best of the best contributors, there is no popularity contest to determine promotion. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:17, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

== Re: New article request process ==

Didn't know about the process ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikiproject%3ANews%2FWanted_page&diff=511110&oldid=511109]) Sorry, [[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 16:19, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:That's fine. I usually just do it myself, and after you tried to do it, I realized I needed to write a process. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:32, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Cool. [[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 16:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

==Pictures==
DeanS, could you upload these photo's for me for the [[John McCain]] and [[Joe Biden]] articles, thanks.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/89ddfcef-3a43-49a6-99c4-b7f41986b56c_mn.jpeg

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/john-mccain-4.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 8 September 2008

:Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Biden_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg Biden on Meet the Press] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:McCain_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg McCain on Meet the Press]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:32, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I appreciate it. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]9 September 2008
===Other Pictures===
Also DeanS, there are some articles with no pictures at all and could really use them. I was hoping you could upload these.

http://www.moderate-america.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/colin_powell-277x300.jpg

http://www.gcva.us/dpts/vote/TimKainePic.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/ray_nagin_cp_8482804.jpg

http://www.fantasycongress.com/public/img/senators/graham_lindsey_SC.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 9 September 2008

:Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Colin_Powell.jpg Colin Powell], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:TimKaine.jpg Tim Kaine], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ray_Nagin.jpg Ray Nagin] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Lindsey_Graham.jpg Lindsey Graham]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 02:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Chippeterson, I deleted the Ray Nagin photo from Conservapedia and reverted the article because it could have been an AP photo and we're not allowed to use AP photos. The cbc.ca site uses a lot of AP photos and I wasn't able to determine if this was an AP photo. I don't mind uploading pics for you, I just need you to double-check the source and ensure they're non-AP photos before I can upload in the future. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll be more careful from now on DeanS. How about this one of Nagin from answers.com. http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/7/74/225px-Nagin2June2006.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 10 September 2008

:Chippeterson, thanks for understanding. Here's the pic for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ray_Nagin2.jpg Ray Nagin]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Betty Ford==
I just wrote an article on [[Betty Ford]] and it could use her picture. Could you upload this. Thanks. http://z.about.com/d/womenshistory/1/7/q/A/betty_ford.jpg

:Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Betty_Ford.JPG Betty Ford]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Night Edits==
DeanS, i think somebody left the spicket on. Can you close new user signup til daylight hours? Thanks -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:16, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:I noticed that too and already took care of it. Thanks for the reminder. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:25, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

::Yesterday it was turned off around 2. I thought it was just later now than it used to be. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:33, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:::It varies. I'm not going to go into details, but you can email Andy if you have further questions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Naw, I understand. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:37, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Debate about news articles is not allowed on this project." ==

This makes absolutely no sense. Somebody suggests a news item on [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions]], but comments about these ''suggestions'' have to be posted on [[Talk:Main Page]] ''before the suggestions are posted on the main page''? Talk about convoluted! Nobody would know what I'm objecting against, so I would have to preface it with "Somebody suggested a news item on this and that page, and I'll now comment on it here". But I can see that my objection had zero impact either way, so posting it again in the "proper" place won't do a thing, will it? McCain is excused for not knowing how to send a mail because he can't use a keyboard (sorta kinda). Right. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:28, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:DeanS

2008-09-13T20:28:31Z

DirkB: /* "Debate about news articles is not allowed on this project." */ new section

Just tell me how could we protect better the Mormon articles? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:What do you mean by "protect better" Joaquín? This is a wiki and we try to avoid protecting the articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

: OK, I will do my best to patroll them. At present I am out of home. Just keep doing your wonderfull work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Joaquín, Thanks for Patrolling the articles and dealing with JimmyP. As I mentioned on the church talk page, he needs to explain in detail why he has a problem with that link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:27, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I am out of town. I will be back untill August 6th. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:16, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Good to hear from you Joaquín. I hope you have a great vacation! --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:26, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi DeanS, what a great article 'Breaking Speaker Pelosi's News Blackout'. I love the strategy, proud of my GOP 'ers, it is so patriotic!--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:50, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jpatt! Now if only President Bush would make Congress come back in session to deal with this issue. They don't deserve a five-week vacation. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 02:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks, Bro! ==

I thought your guys are gonna ignore me again, but Nah, I got wrong ideas. Thank you, May the Lord bless you! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=497248] I wish I was brave enough to do that! But only I'm could is to support them to do so, "sigh".--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:36, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:Your welcome Tago. I think the pic is a nice addition as well. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:39, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::I must say, that picture is much better view then the source had.--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:50, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. I followed the pic to its source and was rewarded with this version. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Welcome==

Thanks for the welcome! This website is actually a god-send, a perfect oppurtunity to actually make use of my summer holidays. Hey by the way, I was wondering what CP's policy on science articles are, as this will probably be the aspect I'll be contributing to quite a lot. Thanks again- [[User:Jl2000|Jl2000]]

:Just start editing and you'll find out soon enough ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:21, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:I researched this person's edits and found much of the material to be false. There was also information on that other site which made it very clear that he was just another of their parodists. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::Interesting. They're supposed to be on a boycott of CP right now. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:29, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Christian solidarity==

Hi, Dean. I like your [[:Image:Beijing arrests.jpg]] but I couldn't edit the caption. Can you crop the image and put the caption in the image link? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:30, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Ed. How about this cropped image? The caption is in the image info. [[:Image:Beijing arrests2.jpg]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:24, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks and a request or two. ==

Thanks for pointing me at that list of admins. Two things - [[Conservapedia:User rights]] is full of broken links but is locked - can you or someone else fix these? Also can you unlock [[Rape]] for me as well - the current wording includes the phrase "seducing a child" - as seduction as a concept can suggest an element of consent I'd like to rephrase the article. Thanks in advance. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 21:39, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pre-screening of News stories==

Just curious - why the "No article prescreening" policy, and why delete what I thought were constructive comments, instead of responding to them on the page? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:44, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:The reason there will be no article pre-screening by you (or other liberals) is because myself or another admin will be prescreening the articles.

:I deleted your comments because those project pages are only for project members, and I'm not going to have nonmembers influencing the project. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 20:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, all that makes sense, but if you read my post, I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen, because I know non-conservatives like me aren't welcome on the sub-project. I had the sense that there was no pre-screening by anyone, and your edit-comment seemed to bear that out. Thanks for clarifying.

::Also, can I ask a blunt but serious question? Do you ever find that the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" are taken wayyy too seriously here, resulting in an all-or-none, black-and-white division between the two perspectives? I never post here to make trouble, only to offer a viewpoint that's usually more nuanced than the black-hat/white-hat exchanges that often take place. I hate labels myself, because in my case I'm libertarian on most social issues, conservative on fiscal ones, and still trying to figure out the spiritual - "Unitarian/Universalist" is probably closer than "Agnostic", but neither one is a strong enough fit to apply to myself.

::So if you want to create sub-projects for the true-believers only, go for it. I've just observed that while this is Conservapedia and not Neutralapedia, the "feel" of the place has become more polarized and combative, with less tolerance for dissent or even respectful disagreement, and a corresponding drop in the number and quality of contributors.

::As I said though, good luck with the news project, and I'll post my comments on the Main:Talk page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:17, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Dinsdale, You said, "I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen". What is this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikiproject:News&diff=prev&oldid=502069 "... I'd be glad to participate in article screening..."]

:::No, I don't find the labels are taken ''too'' seriously here. I have a problem with liberals and their way of thinking. Liberal viewpoints are wrong.

:::I find very little of the "respectful disagreement" from liberals; mostly I see great examples of [[Liberal Style]], vandalism, parody, troublemaking, obscenity, etc.

:::Your comments here are respectful; therefore I have responded in kind. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 21:39, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the courteous response. As for my statement on volunteering, the ''complete'' statement was "I'd be glad to participate in article screening but I don't qualify to be on this sub-project." Hey, I'd love night-editing rights, too, but I'm about as qualified to get that, too ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:05, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::LOL --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
==Didn't mean to step on toes==
I'm just a huge fan of Cherone's and his ability to not alienate people when discussing Christianity and why abortion is wrong. So, I'd rather stick his "line in the sand" in there, if you don't mind. He has stated that anyone who really wants to be taken seriously in this debate at least needs to recognize that a woman has a right to live, if / when a baby directly threatens that. It's a position, being a woman wanting children, I happen to share. :-) If you really think it's liberal bias, let me know or a third party know, and we can "let the majority vote" (as it were).--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 22:43, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: Btw, I DO mind. There is NO majority vote when an administrator removes liberal bias. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:59, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::I guess I don't understand what "liberal bias" is in this case, then. Are you asserting that Cherone is a liberal? I really have no idea his political preference, just what he has said about abortion. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 23:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::No, I'm not saying that Cherone is a liberal. See my comments at [[Talk:Extreme]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Wikinews==
DeanS, Wikinews, my spelling error on the Ayers story. Unrepentent should be unrepentant.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Could you add int link for Stephanie Tubbs Jones? Tanks in advance!--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jp. This mistake has been [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=502572&oldid=502384 corrected].

:The wikilink was added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=502578&oldid=502572 here]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:53, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

==Thank you!==
For stepping in. Whoever that person was, he was doing bad things to my blood pressure :) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 10:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:You're welcome Jessica. He was an imposter and was dealt with accordingly. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:10, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I got really annoyed... --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 10:32, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:No wonder you were annoyed. I'm sorry this happened to you. We have enemies of this site, and they don't care who gets hurt or how much damage/disruption they cause. This incident reminds me of homicide bombers. All they care about is themselves and how much damage they can cause.

:Be on the alert for imposters. You can check their contributions like [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/JasonH this]. JasonH's contribs started today. Also JasonH created his account [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=JasonH today]. Since we know [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jinxmchue the real Jinxmchue] has been editing for a while, that would also be a clue that JasonH was an imposter. Finally, he used this obvious deceitful <nowiki>[[User:JasonH|Jinxmchue]]</nowiki> [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DiEb&diff=prev&oldid=503259 signature.] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

==Thank You for the Unblock==

I appreciate being restored given that my comments aren't mainstream here, and I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:Phillip explained why I was wrong, and I wanted to fix my mistake. Even though I don't agree with your views, I won't block you for expressing them. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:58, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

== Wikinews Project ==

Mr. DeanS,

Why exactly do you think I'm a liberal? I've tried to make it clear that I am anything but.

--[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:Joseph, I don't think you're a liberal. I thought I explained the reason clearly in the email. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:36, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I see you have had great success with wanted pages via Wikinews. Since you have run out of new topics, I thought to suggest adding some words from [[Special:Wantedpages]]. Just to keep the pac motivated.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:43, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:Jp, even though that is an interesting suggestion, I prefer to link to items on the news section; since this is a news project. If you want to suggest items, look at the news articles and see where the wikilinks are missing. Sometimes it's because the poster didn't bother to use existing wikilinks; other times it's because the article hasn't been created yet. It's quite challenging to go through the news articles and find these wikilinks. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:14, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:: No problem. Before I submit a news item, I wikilink almost every word then use the preview to see which is or isn't listed. If you like, I can immediately add words that don't appear to the wanted section. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:45, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:::That would be great! If you could add missing wikilinks for the other suggestions, that would be even better. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:51, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Outdated news item ==

The main page has a news item that says: "According to RealClearPolitics, for the first time in the 2008 Presidential race, John McCain overtakes Barack Obama in the Electoral College poll 274 to 264." You may want to remove that from the main page since it is no longer accurate, and the link provided leads to a page showing Obama leading McCain 273 to 265 (that is what is how right now, anyway). [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 13:54, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Done. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:22, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== IP's ban ==

(Not sure if this is proper procedure, but I'm still fairly new).

I disagree with your ban of Impm; there was no 'edit war' that could be perceived based on his recent (see five minutes ago) edits of the Barack Obama article. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Jirby, MYOB or ''you'' will be blocked. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:50, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Wow, they're really obsessed with me ==

How many people have created accounts referencing me? Quite a few, it seems. At least 3, to my recollection, including today's "Lowjinx." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:02, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

:They're obsessed alright; with you, all of the Conservapedia sysops and Conservapedia itself. They are also obsessed with vandalism, parody, deceit, and every other element of the [[Liberal Style]].

:I prefer to call them "possessed". They are possessed of a lying and evil spirit. They're sowing wickedness, and will reap wickedness at the judgment day.
--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:01, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

::A little less [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks|talk]], please. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Good, steady work==

Dean, thank you for your longstanding, careful attention to the main page. No one keeps up with current events as well as you do.

I also like your "wiki gnome" work, like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Indian-American&curid=72030&diff=506590&oldid=506571 this minor copy edit]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:You're welcome Ed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:53, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==False quotes in News story on Obama speech==

I wasn't sure if you saw my comments about the false statements in the headline about the Obama speech. Do you consider the headline correct in it's current form? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I read your comments. I would like Chippeterson to respond to you and provide a link for reference. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Understandable, but here's a [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/us/politics/28text-obama.html link] to the transcript of the speech, which clearly shows the headline is false and misleading. Chippeterson should respond, but only a sysop has the ability to edit news postings on the main page, and as the link shows, it's wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:10, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Bear in mind that ''The New York Times'' is the leading liberal news source, so their "factual" claims must often be given close scrutiny. They have even misreported science news, e.g., publishing the assertion about open water at the North Pole (which was later shown to be historically inaccurate) just in time to influence public policy on [[global warming]].

:::Although liberals refer to the NY Times as the "newspaper of record", conservatives don't give it as much credence. (They have the legal write to print opinion as fact, you know; see [[First Amendment]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:36, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:It's not '''"the"''' transcript (as in the only one possible); you left out "as recorded by CQ Transcriptions". Part of the strategy of liberal news media is to pick their sources carefully to give the impression they want. If you do a little research, you can find where a Boston Globe editor declared this quite openly. Would you like that as a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:40, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Republican Convention Headline ==

Last phrase should read "Democratic Vice Presidential nominee", not "Democrat Vice Presidential nominee." Thanks --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:40, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:Fixed. Thanks for the correction. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:21, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== RIP Bill Melendez ==

Thanks for that news, sad as it is. An unsung hero and icon of American culture whose legacy will live forever in our hearts. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jinx. The article was submitted by Benp and I just posted it. Can you start an article for [[Bill Melendez]]? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:29, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll have to see how soon I can get to it. Going to bed now. Have some yard work to do in the morning and work work from the afternoon through tomorrow morning. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:21, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:::No problem Jinx. Thanks for your contributions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:31, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

==Sysop Q==
How does one become a sysop? I've only been here a few days. [[User:JY23|JY23]]

:See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Administrators Conservapedia:Administrators/Promotion]. Sysops are selected as needed from the best of the best contributors, there is no popularity contest to determine promotion. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:17, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

== Re: New article request process ==

Didn't know about the process ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikiproject%3ANews%2FWanted_page&diff=511110&oldid=511109]) Sorry, [[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 16:19, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:That's fine. I usually just do it myself, and after you tried to do it, I realized I needed to write a process. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:32, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Cool. [[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 16:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

==Pictures==
DeanS, could you upload these photo's for me for the [[John McCain]] and [[Joe Biden]] articles, thanks.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/89ddfcef-3a43-49a6-99c4-b7f41986b56c_mn.jpeg

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/john-mccain-4.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 8 September 2008

:Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Biden_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg Biden on Meet the Press] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:McCain_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg McCain on Meet the Press]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:32, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I appreciate it. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]9 September 2008
===Other Pictures===
Also DeanS, there are some articles with no pictures at all and could really use them. I was hoping you could upload these.

http://www.moderate-america.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/colin_powell-277x300.jpg

http://www.gcva.us/dpts/vote/TimKainePic.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/ray_nagin_cp_8482804.jpg

http://www.fantasycongress.com/public/img/senators/graham_lindsey_SC.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 9 September 2008

:Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Colin_Powell.jpg Colin Powell], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:TimKaine.jpg Tim Kaine], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ray_Nagin.jpg Ray Nagin] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Lindsey_Graham.jpg Lindsey Graham]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 02:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Chippeterson, I deleted the Ray Nagin photo from Conservapedia and reverted the article because it could have been an AP photo and we're not allowed to use AP photos. The cbc.ca site uses a lot of AP photos and I wasn't able to determine if this was an AP photo. I don't mind uploading pics for you, I just need you to double-check the source and ensure they're non-AP photos before I can upload in the future. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll be more careful from now on DeanS. How about this one of Nagin from answers.com. http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/7/74/225px-Nagin2June2006.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 10 September 2008

:Chippeterson, thanks for understanding. Here's the pic for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ray_Nagin2.jpg Ray Nagin]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Betty Ford==
I just wrote an article on [[Betty Ford]] and it could use her picture. Could you upload this. Thanks. http://z.about.com/d/womenshistory/1/7/q/A/betty_ford.jpg

:Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Betty_Ford.JPG Betty Ford]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Night Edits==
DeanS, i think somebody left the spicket on. Can you close new user signup til daylight hours? Thanks -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:16, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:I noticed that too and already took care of it. Thanks for the reminder. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:25, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

::Yesterday it was turned off around 2. I thought it was just later now than it used to be. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:33, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:::It varies. I'm not going to go into details, but you can email Andy if you have further questions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Naw, I understand. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:37, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Debate about news articles is not allowed on this project." ==

This makes absolutely no sense. Somebody suggests a news item on [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions]], but comments about these ''suggestions'' have to be posted on [[Talk:Main Page]] ''before they're posted on the main page''? Talk about convoluted! Nobody would know what I'm objecting against, so I would have to preface it with "Somebody suggested a news item on this and that page, and I'll now comment on it here". But I can see that my objection had zero impact either way, so posting it again in the "proper" place won't do a thing, will it? McCain is excused for not knowing how to send a mail because he can't use a keyboard (sorta kinda). Right. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:28, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Secure

2008-09-13T12:20:20Z

DirkB: Again, a redirect to the more correct article, even though the correct article is overly law-specific. *shrug*

#REDIRECT[[Security]]

Cite

2008-09-13T12:17:19Z

DirkB: Same as cited

#REDIRECT[[Citation]]

Cited

2008-09-13T12:16:41Z

DirkB: Redirecting to correct target. Of course, citation is only about the legal thing, but it was written by Andy, so I won't touch it.

#REDIRECT[[Citation]]

Margin of error

2008-09-13T12:11:04Z

DirkB: Redirecting to Margin of Error

#REDIRECT[[Margin of Error]]

Large Hadron Collider

2008-09-12T18:26:06Z

DirkB: Two links to the arguments against LHC Doomsday

The '''Large Hadron Collider''' (LHC) is the largest and most ambitious piece of machinery ever conceived and built by man. The [[particle accelerator]], with a circumference of 27km, is located at the [[CERN]] facility with straddles the border of [[France]] and [[Switzerland]].

The LHC was powered up on Wednesday 10 September 2008, with the first beams being circulated through the collider. It will reach full power in mid-November 2008, which is when scientists will begin smashing [[particle]]s into each other.

The LHC has four giant detectors designed to probe new [[dimension]]s, search for the [[Higgs Boson]] (the so called "God Particle", which gives matter and other [[boson]]s mass) and hypothetically to investigate what the [[universe]] might have been like immediately after the [[Big Bang]] (assuming it actually happened).

Legal challenges have been made against the LHC as some believe it could open a [[black hole]] that would swallow the Earth. However scientists have effectively ruled out this scenario, pointing out - among other things - that such particle collisions take place quite often naturally.<ref>Steven B. Giddings, Michelangelo M. Mangano: [http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381 "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes"]</ref><ref>Benjamin Koch, Marcus Bleicher, Horst Stoecker: [http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3349 "Exclusion of black hole disaster scenarios at the LHC"]</ref> The LHC seeks to prove or disprove other important concepts and theories, including supersymmetry, [[antimatter]], as well as confirming the existence of many [[lepton]]s, such as the [[muon]] and [[gluon]].

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc LHC] Homepage at CERN.

[[Category:Physics]]

Metapedia

2008-09-07T21:42:08Z

DirkB: /* References */ I assume this rule applies not only to this one site, but to all inappropriate sites, yes?

'''Metapedia''' is a [[wiki]] site, established ''circa'' 2005-2006, that promotes a racist view of politics, culture, and the arts and sciences. Available in English and now in ten additional languages, Metapedia also maintains links to WikiSlavia, in Russian and Siberian. The site labels the holocaust as "the holohoax" and denigrates both the character and intelligence of black people, Jews and other non-European peoples.

== History ==
The archives of Metapedia indicate that its history begins on August 9, 2006, with the first talks on the development of the Swedish-language version. This version launched on October 26, 2006 and grew fairly quickly. They then expanded to a Danish version, and then into German and English (May 15, 2007), French (May 29, 2007), Portuguese, and Czech.

On July 27, 2007, Metapedia began linking to Wikislavia, while continuing its own expansion into various other languages of Western and Eastern Europe (Slovak, Spanish, Magyar, Rumanian).

== Copyright issues ==
Metapedia sets forth no reliable copyright policy. Editors are allowed to copy and slightly modify material from [[Wikipedia]]. Articles edited in this way are then released under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] as is required.

== Administrative policy ==
Metapedia does not permit anonymous editing. Anyone wishing to edit Metapedia content must first establish an account. However, anyone may establish an account with no more effort than Wikipedia currently requires. Metapedia states that the use of an "open proxy" is forbidden.

== Agenda ==
Their mission statement says that they are "pro-European" in character. But the most detailed clues to their agenda come from the content of their articles. A strong bias against anything "non-European" pervades their commentary on virtually every subject that they treat.

"Pro-European" in this context does not mean "anti-[[United States|American]]" in the sense that many current [[Europe]]an leaders choose to describe themselves and behave. Rather it means ''in favor of the original races that settled the region''. Thus the editors and administrators of Metapedia stand against the interests of any ''other'' races, and against movements that, in their view, seek to lay the groundwork for discrimination against themselves.

== Critical analysis ==
The English-language version of Metapedia currently has slightly more than 3400 articles. A random sample includes a rather superficial treatment of some subjects, and a more detailed treatment of others, but in some cases with highly dubious historical accuracy.

* Metapedia often protests vigorously against certain modern turns-of-phrase. They assert, for example, that the phrase "[[Native American]]" first applied to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and ''not'' to [[American Indian]]s. While Conservapedia treats the phrase "Native American" as simply a phrase requiring disambiguation, Metapedia treats the phrase and its current usage as an example of deliberate linguistic revisionism. They trace the first usage of the phrase to 1845 and the Native American Party. Oddly enough, their source is not someone who would be sympathetic to their aims at all, but rather an author seeking to encourage her readers to treat ''all'' peoples with the respect due fellow [[human]] beings.<ref name=Bruchac>Bruchac, Marge. "[http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~massasoit/bruchac.htm Thoughts on Indian Images, Names, and Respect]." Free page section, RootsWeb, December, 1999. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref>

* Their treatment of world religions is often dangerously superficial. Their article on [[Judaism]] is very short. But then they link to a much longer article titled "Jewish ritual murder", which discusses at length the infamous [[blood libel]] against the Jews, as if those lurid tales were, or at least might be, actual fact.

* [[Adolf Hitler]] is, if anything, a [[Germany|German]] national hero, according to Metapedia. Another odd fact about Metapedia's article is that they claim that part of it consists of modified text from Wikipedia. A word-for-word comparison suggests that a Metapedia editor or editors might indeed have copied Wikipedia's original article and then modified it to create a text far more sympathetic to Hitler than was the original text.

* As at least one of their detractors (see below) has alleged, Metapedia explicitly denies that the [[Holocaust]] ever occurred. They also head their article with this disclaimer:{{cquote|Make sure that you won't be prosecuted in your country for what you write, before editing this page.}} They then carry a link to an article titled "Revisionism laws information" that carries a few sparsely documented or undocumented examples of "persecution" of those who sincerely refuse to believe that Hitler's mass-execution policy was real or ever bore any fruit. (Editor's note: the Holocaust is amply documented and documentable by personal interviews by surviving witnesses and, in at least one memorable case, a former inmate.)

* Their article on Conservapedia dismisses this project contemptuously as "just another attempt to suppress the real [[Bible|Biblical]] (sic) truth about the differences between the races." In this context one should note that their treatment of the Bible is even more superficial than is their treatment of Judaism. Therefore their assertion of "biblical truth" is an assertion without evidence, for which they lay no foundation. In fact, the Bible says that all the races of man descend from [[Noah]] through his sons [[Shem]], [[Ham]], and [[Japheth]]. The Bible gives absolutely no warrant for ethnic discrimination, and certainly none for discrimination against Jews.

== Reaction ==
To reply to one criticism that Metapedia makes against Conservapedia: yes, Conservapedia has blocked, and will continue to block, any editor who makes unabashedly racist statements.

Metapedia itself cites at least three items from news organs and blogs, all of which castigate Metapedia as "the encyclopedia for racists, by racists."<ref name=register>Haines, Lester. "[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/23/metapedia/ Conservapedia too pinko? Try Metapedia]." ''The Register'', July 23, 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref><ref name=splc>"[http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=863 White Nationalism: Aryan Encyclopedia Takes Off]." ''Intelligence Report'', Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref><ref name=trottier>Trottier, Christopher. "[http://www.quixoticals.com/2007/07/metapedia-encyclopedia-for-racists-by.html Metapedia--the Encyclopedia for Racists, by Racists]." ''Quixoticals'', July 24, 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref> While many of the criticisms of this article betray a superficial understanding of Metapedia, other statements from these sources have provided valuable leads for the investigation and critical analysis given here.



== References ==
* ''Note that Conservapedia forbids linking to hate groups.''
{{reflist|1}}

[[Category:Wikis]][[Category:Hate Groups]]

Metapedia

2008-09-07T21:39:16Z

DirkB: /* Copyright issues */

'''Metapedia''' is a [[wiki]] site, established ''circa'' 2005-2006, that promotes a racist view of politics, culture, and the arts and sciences. Available in English and now in ten additional languages, Metapedia also maintains links to WikiSlavia, in Russian and Siberian. The site labels the holocaust as "the holohoax" and denigrates both the character and intelligence of black people, Jews and other non-European peoples.

== History ==
The archives of Metapedia indicate that its history begins on August 9, 2006, with the first talks on the development of the Swedish-language version. This version launched on October 26, 2006 and grew fairly quickly. They then expanded to a Danish version, and then into German and English (May 15, 2007), French (May 29, 2007), Portuguese, and Czech.

On July 27, 2007, Metapedia began linking to Wikislavia, while continuing its own expansion into various other languages of Western and Eastern Europe (Slovak, Spanish, Magyar, Rumanian).

== Copyright issues ==
Metapedia sets forth no reliable copyright policy. Editors are allowed to copy and slightly modify material from [[Wikipedia]]. Articles edited in this way are then released under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] as is required.

== Administrative policy ==
Metapedia does not permit anonymous editing. Anyone wishing to edit Metapedia content must first establish an account. However, anyone may establish an account with no more effort than Wikipedia currently requires. Metapedia states that the use of an "open proxy" is forbidden.

== Agenda ==
Their mission statement says that they are "pro-European" in character. But the most detailed clues to their agenda come from the content of their articles. A strong bias against anything "non-European" pervades their commentary on virtually every subject that they treat.

"Pro-European" in this context does not mean "anti-[[United States|American]]" in the sense that many current [[Europe]]an leaders choose to describe themselves and behave. Rather it means ''in favor of the original races that settled the region''. Thus the editors and administrators of Metapedia stand against the interests of any ''other'' races, and against movements that, in their view, seek to lay the groundwork for discrimination against themselves.

== Critical analysis ==
The English-language version of Metapedia currently has slightly more than 3400 articles. A random sample includes a rather superficial treatment of some subjects, and a more detailed treatment of others, but in some cases with highly dubious historical accuracy.

* Metapedia often protests vigorously against certain modern turns-of-phrase. They assert, for example, that the phrase "[[Native American]]" first applied to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and ''not'' to [[American Indian]]s. While Conservapedia treats the phrase "Native American" as simply a phrase requiring disambiguation, Metapedia treats the phrase and its current usage as an example of deliberate linguistic revisionism. They trace the first usage of the phrase to 1845 and the Native American Party. Oddly enough, their source is not someone who would be sympathetic to their aims at all, but rather an author seeking to encourage her readers to treat ''all'' peoples with the respect due fellow [[human]] beings.<ref name=Bruchac>Bruchac, Marge. "[http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~massasoit/bruchac.htm Thoughts on Indian Images, Names, and Respect]." Free page section, RootsWeb, December, 1999. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref>

* Their treatment of world religions is often dangerously superficial. Their article on [[Judaism]] is very short. But then they link to a much longer article titled "Jewish ritual murder", which discusses at length the infamous [[blood libel]] against the Jews, as if those lurid tales were, or at least might be, actual fact.

* [[Adolf Hitler]] is, if anything, a [[Germany|German]] national hero, according to Metapedia. Another odd fact about Metapedia's article is that they claim that part of it consists of modified text from Wikipedia. A word-for-word comparison suggests that a Metapedia editor or editors might indeed have copied Wikipedia's original article and then modified it to create a text far more sympathetic to Hitler than was the original text.

* As at least one of their detractors (see below) has alleged, Metapedia explicitly denies that the [[Holocaust]] ever occurred. They also head their article with this disclaimer:{{cquote|Make sure that you won't be prosecuted in your country for what you write, before editing this page.}} They then carry a link to an article titled "Revisionism laws information" that carries a few sparsely documented or undocumented examples of "persecution" of those who sincerely refuse to believe that Hitler's mass-execution policy was real or ever bore any fruit. (Editor's note: the Holocaust is amply documented and documentable by personal interviews by surviving witnesses and, in at least one memorable case, a former inmate.)

* Their article on Conservapedia dismisses this project contemptuously as "just another attempt to suppress the real [[Bible|Biblical]] (sic) truth about the differences between the races." In this context one should note that their treatment of the Bible is even more superficial than is their treatment of Judaism. Therefore their assertion of "biblical truth" is an assertion without evidence, for which they lay no foundation. In fact, the Bible says that all the races of man descend from [[Noah]] through his sons [[Shem]], [[Ham]], and [[Japheth]]. The Bible gives absolutely no warrant for ethnic discrimination, and certainly none for discrimination against Jews.

== Reaction ==
To reply to one criticism that Metapedia makes against Conservapedia: yes, Conservapedia has blocked, and will continue to block, any editor who makes unabashedly racist statements.

Metapedia itself cites at least three items from news organs and blogs, all of which castigate Metapedia as "the encyclopedia for racists, by racists."<ref name=register>Haines, Lester. "[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/23/metapedia/ Conservapedia too pinko? Try Metapedia]." ''The Register'', July 23, 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref><ref name=splc>"[http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=863 White Nationalism: Aryan Encyclopedia Takes Off]." ''Intelligence Report'', Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref><ref name=trottier>Trottier, Christopher. "[http://www.quixoticals.com/2007/07/metapedia-encyclopedia-for-racists-by.html Metapedia--the Encyclopedia for Racists, by Racists]." ''Quixoticals'', July 24, 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref> While many of the criticisms of this article betray a superficial understanding of Metapedia, other statements from these sources have provided valuable leads for the investigation and critical analysis given here.



== References ==
* ''Note that Conservapedia forbids linking to Metapedia.''
{{reflist|1}}

[[Category:Wikis]][[Category:Hate Groups]]

Significance

2008-09-07T21:34:28Z

DirkB: Redirecting to Significant

#REDIRECT[[Significant]]

Significant

2008-09-07T21:34:12Z

DirkB: Starting article for News Project

Something is '''significant''' when it is considered to be meaningful or has a notable effect on an outcome.

==See Also==
*[[Statistical significance]]

Metapedia

2008-09-07T21:23:30Z

DirkB: /* Gallery */ Commenting this out as per the various concerns raised on the talk page. I'd normally discuss more about this, but "8 out of your last 10 postings are talk".

'''Metapedia''' is a [[wiki]] site, established ''circa'' 2005-2006, that promotes a racist view of politics, culture, and the arts and sciences. Available in English and now in ten additional languages, Metapedia also maintains links to WikiSlavia, in Russian and Siberian. The site labels the holocaust as "the holohoax" and denigrates both the character and intelligence of black people, Jews and other non-European peoples.

== History ==
The archives of Metapedia indicate that its history begins on August 9, 2006, with the first talks on the development of the Swedish-language version. This version launched on October 26, 2006 and grew fairly quickly. They then expanded to a Danish version, and then into German and English (May 15, 2007), French (May 29, 2007), Portuguese, and Czech.

On July 27, 2007, Metapedia began linking to Wikislavia, while continuing its own expansion into various other languages of Western and Eastern Europe (Slovak, Spanish, Magyar, Rumanian).

== Copyright issues ==
Metapedia sets forth no reliable copyright policy. Editors are allowed to copy and slightly modify material from [[Wikipedia]]. Articles edited in this way are, as the license presumably requires, then released under the GNU Free Documentation License.

== Administrative policy ==
Metapedia does not permit anonymous editing. Anyone wishing to edit Metapedia content must first establish an account. However, anyone may establish an account with no more effort than Wikipedia currently requires. Metapedia states that the use of an "open proxy" is forbidden.

== Agenda ==
Their mission statement says that they are "pro-European" in character. But the most detailed clues to their agenda come from the content of their articles. A strong bias against anything "non-European" pervades their commentary on virtually every subject that they treat.

"Pro-European" in this context does not mean "anti-[[United States|American]]" in the sense that many current [[Europe]]an leaders choose to describe themselves and behave. Rather it means ''in favor of the original races that settled the region''. Thus the editors and administrators of Metapedia stand against the interests of any ''other'' races, and against movements that, in their view, seek to lay the groundwork for discrimination against themselves.

== Critical analysis ==
The English-language version of Metapedia currently has slightly more than 3400 articles. A random sample includes a rather superficial treatment of some subjects, and a more detailed treatment of others, but in some cases with highly dubious historical accuracy.

* Metapedia often protests vigorously against certain modern turns-of-phrase. They assert, for example, that the phrase "[[Native American]]" first applied to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and ''not'' to [[American Indian]]s. While Conservapedia treats the phrase "Native American" as simply a phrase requiring disambiguation, Metapedia treats the phrase and its current usage as an example of deliberate linguistic revisionism. They trace the first usage of the phrase to 1845 and the Native American Party. Oddly enough, their source is not someone who would be sympathetic to their aims at all, but rather an author seeking to encourage her readers to treat ''all'' peoples with the respect due fellow [[human]] beings.<ref name=Bruchac>Bruchac, Marge. "[http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~massasoit/bruchac.htm Thoughts on Indian Images, Names, and Respect]." Free page section, RootsWeb, December, 1999. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref>

* Their treatment of world religions is often dangerously superficial. Their article on [[Judaism]] is very short. But then they link to a much longer article titled "Jewish ritual murder", which discusses at length the infamous [[blood libel]] against the Jews, as if those lurid tales were, or at least might be, actual fact.

* [[Adolf Hitler]] is, if anything, a [[Germany|German]] national hero, according to Metapedia. Another odd fact about Metapedia's article is that they claim that part of it consists of modified text from Wikipedia. A word-for-word comparison suggests that a Metapedia editor or editors might indeed have copied Wikipedia's original article and then modified it to create a text far more sympathetic to Hitler than was the original text.

* As at least one of their detractors (see below) has alleged, Metapedia explicitly denies that the [[Holocaust]] ever occurred. They also head their article with this disclaimer:{{cquote|Make sure that you won't be prosecuted in your country for what you write, before editing this page.}} They then carry a link to an article titled "Revisionism laws information" that carries a few sparsely documented or undocumented examples of "persecution" of those who sincerely refuse to believe that Hitler's mass-execution policy was real or ever bore any fruit. (Editor's note: the Holocaust is amply documented and documentable by personal interviews by surviving witnesses and, in at least one memorable case, a former inmate.)

* Their article on Conservapedia dismisses this project contemptuously as "just another attempt to suppress the real [[Bible|Biblical]] (sic) truth about the differences between the races." In this context one should note that their treatment of the Bible is even more superficial than is their treatment of Judaism. Therefore their assertion of "biblical truth" is an assertion without evidence, for which they lay no foundation. In fact, the Bible says that all the races of man descend from [[Noah]] through his sons [[Shem]], [[Ham]], and [[Japheth]]. The Bible gives absolutely no warrant for ethnic discrimination, and certainly none for discrimination against Jews.

== Reaction ==
To reply to one criticism that Metapedia makes against Conservapedia: yes, Conservapedia has blocked, and will continue to block, any editor who makes unabashedly racist statements.

Metapedia itself cites at least three items from news organs and blogs, all of which castigate Metapedia as "the encyclopedia for racists, by racists."<ref name=register>Haines, Lester. "[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/23/metapedia/ Conservapedia too pinko? Try Metapedia]." ''The Register'', July 23, 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref><ref name=splc>"[http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=863 White Nationalism: Aryan Encyclopedia Takes Off]." ''Intelligence Report'', Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref><ref name=trottier>Trottier, Christopher. "[http://www.quixoticals.com/2007/07/metapedia-encyclopedia-for-racists-by.html Metapedia--the Encyclopedia for Racists, by Racists]." ''Quixoticals'', July 24, 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref> While many of the criticisms of this article betray a superficial understanding of Metapedia, other statements from these sources have provided valuable leads for the investigation and critical analysis given here.



== References ==
* ''Note that Conservapedia forbids linking to Metapedia.''
{{reflist|1}}

[[Category:Wikis]][[Category:Hate Groups]]

Talk:Metapedia

2008-09-07T03:37:56Z

DirkB: /* Do we really want to "invite" school-age students to this site? */

==Do we really want to "invite" school-age students to this site?==

It seems like "highly provocative" is a euphemism for racist hate-speech. How can any responsible person condone inviting impressionable kids to visit the site, as in "Anyone who wishes to investigate Metapedia for himself is invited to do so". I'm taking this line out, and anyone who feels it's appropriate for kids to visit a hate site needs to justify it here before reverting. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:33, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I think people should be informed (read: warned) about this site ''because'' it's racism and Holocaust Denial, disguised as "just another wiki encyclopedia". However, I'm somewhat confused why our article starts out so extremely tame and only sorta-kinda points out the real identity of this site later on. The intro should really say that this is a site that pushes historical revisionism and racism.
:And I completely agree that we shouldn't encourage people to visit this site. At all. What would parents say if they discovered that their children visited a racist site? And what would they say if they were told that THIS site encouraged their kids to do so?
:I would also ask somebody with Upload rights to scrub the URL from the screenshots. It's silly to say that linking to the site is forbidden when the URL is plainly visible in apparently all images of the gallery. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 15:48, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

::What's ridiculous is that certain wikis are forbidden to be mentioned or linked to from CP because they express non-conservative views while claiming to be rational, and you don't see articles about them with screen captures to show why it's inappropriate. Yet somehow, it's okay to devote an article full of euphemisms and screen captures with the URL to a hate-speech wiki that disguises itself as "alternative". I wonder just who from "the administration" is willing is willing to put their names on the record as being for the not-so-subtle promotion of this site on CP. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:59, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm willing to Assume Good Faith for the moment, but when comparing this to some other extremely bold "We expose the truth!" articles (like the ones about Obama, Wikipedia, etc.), it ''does'' look "carefully worded".
:::The article does need work, even when you ignore these issues. I'll try to aid in the clean-up without being overly "controversial". --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:05, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm in two minds. On the one hand it's an nasty, deceitful little site. It tries to look reasoned and rational, slips in little insuations, then little half truths, then full blown Nazi lies. On the other hand: looking at this site and reviewing just how it tries to go about it's foul purpose would be a very good exercise to innoculate students against some of the more insidious [[deceit]] that's put there. Anyway I think the article should either be deleted (no great loss!) or it should "tell it how it is" (I've put something in to that effect) --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:21, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::I appreciate your point, but then why aren't there pages on CP devoted to constructively analyzing and refuting other websites and wikis that represent differing views with regard to atheism, liberal values, pro-choice policies, etc.
:::::At the risk of earning a block, I'll just come out and say it - there seems to be an unusual effort being made with this article, as opposed on the one for Stormfront, for instance, to treat it like it simply presents "alternative" views instead of being a hate site, ''and then inviting the young readers of Conservapedia to visit it themselves''! We don't need hate sites to be marketed to impressionable young minds here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:48, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure that TerryH didn't intend the "invitation" to be an encouragement for children to visit Metapedia. Rather, it was saying that people needn't just take Conservapedia's word for it, but can check the facts for themselves. Nevertheless, despite that ''good intention'', it wasn't worded the best, and I support its removal. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:This kinda reminds me of one of the few [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756890/quotes Futurama episodes] I actually watched (I still want to watch them all, but time never happens to be on my side, somehow):
::Leela: [hands Fry a note] This. You for this.
::Fry: Thanks. [blows nose on note, then throws it in fireplace]
::Leela: No! [reaches into fire] Ow! Fire hot!
::Professor Hubert Farnsworth: The professy will help. [reaches into fire] Ahh! Fire indeed hot!
:(Nooooo! Not the punishment stick! It's all in good fun!)
:I guess your assumption about Terry's intention is correct, but I think in this case, it really is better not to encourage people. Those who really want to find out more will know how to use Google, so we don't have to give the rest silly ideas. Not even to mention what might happen if people use school/work computers to follow "our suggestion"...
:And a possible alternative to "Just take our word" would be to find more sources to back our claims. The article already has a few, but I guess we can dig out more and then spread them more evenly. We'll figure something out :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 23:37, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

== Gallery disclaimer ==

I'd like to remove or at least trim the two-point disclaimer for the Gallery because it strikes me as trivial. However, I'm waiting for Green Light From Above because it's not urgent and because there might be a deeper meaning behind it.

The first point simply says that these screenshots are JPEGs (*gasp*), and the second point seems to be senseless since Metapedia doesn't allow IP editing anyway, so there shouldn't be any IP info that had to be scrubbed. However, I admit that I didn't scan all screenshots in greater detail, so please correct me if I'm wrong. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:30, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
: I agree that the reference to JPEGs is not necessary. As for the second point, it's clear that TerryH ''has'' deleted something (presumably an IP address), although I don't understand how it came to be there. The "log in" link shows that he was not logged in, but when I look at the site, in both IE and Firefox, both on Windows, no IP shows up there. So I don't know why it did for TerryH. Given that it did, however, I don't have a problem with that particular disclaimer point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, ''now'' I see it. I can explain that one, actually. The IP shows up only under certain conditions: Go to the site (or any other wiki you're not logged in to, from what I know) and click on the "Log in" link (or any link that leads to the "Login required to edit" screen, such as a redlink). From that moment on, until you close the tab/window, the IP will be displayed there. As long as you're a nice lurker and never try to log in or hit redlinks, you won't see your IP up there. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 23:29, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Metapedia

2008-09-07T03:29:29Z

DirkB: /* Gallery disclaimer */

==Do we really want to "invite" school-age students to this site?==

It seems like "highly provocative" is a euphemism for racist hate-speech. How can any responsible person condone inviting impressionable kids to visit the site, as in "Anyone who wishes to investigate Metapedia for himself is invited to do so". I'm taking this line out, and anyone who feels it's appropriate for kids to visit a hate site needs to justify it here before reverting. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:33, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I think people should be informed (read: warned) about this site ''because'' it's racism and Holocaust Denial, disguised as "just another wiki encyclopedia". However, I'm somewhat confused why our article starts out so extremely tame and only sorta-kinda points out the real identity of this site later on. The intro should really say that this is a site that pushes historical revisionism and racism.
:And I completely agree that we shouldn't encourage people to visit this site. At all. What would parents say if they discovered that their children visited a racist site? And what would they say if they were told that THIS site encouraged their kids to do so?
:I would also ask somebody with Upload rights to scrub the URL from the screenshots. It's silly to say that linking to the site is forbidden when the URL is plainly visible in apparently all images of the gallery. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 15:48, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

::What's ridiculous is that certain wikis are forbidden to be mentioned or linked to from CP because they express non-conservative views while claiming to be rational, and you don't see articles about them with screen captures to show why it's inappropriate. Yet somehow, it's okay to devote an article full of euphemisms and screen captures with the URL to a hate-speech wiki that disguises itself as "alternative". I wonder just who from "the administration" is willing is willing to put their names on the record as being for the not-so-subtle promotion of this site on CP. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:59, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm willing to Assume Good Faith for the moment, but when comparing this to some other extremely bold "We expose the truth!" articles (like the ones about Obama, Wikipedia, etc.), it ''does'' look "carefully worded".
:::The article does need work, even when you ignore these issues. I'll try to aid in the clean-up without being overly "controversial". --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:05, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm in two minds. On the one hand it's an nasty, deceitful little site. It tries to look reasoned and rational, slips in little insuations, then little half truths, then full blown Nazi lies. On the other hand: looking at this site and reviewing just how it tries to go about it's foul purpose would be a very good exercise to innoculate students against some of the more insidious [[deceit]] that's put there. Anyway I think the article should either be deleted (no great loss!) or it should "tell it how it is" (I've put something in to that effect) --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:21, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::I appreciate your point, but then why aren't there pages on CP devoted to constructively analyzing and refuting other websites and wikis that represent differing views with regard to atheism, liberal values, pro-choice policies, etc.
:::::At the risk of earning a block, I'll just come out and say it - there seems to be an unusual effort being made with this article, as opposed on the one for Stormfront, for instance, to treat it like it simply presents "alternative" views instead of being a hate site, ''and then inviting the young readers of Conservapedia to visit it themselves''! We don't need hate sites to be marketed to impressionable young minds here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:48, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure that TerryH didn't intend the "invitation" to be an encouragement for children to visit Metapedia. Rather, it was saying that people needn't just take Conservapedia's word for it, but can check the facts for themselves. Nevertheless, despite that ''good intention'', it wasn't worded the best, and I support its removal. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

== Gallery disclaimer ==

I'd like to remove or at least trim the two-point disclaimer for the Gallery because it strikes me as trivial. However, I'm waiting for Green Light From Above because it's not urgent and because there might be a deeper meaning behind it.

The first point simply says that these screenshots are JPEGs (*gasp*), and the second point seems to be senseless since Metapedia doesn't allow IP editing anyway, so there shouldn't be any IP info that had to be scrubbed. However, I admit that I didn't scan all screenshots in greater detail, so please correct me if I'm wrong. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:30, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
: I agree that the reference to JPEGs is not necessary. As for the second point, it's clear that TerryH ''has'' deleted something (presumably an IP address), although I don't understand how it came to be there. The "log in" link shows that he was not logged in, but when I look at the site, in both IE and Firefox, both on Windows, no IP shows up there. So I don't know why it did for TerryH. Given that it did, however, I don't have a problem with that particular disclaimer point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, ''now'' I see it. I can explain that one, actually. The IP shows up only under certain conditions: Go to the site (or any other wiki you're not logged in to, from what I know) and click on the "Log in" link (or any link that leads to the "Login required to edit" screen, such as a redlink). From that moment on, until you close the tab/window, the IP will be displayed there. As long as you're a nice lurker and never try to log in or hit redlinks, you won't see your IP up there. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 23:29, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Freedom of speech

2008-09-07T00:42:19Z

DirkB: A few thoughts

== A few thoughts ==

Hm, an interesting and thought-provoking essay, I'll give you that. However, I frowned a few times while reading it, and I genuinely hope that you can blow my concerns out of the water:

{{cquote|So, in my opinion, freedom of speech...

...gives one the right to argue that some people are inferior to others (such as racism), but does not give them to right to treat or speak of others as inferior}}

Could you maybe explain how you can argue that some races are inferior without speaking of them as inferior? I don't get this one. If anything, this sounds like a ''very'' fine semantic difference, and I'm really not sure that I'm comfortable with that.

{{cquote|
*...gives one the right to argue that swearing is acceptable, but does not give them the right to swear.
*...gives one the right to argue that offensive works of art are acceptable, but does not give artists the right to produce or display offensive art.}}

And who decides what is acceptable or offensive? What counts as swearing (this sounds silly, but depending on who you ask, you get radically different replies)? You're opening the floodgates for people like the nutcases who wanted to ban Harry Potter books.

I can see where you're coming from, but maybe you didn't think this one through all the way. Or maybe I didn't - if you can point out where I'm missing something, please do so! It's likely that you put more thought into this than I did, after all.

{{cquote|But the point is that the freedom-of-speech principle is the right ''to express (or argue) a view on something'', whether that "something" is related to speech (e.g. swearing) or not.}}

Doesn't this ''completely'' negate the entire "offensive art (which usually is an expression of a view) is not covered by freedom-of-speech" thing? I think you're using "express(ion)" a bit too loosely because you now use it both for "expression of a view" (covered) and "artistic expression" (not always covered). --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:42, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Announcement

2008-09-06T22:53:57Z

DirkB: If you insist, I'm perfectly willing to aim for a Pyrrhic victory.

Could you at least ''try'' to do more than just copy-pasting? I'm not asking for more content (I used short dictionary entries to kickstart articles myself), but at least make try to make it ''look'' like an encyclopedia entry. I edited this entry in that manner; you can see it's really not much work, but it goes a long way. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:29, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

DirkB, I would never coy and paste for an article. But it's the definition for a word. Not much to add but that. Your edit is also copy and paste, you pretty much just took away the bullet points. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 6 September 2008
:Wow, you claim you never copy-pasted and then accuse ME of copy-pasting when I restructured your copy-paste job and introduced some more original language? Hilarious!
:I fully admit that my edit is heavily based on the dictionary definition because yes, that's the way it's defined. But you simply took the entire definition and even kept the non-encyclopedic bullet-point list formatting which is used in dictionaries such as the one you referenced.
:I'm not here for a semantic debate about how much you have to change before a copy-paste job becomes acceptable. I'm also not here to suddenly defend myself against your accusations after I damage-control'd your blatant copy-paste job. Whatever, dude. But if you insist that I copy-pasted by restructuring a dictionary definition into a more readable form, I will ''gladly'' take this to some sysop so we can ''both'' be banhammered. Trust me, at this point, I'd do it just for the Lulz. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:53, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Code Pink

2008-09-06T22:39:30Z

DirkB: Snip tangent - You went from Code Pink to another org Evans is influential in to a co-founder of that org to what that co-founder did.

'''Code Pink''' is an anti-War protest group founded by Jodie Evans, Diane Wilson and Medea Benjamin in 2002, shortly after the [[9/11 attack]]. Code Pink started out by trying to hand pink slips to President Bush and members of Congress that supported the war in Iraq. In November 2002, they devised Code Pink as a play on the administration's Code Red terror alert system. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/06/ED126988.DTL Code Pink Alert] SFGate, March 6, 2003</ref> Code Pink has evolved into a hate-group whereby members are to be united in their hatred of President Bush, America and anybody that supports going after terrorists. Their rallies include women of all backgrounds and men that are abortion supporters, 9/11 conspiracy believers, their members chant "Fascist State" and include open-border supporters waving upside-down American flags. Code Pink will protest our returning wounded troops at Walter Reed Medical Center. Code Pink will unlawfully block military recruiting centers. Code Pink looks the other way as its' followers vandalize war memorials. In September 2008, Code Pink members stole media passes to gain entrance into the [[Republican]] convention. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=35233 Code Pink Used Reporter's ID Tag to Disrupt Convention Event] CNSNews, Septemeber 5, 2008</ref>

Jody Evans is a [[leftist]] activist and [[Democratic Party]] fundraiser who sits on the Board of Directors of the [[Rain Forest Action Network]] (RAN). Evans is a key fundraiser for [[Barack Obama]].

In 1988, Medea Benjamin founded [[ Global Exchange]]. Benjamin is a pro-Castro activist who lived in Cuba and was a principal organizer of the 1999 Seattle riots in which some 50,000 protesters tried to shut down the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO) meetings. Benjamin was a signatory in 2003 to Not in Our Name (NION) along with [[liberal]] activists and icons [[Bernardine Dohrn]], [[Jim McDermott]], [[Ramsey Clark]], [[Noam Chomsky]], and [[Cynthia McKinney]]. NOIN was started in 2002 by C. Clark Kissinger, a member of the [[Revolutionary Communist Party]] (RCP), a [[Maoist]] group calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government and its replacement with a Communist dictatorship.

Diane Wilson is a radical [[Wiccan]] activist.

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] addressed Code Pink in her Senate offices in March 2003. <ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref> Clinton justified her vote to authorize [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] when she addressed the group,
{{Cquote|There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for [[Saddam Hussein]] to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the [[Weapons of mass destruction|chemical and biological stocks]]. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. }}

===Marla Ruzicka===
A book by ''[[New York Times]]'' best-selling author Lt Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson (U.S. Air Force-Ret.) entitled ''War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror'' charged Code Pink materially supported terrorists when they delivered $600,000 in cash and supplies they claim was humanitarian aid. Democratic Congressman [[Henry Waxman]] of California facilitated the transaction by signing a letter to get the aid into [[Fallujah]]. <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/07/author_claims_antiwar_groups_g.php Author claims anti-war groups gave material support to terrorists], Chad Groening, OneNewsNow.com, July 13, 2007.</ref> Code Pink distributed the supplies to “the other side” in the terrorist stronghold in December 2004. Fallujah was the site of a fierce battle which took the lives of 95 Americas and over 1,000 [[al Qaeda]] terrorists and combatants loyal to Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Patterson also makes the charge Code Pink has established offices in Iraq for the purpose of encouraging American soldiers to desert.

Marla Ruzicka was a 28-year-old activist who had traveled to Iraq in 2003 under the aegis of Code Pink, along with a delegation whose members intended to act as human shields to protest the liberation of the Iraq people from [[Ba'athist]] tyranny. Out of genuine humanitarian concern for civilians caught in the crossfire, Ruzicka left Code Pink in December of 2004 after the Battle of Fallujah and began working with the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC). <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24737-2004Aug22.html U.S. Activist Mends Lives Torn by War], By Glenn Kessler, ''The Washington Post'', August 23, 2004, Page A13.</ref> In April 2005 Ruzicka was killed when a suicide bomber attacked a convoy she was riding in. <ref>[http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17933 Who Killed Marla Ruzicka?], By David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', May 3, 2005.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Anti-war Movements]]

Talk:Announcement

2008-09-06T22:29:11Z

DirkB: New page: Could you at least ''try'' to do more than just copy-pasting? I'm not asking for more content (I used short dictionary entries to kickstart articles myself), but at least make try to make ...

Announcement

2008-09-06T22:27:45Z

DirkB: Removing the semi-redundant definition and making this look like an actual encyclopedia entry - old version had simply been copy-pasted.

An '''announcement''' is an act of making something known publicly (often by means of printing or broadcasting). The term also describes the message that has been announced itself.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/announcement</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Communication]]

EA-6B Prowler

2008-09-06T21:45:01Z

DirkB: Connecting your two articles

The '''EA-6B Prowler''' is an electronic warfare version of the [[A-6 Intruder]]. It was first delivered to the Navy in 1971. [[Image:EA-6 3.jpg|thumb|An EA-6B over Key West.]]

==Design==

In the 1950s, there was an increasing need for [[aircraft]] which could detect and jam enemy [[radar]], jam enemy missiles, locate targets, and directly attack aircraft towards them. The aircraft which could to this was invaluable; however, the right airframe was a difficult problem.

In 1956, the [[United States Navy]] ordered the [[A-6 Intruder]], which entered service in 1963. The Navy was so pleased with the all-weather attack aircraft that it ordered an electronic countermeasures version in 1963. A prototype version of the EA-6A was flown in 1963, and the [[Marine Corps]] ordered 27 of these airplanes. The first version was little more than a modified A-6 with radar equipment and two extra seats.

Grumman developed a newer, better version in 1971--the EA-6B. When the aircraft first entered service in 1971, it was the most advanced ECM ([[electronic countermeasures]]) aircraft in the world. It was equipped with ten radar jammers and other high-tech electronic weapons, operated by the three radar officers.

==Service==

In the Gulf Wars and [[Afghanistan]], the EA-6B performed well, jamming many Iraqi radar stations to let in strike aircraft undetected. In Afghanistan, there are records of EA-6Bs jamming [[IED]] radio links.

The EA-6B, still in service, will be eventually replaced by the [[EA-18 Growler]].

{| class="wikitable"

|-
| '''Function'''
| ECM aircraft
|-
| '''Contractor'''
| Grumman
|-
| '''Power plant'''
|Two 11,200 pound Pratt & Whitney J52-P-408 turbofans
|-
| '''Length'''
|59 feet
|-
| '''Height'''
| 16 feet, 2 inches
|-
| '''Speed'''
| 650 miles per hour
|-
|-
| '''Wingspan'''
| 53 feet
|-
| '''Empty weight'''
| 32,162 pounds
|-
|'''Maximum Weight'''
|65,000 pounds
|-
| '''Crew'''
| Four
|-
|'''Range'''
|Unrefueled 2,399 miles (with drop tanks)

|}

[[Image:EA-6_landing.jpg|thumb|An EA-6B comes in for landing. Note the ECM jammer pods under the wings. ]]

[[Category: Aircraft]]

Talk:Metapedia

2008-09-06T20:30:12Z

DirkB: /* Gallery disclaimer */ new section

Metapedia

2008-09-06T20:22:34Z

DirkB: /* Copyright issues */ Clarified references

'''Metapedia''' is a [[wiki]] site, established ''circa'' 2005-2006, that contains highly provocative articles on politics, culture, and the arts and sciences. Available in English and now in ten additional languages, Metapedia also maintains links to WikiSlavia, in Russian and Siberian.

== History ==
The archives of Metapedia indicate that its history begins on August 9, 2006, with the first talks on the development of the Swedish-language version. This version launched on October 26, 2006 and grew fairly quickly. They then expanded to a Danish version, and then into German and English (May 15, 2007), French (May 29, 2007), Portuguese, and Czech.

On July 27, 2007, Metapedia began linking to Wikislavia, while continuing its own expansion into various other languages of Western and Eastern Europe (Slovak, Spanish, Magyar, Rumanian).

== Copyright issues ==
Metapedia sets forth no reliable copyright policy. Editors are allowed to copy and slightly modify material from [[Wikipedia]]. Articles edited in this way are, as the license presumably requires, then released under the GNU Free Documentation License.

== Administrative policy ==
Metapedia does not permit anonymous editing. Anyone wishing to edit Metapedia content must first establish an account. However, anyone may establish an account with no more effort than Wikipedia currently requires. Metapedia states that the use of an "open proxy" is forbidden.

== Agenda ==
Their mission statement says that they are "pro-European" in character. But the most detailed clues to their agenda come from the content of their articles. A strong bias against anything "non-European" pervades their commentary on virtually every subject that they treat.

"Pro-European" in this context does not mean "anti-[[United States|American]]" in the sense that many current [[Europe]]an leaders choose to describe themselves and behave. Rather it means ''in favor of the original races that settled the region''. Thus the editors and administrators of Metapedia stand against the interests of any ''other'' races, and against movements that, in their view, seek to lay the groundwork for discrimination against themselves.

== Critical analysis ==
The English-language version of Metapedia currently has slightly more than 3400 articles. A random sample includes a rather superficial treatment of some subjects, and a more detailed treatment of others, but in some cases with highly dubious historical accuracy.

* Metapedia often protests vigorously against certain modern turns-of-phrase. They assert, for example, that the phrase "[[Native American]]" first applied to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and ''not'' to [[American Indian]]s. While Conservapedia treats the phrase "Native American" as simply a phrase requiring disambiguation, Metapedia treats the phrase and its current usage as an example of deliberate linguistic revisionism. They trace the first usage of the phrase to 1845 and the Native American Party. Oddly enough, their source is not someone who would be sympathetic to their aims at all, but rather an author seeking to encourage her readers to treat ''all'' peoples with the respect due fellow [[human]] beings.<ref name=Bruchac>Bruchac, Marge. "[http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~massasoit/bruchac.htm Thoughts on Indian Images, Names, and Respect]." Free page section, RootsWeb, December, 1999. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref>

* Their treatment of world religions is often dangerously superficial. Their article on [[Judaism]] is very short. But then they link to a much longer article titled "Jewish ritual murder", which discusses at length the infamous [[blood libel]] against the Jews, as if those lurid tales were, or at least might be, actual fact.

* [[Adolf Hitler]] is, if anything, a [[Germany|German]] national hero, according to Metapedia. Another odd fact about Metapedia's article is that they claim that part of it consists of modified text from Wikipedia. A word-for-word comparison suggests that a Metapedia editor or editors might indeed have copied Wikipedia's original article and then modified it to create a text far more sympathetic to Hitler than was the original text.

* As at least one of their detractors (see below) has alleged, Metapedia explicitly denies that the [[Holocaust]] ever occurred. They also head their article with this disclaimer:{{cquote|Make sure that you won't be prosecuted in your country for what you write, before editing this page.}} They then carry a link to an article titled "Revisionism laws information" that carries a few sparsely documented or undocumented examples of "persecution" of those who sincerely refuse to believe that Hitler's mass-execution policy was real or ever bore any fruit. (Editor's note: the Holocaust is amply documented and documentable by personal interviews by surviving witnesses and, in at least one memorable case, a former inmate.)

* Their article on Conservapedia dismisses this project contemptuously as "just another attempt to suppress the real [[Bible|Biblical]] (sic) truth about the differences between the races." In this context one should note that their treatment of the Bible is even more superficial than is their treatment of Judaism. Therefore their assertion of "biblical truth" is an assertion without evidence, for which they lay no foundation. In fact, the Bible says that all the races of man descend from [[Noah]] through his sons [[Shem]], [[Ham]], and [[Japheth]]. The Bible gives absolutely no warrant for ethnic discrimination, and certainly none for discrimination against Jews.

== Reaction ==
To reply to one criticism that Metapedia makes against Conservapedia: yes, Conservapedia has blocked, and will continue to block, any editor who makes unabashedly racist statements.

Metapedia itself cites at least three items from news organs and blogs, all of which castigate Metapedia as "the encyclopedia for racists, by racists."<ref name=register>Haines, Lester. "[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/23/metapedia/ Conservapedia too pinko? Try Metapedia]." ''The Register'', July 23, 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref><ref name=splc>"[http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=863 White Nationalism: Aryan Encyclopedia Takes Off]." ''Intelligence Report'', Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref><ref name=trottier>Trottier, Christopher. "[http://www.quixoticals.com/2007/07/metapedia-encyclopedia-for-racists-by.html Metapedia--the Encyclopedia for Racists, by Racists]." ''Quixoticals'', July 24, 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref> While many of the criticisms of this article betray a superficial understanding of Metapedia, other statements from these sources have provided valuable leads for the investigation and critical analysis given here.

== Gallery ==
Below please find actual screenshots from Metapedia illustrating the articles mentioned above. These screenshots have been subject to only ''two'' alterations:

# They have been saved in the Joint Photography Expert Group format that MediaWiki can handle most easily of all.
# They have had private IP information scrubbed from them in order to prevent identity theft, harassment, or defamation of the investigating editor.

<gallery>
Image:MetapediaMain.jpg|Main Page
Image:MetapediaMainLangs.jpg|Main Page showing language links
Image:MetapediaMainDev1.jpg|Development history, late
Image:MetapediaMainDev2.jpg|Development history, early
Image:MetapediaCopyrights.jpg|Copyright information, which is lacking
Image:MetapediaLogin.jpg|Login and create-account screen
Image:MetapediaMission.jpg|Mission statement
Image:MetapediaNativeAm.jpg|Native American article
Image:MetapediaJudaism.jpg|Judaism article
Image:MetapediaBloodLibel.jpg|Jewish ritual murders article
Image:MetapediaHitler.jpg|Hitler article
Image:MetapediaHolocaust.jpg|Holocaust article
Image:MetapediaReviseLaws.jpg|Revisionism laws information
Image:MetapediaConservapedia.jpg|Conservapedia article
Image:MetapediaBible.jpg|Bible article
</gallery>

== References ==
{{reflist|1}}

[[Category:Wikis]][[Category:Hate Groups]]

Metapedia

2008-09-06T20:16:46Z

DirkB: /* Copyright issues */ Rephrased for clarity with no actual change in meaning.

'''Metapedia''' is a [[wiki]] site, established ''circa'' 2005-2006, that contains highly provocative articles on politics, culture, and the arts and sciences. Available in English and now in ten additional languages, Metapedia also maintains links to WikiSlavia, in Russian and Siberian.

== History ==
The archives of Metapedia indicate that its history begins on August 9, 2006, with the first talks on the development of the Swedish-language version. This version launched on October 26, 2006 and grew fairly quickly. They then expanded to a Danish version, and then into German and English (May 15, 2007), French (May 29, 2007), Portuguese, and Czech.

On July 27, 2007, Metapedia began linking to Wikislavia, while continuing its own expansion into various other languages of Western and Eastern Europe (Slovak, Spanish, Magyar, Rumanian).

== Copyright issues ==
Metapedia sets forth no reliable copyright policy. Editors are allowed to copy and slightly modify material from [[Wikipedia]]. These articles are, as the license presumably requires, then released under the GNU Free Documentation License.

== Administrative policy ==
Metapedia does not permit anonymous editing. Anyone wishing to edit Metapedia content must first establish an account. However, anyone may establish an account with no more effort than Wikipedia currently requires. Metapedia states that the use of an "open proxy" is forbidden.

== Agenda ==
Their mission statement says that they are "pro-European" in character. But the most detailed clues to their agenda come from the content of their articles. A strong bias against anything "non-European" pervades their commentary on virtually every subject that they treat.

"Pro-European" in this context does not mean "anti-[[United States|American]]" in the sense that many current [[Europe]]an leaders choose to describe themselves and behave. Rather it means ''in favor of the original races that settled the region''. Thus the editors and administrators of Metapedia stand against the interests of any ''other'' races, and against movements that, in their view, seek to lay the groundwork for discrimination against themselves.

== Critical analysis ==
The English-language version of Metapedia currently has slightly more than 3400 articles. A random sample includes a rather superficial treatment of some subjects, and a more detailed treatment of others, but in some cases with highly dubious historical accuracy.

* Metapedia often protests vigorously against certain modern turns-of-phrase. They assert, for example, that the phrase "[[Native American]]" first applied to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and ''not'' to [[American Indian]]s. While Conservapedia treats the phrase "Native American" as simply a phrase requiring disambiguation, Metapedia treats the phrase and its current usage as an example of deliberate linguistic revisionism. They trace the first usage of the phrase to 1845 and the Native American Party. Oddly enough, their source is not someone who would be sympathetic to their aims at all, but rather an author seeking to encourage her readers to treat ''all'' peoples with the respect due fellow [[human]] beings.<ref name=Bruchac>Bruchac, Marge. "[http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~massasoit/bruchac.htm Thoughts on Indian Images, Names, and Respect]." Free page section, RootsWeb, December, 1999. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref>

* Their treatment of world religions is often dangerously superficial. Their article on [[Judaism]] is very short. But then they link to a much longer article titled "Jewish ritual murder", which discusses at length the infamous [[blood libel]] against the Jews, as if those lurid tales were, or at least might be, actual fact.

* [[Adolf Hitler]] is, if anything, a [[Germany|German]] national hero, according to Metapedia. Another odd fact about Metapedia's article is that they claim that part of it consists of modified text from Wikipedia. A word-for-word comparison suggests that a Metapedia editor or editors might indeed have copied Wikipedia's original article and then modified it to create a text far more sympathetic to Hitler than was the original text.

* As at least one of their detractors (see below) has alleged, Metapedia explicitly denies that the [[Holocaust]] ever occurred. They also head their article with this disclaimer:{{cquote|Make sure that you won't be prosecuted in your country for what you write, before editing this page.}} They then carry a link to an article titled "Revisionism laws information" that carries a few sparsely documented or undocumented examples of "persecution" of those who sincerely refuse to believe that Hitler's mass-execution policy was real or ever bore any fruit. (Editor's note: the Holocaust is amply documented and documentable by personal interviews by surviving witnesses and, in at least one memorable case, a former inmate.)

* Their article on Conservapedia dismisses this project contemptuously as "just another attempt to suppress the real [[Bible|Biblical]] (sic) truth about the differences between the races." In this context one should note that their treatment of the Bible is even more superficial than is their treatment of Judaism. Therefore their assertion of "biblical truth" is an assertion without evidence, for which they lay no foundation. In fact, the Bible says that all the races of man descend from [[Noah]] through his sons [[Shem]], [[Ham]], and [[Japheth]]. The Bible gives absolutely no warrant for ethnic discrimination, and certainly none for discrimination against Jews.

== Reaction ==
To reply to one criticism that Metapedia makes against Conservapedia: yes, Conservapedia has blocked, and will continue to block, any editor who makes unabashedly racist statements.

Metapedia itself cites at least three items from news organs and blogs, all of which castigate Metapedia as "the encyclopedia for racists, by racists."<ref name=register>Haines, Lester. "[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/23/metapedia/ Conservapedia too pinko? Try Metapedia]." ''The Register'', July 23, 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref><ref name=splc>"[http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=863 White Nationalism: Aryan Encyclopedia Takes Off]." ''Intelligence Report'', Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref><ref name=trottier>Trottier, Christopher. "[http://www.quixoticals.com/2007/07/metapedia-encyclopedia-for-racists-by.html Metapedia--the Encyclopedia for Racists, by Racists]." ''Quixoticals'', July 24, 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref> While many of the criticisms of this article betray a superficial understanding of Metapedia, other statements from these sources have provided valuable leads for the investigation and critical analysis given here.

== Gallery ==
Below please find actual screenshots from Metapedia illustrating the articles mentioned above. These screenshots have been subject to only ''two'' alterations:

# They have been saved in the Joint Photography Expert Group format that MediaWiki can handle most easily of all.
# They have had private IP information scrubbed from them in order to prevent identity theft, harassment, or defamation of the investigating editor.

<gallery>
Image:MetapediaMain.jpg|Main Page
Image:MetapediaMainLangs.jpg|Main Page showing language links
Image:MetapediaMainDev1.jpg|Development history, late
Image:MetapediaMainDev2.jpg|Development history, early
Image:MetapediaCopyrights.jpg|Copyright information, which is lacking
Image:MetapediaLogin.jpg|Login and create-account screen
Image:MetapediaMission.jpg|Mission statement
Image:MetapediaNativeAm.jpg|Native American article
Image:MetapediaJudaism.jpg|Judaism article
Image:MetapediaBloodLibel.jpg|Jewish ritual murders article
Image:MetapediaHitler.jpg|Hitler article
Image:MetapediaHolocaust.jpg|Holocaust article
Image:MetapediaReviseLaws.jpg|Revisionism laws information
Image:MetapediaConservapedia.jpg|Conservapedia article
Image:MetapediaBible.jpg|Bible article
</gallery>

== References ==
{{reflist|1}}

[[Category:Wikis]][[Category:Hate Groups]]

Metapedia

2008-09-06T20:09:06Z

DirkB: /* Administrative policy */ Remove overly technical trivia.

'''Metapedia''' is a [[wiki]] site, established ''circa'' 2005-2006, that contains highly provocative articles on politics, culture, and the arts and sciences. Available in English and now in ten additional languages, Metapedia also maintains links to WikiSlavia, in Russian and Siberian.

== History ==
The archives of Metapedia indicate that its history begins on August 9, 2006, with the first talks on the development of the Swedish-language version. This version launched on October 26, 2006 and grew fairly quickly. They then expanded to a Danish version, and then into German and English (May 15, 2007), French (May 29, 2007), Portuguese, and Czech.

On July 27, 2007, Metapedia began linking to Wikislavia, while continuing its own expansion into various other languages of Western and Eastern Europe (Slovak, Spanish, Magyar, Rumanian).

== Copyright issues ==
Metapedia sets forth no reliable policy on copyrighted material. They often copy and slightly modify material from [[Wikipedia]] and mark such material as released under the GNU Free Documentation License, as the license presumably requires.

== Administrative policy ==
Metapedia does not permit anonymous editing. Anyone wishing to edit Metapedia content must first establish an account. However, anyone may establish an account with no more effort than Wikipedia currently requires. Metapedia states that the use of an "open proxy" is forbidden.

== Agenda ==
Their mission statement says that they are "pro-European" in character. But the most detailed clues to their agenda come from the content of their articles. A strong bias against anything "non-European" pervades their commentary on virtually every subject that they treat.

"Pro-European" in this context does not mean "anti-[[United States|American]]" in the sense that many current [[Europe]]an leaders choose to describe themselves and behave. Rather it means ''in favor of the original races that settled the region''. Thus the editors and administrators of Metapedia stand against the interests of any ''other'' races, and against movements that, in their view, seek to lay the groundwork for discrimination against themselves.

== Critical analysis ==
The English-language version of Metapedia currently has slightly more than 3400 articles. A random sample includes a rather superficial treatment of some subjects, and a more detailed treatment of others, but in some cases with highly dubious historical accuracy.

* Metapedia often protests vigorously against certain modern turns-of-phrase. They assert, for example, that the phrase "[[Native American]]" first applied to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and ''not'' to [[American Indian]]s. While Conservapedia treats the phrase "Native American" as simply a phrase requiring disambiguation, Metapedia treats the phrase and its current usage as an example of deliberate linguistic revisionism. They trace the first usage of the phrase to 1845 and the Native American Party. Oddly enough, their source is not someone who would be sympathetic to their aims at all, but rather an author seeking to encourage her readers to treat ''all'' peoples with the respect due fellow [[human]] beings.<ref name=Bruchac>Bruchac, Marge. "[http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~massasoit/bruchac.htm Thoughts on Indian Images, Names, and Respect]." Free page section, RootsWeb, December, 1999. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref>

* Their treatment of world religions is often dangerously superficial. Their article on [[Judaism]] is very short. But then they link to a much longer article titled "Jewish ritual murder", which discusses at length the infamous [[blood libel]] against the Jews, as if those lurid tales were, or at least might be, actual fact.

* [[Adolf Hitler]] is, if anything, a [[Germany|German]] national hero, according to Metapedia. Another odd fact about Metapedia's article is that they claim that part of it consists of modified text from Wikipedia. A word-for-word comparison suggests that a Metapedia editor or editors might indeed have copied Wikipedia's original article and then modified it to create a text far more sympathetic to Hitler than was the original text.

* As at least one of their detractors (see below) has alleged, Metapedia explicitly denies that the [[Holocaust]] ever occurred. They also head their article with this disclaimer:{{cquote|Make sure that you won't be prosecuted in your country for what you write, before editing this page.}} They then carry a link to an article titled "Revisionism laws information" that carries a few sparsely documented or undocumented examples of "persecution" of those who sincerely refuse to believe that Hitler's mass-execution policy was real or ever bore any fruit. (Editor's note: the Holocaust is amply documented and documentable by personal interviews by surviving witnesses and, in at least one memorable case, a former inmate.)

* Their article on Conservapedia dismisses this project contemptuously as "just another attempt to suppress the real [[Bible|Biblical]] (sic) truth about the differences between the races." In this context one should note that their treatment of the Bible is even more superficial than is their treatment of Judaism. Therefore their assertion of "biblical truth" is an assertion without evidence, for which they lay no foundation. In fact, the Bible says that all the races of man descend from [[Noah]] through his sons [[Shem]], [[Ham]], and [[Japheth]]. The Bible gives absolutely no warrant for ethnic discrimination, and certainly none for discrimination against Jews.

== Reaction ==
To reply to one criticism that Metapedia makes against Conservapedia: yes, Conservapedia has blocked, and will continue to block, any editor who makes unabashedly racist statements.

Metapedia itself cites at least three items from news organs and blogs, all of which castigate Metapedia as "the encyclopedia for racists, by racists."<ref name=register>Haines, Lester. "[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/23/metapedia/ Conservapedia too pinko? Try Metapedia]." ''The Register'', July 23, 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref><ref name=splc>"[http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=863 White Nationalism: Aryan Encyclopedia Takes Off]." ''Intelligence Report'', Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref><ref name=trottier>Trottier, Christopher. "[http://www.quixoticals.com/2007/07/metapedia-encyclopedia-for-racists-by.html Metapedia--the Encyclopedia for Racists, by Racists]." ''Quixoticals'', July 24, 2007. Accessed September 6, 2008.</ref> While many of the criticisms of this article betray a superficial understanding of Metapedia, other statements from these sources have provided valuable leads for the investigation and critical analysis given here.

== Gallery ==
Below please find actual screenshots from Metapedia illustrating the articles mentioned above. These screenshots have been subject to only ''two'' alterations:

# They have been saved in the Joint Photography Expert Group format that MediaWiki can handle most easily of all.
# They have had private IP information scrubbed from them in order to prevent identity theft, harassment, or defamation of the investigating editor.

<gallery>
Image:MetapediaMain.jpg|Main Page
Image:MetapediaMainLangs.jpg|Main Page showing language links
Image:MetapediaMainDev1.jpg|Development history, late
Image:MetapediaMainDev2.jpg|Development history, early
Image:MetapediaCopyrights.jpg|Copyright information, which is lacking
Image:MetapediaLogin.jpg|Login and create-account screen
Image:MetapediaMission.jpg|Mission statement
Image:MetapediaNativeAm.jpg|Native American article
Image:MetapediaJudaism.jpg|Judaism article
Image:MetapediaBloodLibel.jpg|Jewish ritual murders article
Image:MetapediaHitler.jpg|Hitler article
Image:MetapediaHolocaust.jpg|Holocaust article
Image:MetapediaReviseLaws.jpg|Revisionism laws information
Image:MetapediaConservapedia.jpg|Conservapedia article
Image:MetapediaBible.jpg|Bible article
</gallery>

== References ==
{{reflist|1}}

[[Category:Wikis]]

Talk:Metapedia

2008-09-06T20:05:01Z

DirkB: /* Do we really want to "invite" school-age students to this site? */

Talk:Johann Pachelbel

2008-09-06T19:57:58Z

DirkB:

Who was it - one of the Sysops - "dared" anyone to do an unplagiarised article on this man? Don't why, can't remember who - but here t'is. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:44, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
:I guess you mean this fellow?
::23:28, 5 September 2008 NathanG (Talk | contribs) blocked NathanG (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 83 days (autoblock disabled) ‎ (I promised... I will check validity later)
:See also his user page history, I think. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 15:57, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Metapedia

2008-09-06T19:49:05Z

DirkB: /* Do we really want to "invite" school-age students to this site? */

Talk:Metapedia

2008-09-06T19:48:32Z

DirkB: Agreed, and...

User:DirkB

2008-09-06T19:30:16Z

DirkB:

<center>{{cquote|Though I know I should be wary Still I venture someplace scary Ghostly haunting I turn loose Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, '''Beetlejuice'''!}}</center>

==Articles created by me==
(List ''might'' be incomplete)
*[[Birth certificate]]
*[[Bribe]]
*[[Bumper sticker]]
*[[Cage]]
*[[Cameo]]
*[[Endorsement]]
*[[Forensics]]
*[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]]
*[[Resignation]]
*[[Vote]] (full rewrite of existing article; existing article merged elsewhere)

==Notes to self==
*[[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page]]

User:DirkB

2008-09-06T19:28:51Z

DirkB: Because Lydia looked awesome in that spiderweb-ish dress.

<center>{{cquote|Though I know I should be wary Still I venture someplace scary Ghostly haunting I torn loose Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, '''Beetlejuice'''!}}</center>

==Articles created by me==
(List ''might'' be incomplete)
*[[Birth certificate]]
*[[Bribe]]
*[[Bumper sticker]]
*[[Cage]]
*[[Cameo]]
*[[Endorsement]]
*[[Forensics]]
*[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]]
*[[Resignation]]
*[[Vote]] (full rewrite of existing article; existing article merged elsewhere)

==Notes to self==
*[[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page]]

User talk:DirkB

2008-09-06T19:22:16Z

DirkB: My turn to redecorate.

User talk:DirkB

2008-09-06T03:46:15Z

DirkB: Argh.

{{welcome}}

Warning of blocking: your account will be blocked if you continue to talk, talk, talk contrary to the [[90/10 rule]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:I ''said'' that I wouldn't push it any further! No need to be drastic! Yikes, you even reverted my last post! I did good work before daring to ask for sources! My ratio is far better than 90/10 and even my talk posts were (as far as I can remember without scanning all my contribs) always relevant to improving ''your site''! I helped out Dean's News Project (see my user page) and also improved other articles. Other than ''that one discussion'', my record is nice and clean. And even that discussion started out just because I wanted to learn more! I didn't even disagree with your initial premise! It had sparked my interest! But rest assured that I'll leave you be from now on. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 22:54, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:: 13 out of your last 15 edits have been talk, talk, talk, none of which I found informative, and your other two were edits to [[Multiplication]] that required reversion. We don't maintain a high quality level here that way. Please improve your quality. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::You can practically ''always'' adjust the scope just narrow enough to let 90/10 apply. Reality is that we had a discussion, and you simply didn't like what I had to say (to be fair, I also didn't like what you had to say, but alas, only one of us has a banhammer).
:::And huhwhatnow? My Multiplication edits ''required reversion''? Aside from one (utterly pointless) edit war (which I later on resolved in an elegant way even though I still think that I had been correct in my initial edit - or do you assert that I was wrong simply because somebody reverted me?), my edits to that entry had been vast improvements that also cleared out factually wrong statements (such as the implication that multiplication and addition are the only commutative functions).
:::I still maintain that I did good work and that this discussion is pointless because I already retreated from the talk page exchange that spawned this block warning. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 23:45, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:DirkB

2008-09-06T03:45:59Z

DirkB:

{{welcome}}

Warning of blocking: your account will be blocked if you continue to talk, talk, talk contrary to the [[90/10 rule]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:I ''said'' that I wouldn't push it any further! No need to be drastic! Yikes, you even reverted my last post! I did good work before daring to ask for sources! My ratio is far better than 90/10 and even my talk posts were (as far as I can remember without scanning all my contribs) always relevant to improving ''your site''! I helped out Dean's News Project (see my user page) and also improved other articles. Other than ''that one discussion'', my record is nice and clean. And even that discussion started out just because I wanted to learn more! I didn't even disagree with your initial premise! It had sparked my interest! But rest assured that I'll leave you be from now on. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 22:54, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:: 13 out of your last 15 edits have been talk, talk, talk, none of which I found informative, and your other two were edits to [[Multiplication]] that required reversion. We don't maintain a high quality level here that way. Please improve your quality. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::You can practically ''always'' adjust the scope just narrow enough to let 90/10 apply. Reality is that we had a discussion, and you simply didn't like what I had to say (to be fair, I also didn't like what you had to say, but alas, only one of us has a banhammer).
:::And huhwhatnow? My Multiplication edits ''required reversion''? Aside from one (utterly pointless) edit war (which I later on resolved in an elegant way even though I still think that I had been correct in my initial edit - or do you assert that I was wrong simply because somebody reverted me?), my edits to that entry had been vast improvements that also cleared out factually wrong statements (such as the implication that multiplication and addition are the only commutative functions).
::I still maintain that I did good work and that this discussion is pointless because I already retreated from the talk page exchange that spawned this block warning. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 23:45, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:DirkB

2008-09-06T03:45:42Z

DirkB: If you have a problem with my edits to Multiplication, you can use that talk page. My edits were fine.

{{welcome}}

Warning of blocking: your account will be blocked if you continue to talk, talk, talk contrary to the [[90/10 rule]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:I ''said'' that I wouldn't push it any further! No need to be drastic! Yikes, you even reverted my last post! I did good work before daring to ask for sources! My ratio is far better than 90/10 and even my talk posts were (as far as I can remember without scanning all my contribs) always relevant to improving ''your site''! I helped out Dean's News Project (see my user page) and also improved other articles. Other than ''that one discussion'', my record is nice and clean. And even that discussion started out just because I wanted to learn more! I didn't even disagree with your initial premise! It had sparked my interest! But rest assured that I'll leave you be from now on. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 22:54, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:: 13 out of your last 15 edits have been talk, talk, talk, none of which I found informative, and your other two were edits to [[Multiplication]] that required reversion. We don't maintain a high quality level here that way. Please improve your quality. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::You can practically ''always'' adjust the scope just narrow enough to let 90/10 apply. Reality is that we had a discussion, and you simply didn't like what I had to say (to be fair, I also didn't like what you had to say, but alas, only one of us has a banhammer).
::And huhwhatnow? My Multiplication edits ''required reversion''? Aside from one (utterly pointless) edit war (which I later on resolved in an elegant way even though I still think that I had been correct in my initial edit - or do you assert that I was wrong simply because somebody reverted me?), my edits to that entry had been vast improvements that also cleared out factually wrong statements (such as the implication that multiplication and addition are the only commutative functions).
::I still maintain that I did good work and that this discussion is pointless because I already retreated from the talk page exchange that spawned this block warning. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 23:45, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:DirkB

2008-09-06T02:54:01Z

DirkB: Quoting Ron from HP: "Overkill, mate."

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2008-09-06T02:38:42Z

DirkB: /* This essay sparks interest, but... */ Qualifiers for clarity.

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::: DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:
::: Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating "slavery is wrong" from "state". The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.
::: Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.
::: Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.
::: Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Your revert of Corry's post is somewhat telling. But after this final note, I won't push this entire issue any further because it's clear that this is going nowhere. Which is a pity, really. So much potential in this essay, but when I simply asked for sources and background, you stonewalled me with replies of the "It's obvious!" kind. (It's also very ironic that your "reply" so perfectly fits the Sun Tzu tale I hinted at above. But I won't push ''that'' one further, either.)
::::I guess that, in a way, I certainly learned ''something'' tonight.
::::But I'll call it a day for now. And tomorrow, I'll simply ignore such "essays" and simply return to the math articles and Dean's News Project. Seeya. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 22:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2008-09-06T02:37:21Z

DirkB: /* This essay sparks interest, but... */ Well, I guess I learned /something/ tonight...

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::: DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:
::: Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating "slavery is wrong" from "state". The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.
::: Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.
::: Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.
::: Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Your revert of Corry's post is telling. But after this final note, I won't push this issue any further because it's clear that this is going nowhere. Which is a pity, really. So much potential in this essay, but when I simply asked for sources and background, you stonewalled me with replies of the "It's obvious!" kind. (It's also very ironic that your "reply" so perfectly fits the Sun Tzu tale I hinted at above. But I won't push ''that'' one further, either.)
::::I guess that, in a way, I certainly learned ''something'' tonight.
::::But I'll call it a day for now. And tomorrow, I'll simply ignore such "essays" and simply return to the math articles and Dean's News Project. Seeya. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 22:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2008-09-06T00:57:03Z

DirkB: /* This essay sparks interest, but... */ And another set of four points.

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-09-06T00:22:26Z

DirkB: /* Pearl Harbor issue */ Everybody has weird moments. Also: We need article consistency!

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

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2008-09-05T23:47:36Z

DirkB: /* This essay sparks interest, but... */ new section

Talk:Multiplication

2008-09-05T21:10:12Z

DirkB: /* Math rendering */

==Removing Bible material whose relevance to multiplication is slim==
:Multiplication is mentioned in the [[Bible]] when God tells [[Noah]] to go forth and [[multiplication|multiply]]. (Joke! Really that is a different kind of multiplication.) However, Noah did have to use multiplication when he made the [[ark]], because [[Genesis]] 6:15 says:
::And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
:So Noah knew the [[ark]] had to be a volume of 300 times 50 times 30 is 450000 cubics3, to fit two of all the animals in the world in it.

Since the first sentence is acknowledged to be a joke and not to refer to the arithmetic operation, it shouldn't be there.

The Ark example isn't very good, for two reasons. First, in the Bible, the product of the three numbers is not mentioned, so this is not an example of a use of multiplication in the Bible. (It would be very relevant in an article about the three dimensions of ordinary space).

Second, the computation as presented is almost certainly wrong, since the Ark was surely shaped shaped like a boat, not like a rectangular box, and therefore its volume would '''not''' have been 450,000 cubits3 but some subtantially smaller number, which cannot be calculated exactly from the given data. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Multiplication table ==

This article should have the multiplication table ("times table"). I suppose that the generic child using Conservapedia already knows it, but having it for review purposes can't harm. In addition (pun not intended!), the table makes it easier to understand the whole concept of multiplication. Unfortunately, I'm completely wiki-ignorant, and don't know how to insert tables in articles. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:I think that's a very good idea... maybe I'll try to put something together. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:28, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Retreading previous material? ==

Didn't this article used to be longer? I was just putting in some stuff about the symbols used, and it seemed a bit ''deja vu''. Was there a reason for deleting some of this article, and did I miss it? Didn't mean to re-add that which was decided was inappropriate... [[User:Human|Human]] 18:15, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Illustrations and examples==

How about a diagram? I've taught multiplication to several children of one-digit age by showing them rows of objects. Like, 2 rows of 6 eggs is 12 (a dozen eggs) or three groups of two coins make 6 coins. Counting by twos is a cheap way to get started on multiplying (and by the way learning your two times table); see [[times table]].

Don't be in a hurry to get all formal and grad schoolish. We need to give our readers practical knowledge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:36, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:Can you find and upload a picture of a carton of eggs for us to use? That would be cool. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:47, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

==Symbol==
Several conventions are used to indicate multiplication.
*For simple numbers, the symbol (<big><math>\times</math></big>) used looks much like the letter "X", as in the examples above.
*Since the "X" looks like a letter, and letters are commonly used in algebra to indicate [[unknown]]s, or [[variable]]s, the "dot" is frequently used: A B = B A.
*Alternatively a period may be used to denote multiplication
*Also, in [[algebra]]ic use, quantities are simply juxtaposed to indicate that they are to be multiplied:
: Y = 3aX + 4bZ

Please rewrite the above content, which I just now removed from the article. (Do you know how to use article history? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:16, 3 September 2008 (EDT))

::: I don't really see anything wrong with that content. What is confusing about it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::In the UK when I was at school, a long time ago before the liberals ruined education with "modern math", it used to be the convention that X was the symbol for multiplication and x was the symbol for an unknown quantity.[[User:Malakker|Malakker]] 10:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT) (sorry, hit the wrong button first time.)[[User:Malakker|Malakker]] 10:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::An asterisk * is often sometimes used for multiplication (and / for division), especially on computer systems such as Microsoft Excel, although I have also seen it in printed documents as well. I believe (although I may be wrong) that this originates from its use in early computer programming languages such as BASIC. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes, that should be added to the list. I actually used it in place of the dot when I was writing the above while I went and searched for the code for the "dot product" symbol. And, yes, the 'sterisk goes back at least to BASIC. I think it's mostly because the dot isn't in the basic ASCII character set (also, it's not on your keyboard...). By the way, who added the incorrect "parentheses" example at the end of the article? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

If someone can explain how multiplication is used in [[algebra]], then a tiny note about * or "dot" may be in order. But not before. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:I thought the "target" age group was "college bound high school age students"? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You thought right. Now stop blathering and do some writing. I want that on my desk in the morning, Jimmy Olsen, or by Great Caesar's Ghost I'll know the reason why! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:43, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I think Human might have meant through his question that if this article was intended for college bound high school age students, explaining the use of multiplication in algebra would be unnecessary. It would be assumed that most people in that age group and at that educational level would have learned the basics of algebra long ago. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:32, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::"Now stop blathering and do some writing." - I don't know if that was supposed to be a joke? I was writing, what I added got edited a bit (what is above is partly wrong...), and then moved here to discuss. Perhaps you (Ed) could write at least an outline of what you envision this article covering? Better yet, as a math teacher, surely you could write it with one hand tied behind your back while being pelted with spitballs? [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

== Math rendering ==

Is there a problem with the rendering of the math mark-up? For me (in both IE and Firefox) the expression following "Likewise" is much larger than the previous examples despite having identical mark-up tags. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:09, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:Looks fine to me (Firefox). However, before Ed's "force rendering" edit, the expression after "Likewise" looked slightly ''smaller'', so I'd assume that that edit is the key to the size issue. But don't ask me why it's fine for me now while not for you. Check the version before Ed's edit - do the lines look the same to you there? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:37, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::It still looked different in both Firefox and IE so I removed the slash at the end and it renders OK now. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:56, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You maybe missed the part where I said that the version you just restored makes the lower line look significantly smaller for me at least. I mean, it's nice that it renders okay for ''you'' now, but I believe that we should rather investigate the cause of this instead of playing a rendering tug-o-war ;) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:00, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I just removed the second line while streamlining that paragraph. Sort of a blunt solution, but I think it's the most appropriate one since this is an entry about multiplication and not commutativity. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:10, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== Numbers vs Real numbers ==

Typically students learn addition and multiplication with Natural numbers. Then come Integers, Rational and Real numbers. For a student it is important to know that those are the most well known commutative operations with numbers. Why would you restrict the field and confuse their mind with "real numbers" only? Huh. --[[User:BillP|BillP]] 16:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'm not sure I see your point. Why do you insist on replacing a clear and precise statement with a fuzzy one? The way it reads now, multiplication of complex numbers is included in this, which is borderline wrong because multiplication of complex numbers is most definitely not well-known to anybody but the more advanced math students. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:Edit: I just solved this the trivial way. See my last edit to this article. I think that this should be an acceptable compromise. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:09, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Multiplication

2008-09-05T21:09:05Z

DirkB: /* Numbers vs Real numbers */

==Removing Bible material whose relevance to multiplication is slim==
:Multiplication is mentioned in the [[Bible]] when God tells [[Noah]] to go forth and [[multiplication|multiply]]. (Joke! Really that is a different kind of multiplication.) However, Noah did have to use multiplication when he made the [[ark]], because [[Genesis]] 6:15 says:
::And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
:So Noah knew the [[ark]] had to be a volume of 300 times 50 times 30 is 450000 cubics3, to fit two of all the animals in the world in it.

Since the first sentence is acknowledged to be a joke and not to refer to the arithmetic operation, it shouldn't be there.

The Ark example isn't very good, for two reasons. First, in the Bible, the product of the three numbers is not mentioned, so this is not an example of a use of multiplication in the Bible. (It would be very relevant in an article about the three dimensions of ordinary space).

Second, the computation as presented is almost certainly wrong, since the Ark was surely shaped shaped like a boat, not like a rectangular box, and therefore its volume would '''not''' have been 450,000 cubits3 but some subtantially smaller number, which cannot be calculated exactly from the given data. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Multiplication table ==

This article should have the multiplication table ("times table"). I suppose that the generic child using Conservapedia already knows it, but having it for review purposes can't harm. In addition (pun not intended!), the table makes it easier to understand the whole concept of multiplication. Unfortunately, I'm completely wiki-ignorant, and don't know how to insert tables in articles. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:I think that's a very good idea... maybe I'll try to put something together. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:28, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Retreading previous material? ==

Didn't this article used to be longer? I was just putting in some stuff about the symbols used, and it seemed a bit ''deja vu''. Was there a reason for deleting some of this article, and did I miss it? Didn't mean to re-add that which was decided was inappropriate... [[User:Human|Human]] 18:15, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Illustrations and examples==

How about a diagram? I've taught multiplication to several children of one-digit age by showing them rows of objects. Like, 2 rows of 6 eggs is 12 (a dozen eggs) or three groups of two coins make 6 coins. Counting by twos is a cheap way to get started on multiplying (and by the way learning your two times table); see [[times table]].

Don't be in a hurry to get all formal and grad schoolish. We need to give our readers practical knowledge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:36, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:Can you find and upload a picture of a carton of eggs for us to use? That would be cool. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:47, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

==Symbol==
Several conventions are used to indicate multiplication.
*For simple numbers, the symbol (<big><math>\times</math></big>) used looks much like the letter "X", as in the examples above.
*Since the "X" looks like a letter, and letters are commonly used in algebra to indicate [[unknown]]s, or [[variable]]s, the "dot" is frequently used: A B = B A.
*Alternatively a period may be used to denote multiplication
*Also, in [[algebra]]ic use, quantities are simply juxtaposed to indicate that they are to be multiplied:
: Y = 3aX + 4bZ

Please rewrite the above content, which I just now removed from the article. (Do you know how to use article history? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:16, 3 September 2008 (EDT))

::: I don't really see anything wrong with that content. What is confusing about it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::In the UK when I was at school, a long time ago before the liberals ruined education with "modern math", it used to be the convention that X was the symbol for multiplication and x was the symbol for an unknown quantity.[[User:Malakker|Malakker]] 10:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT) (sorry, hit the wrong button first time.)[[User:Malakker|Malakker]] 10:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::An asterisk * is often sometimes used for multiplication (and / for division), especially on computer systems such as Microsoft Excel, although I have also seen it in printed documents as well. I believe (although I may be wrong) that this originates from its use in early computer programming languages such as BASIC. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes, that should be added to the list. I actually used it in place of the dot when I was writing the above while I went and searched for the code for the "dot product" symbol. And, yes, the 'sterisk goes back at least to BASIC. I think it's mostly because the dot isn't in the basic ASCII character set (also, it's not on your keyboard...). By the way, who added the incorrect "parentheses" example at the end of the article? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

If someone can explain how multiplication is used in [[algebra]], then a tiny note about * or "dot" may be in order. But not before. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:I thought the "target" age group was "college bound high school age students"? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You thought right. Now stop blathering and do some writing. I want that on my desk in the morning, Jimmy Olsen, or by Great Caesar's Ghost I'll know the reason why! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:43, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I think Human might have meant through his question that if this article was intended for college bound high school age students, explaining the use of multiplication in algebra would be unnecessary. It would be assumed that most people in that age group and at that educational level would have learned the basics of algebra long ago. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:32, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::"Now stop blathering and do some writing." - I don't know if that was supposed to be a joke? I was writing, what I added got edited a bit (what is above is partly wrong...), and then moved here to discuss. Perhaps you (Ed) could write at least an outline of what you envision this article covering? Better yet, as a math teacher, surely you could write it with one hand tied behind your back while being pelted with spitballs? [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

== Math rendering ==

Is there a problem with the rendering of the math mark-up? For me (in both IE and Firefox) the expression following "Likewise" is much larger than the previous examples despite having identical mark-up tags. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:09, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:Looks fine to me (Firefox). However, before Ed's "force rendering" edit, the expression after "Likewise" looked slightly ''smaller'', so I'd assume that that edit is the key to the size issue. But don't ask me why it's fine for me now while not for you. Check the version before Ed's edit - do the lines look the same to you there? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:37, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::It still looked different in both Firefox and IE so I removed the slash at the end and it renders OK now. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:56, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You maybe missed the part where I said that the version you just restored makes the lower line look significantly smaller for me at least. I mean, it's nice that it renders okay for ''you'' now, but I believe that we should rather investigate the cause of this instead of playing a rendering tug-o-war ;) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:00, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== Numbers vs Real numbers ==

Typically students learn addition and multiplication with Natural numbers. Then come Integers, Rational and Real numbers. For a student it is important to know that those are the most well known commutative operations with numbers. Why would you restrict the field and confuse their mind with "real numbers" only? Huh. --[[User:BillP|BillP]] 16:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'm not sure I see your point. Why do you insist on replacing a clear and precise statement with a fuzzy one? The way it reads now, multiplication of complex numbers is included in this, which is borderline wrong because multiplication of complex numbers is most definitely not well-known to anybody but the more advanced math students. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:Edit: I just solved this the trivial way. See my last edit to this article. I think that this should be an acceptable compromise. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:09, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Multiplication

2008-09-05T21:08:09Z

DirkB: Okay, I just solved BOTH the rendering problem AND the edit war about "numbers" vs. "real numbers" vs. "natural numbers"

In its most elementary form '''multiplication''' is the repeated [[addition]] of [[whole numbers]] or [[integers]].
:For example, <big><math>3\times 2 = 2 + 2 + 2 = 6</math></big>

The result of a multiplication is the ''product''. The numbers which are multiplied together are called ''factors''.

In this context, it is also one of the most well-known [[commutative]] operations: It yields the same result, regardless of placement of numbers.

:For example <big><math>3\times 2 = 2\times 3</math></big>.

==See also==
*[[Multiplication Property of Equality]]
*[[Arithmetic]]

[[Category:Algebra]]

Talk:Multiplication

2008-09-05T21:00:53Z

DirkB: /* Math rendering */

==Removing Bible material whose relevance to multiplication is slim==
:Multiplication is mentioned in the [[Bible]] when God tells [[Noah]] to go forth and [[multiplication|multiply]]. (Joke! Really that is a different kind of multiplication.) However, Noah did have to use multiplication when he made the [[ark]], because [[Genesis]] 6:15 says:
::And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
:So Noah knew the [[ark]] had to be a volume of 300 times 50 times 30 is 450000 cubics3, to fit two of all the animals in the world in it.

Since the first sentence is acknowledged to be a joke and not to refer to the arithmetic operation, it shouldn't be there.

The Ark example isn't very good, for two reasons. First, in the Bible, the product of the three numbers is not mentioned, so this is not an example of a use of multiplication in the Bible. (It would be very relevant in an article about the three dimensions of ordinary space).

Second, the computation as presented is almost certainly wrong, since the Ark was surely shaped shaped like a boat, not like a rectangular box, and therefore its volume would '''not''' have been 450,000 cubits3 but some subtantially smaller number, which cannot be calculated exactly from the given data. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Multiplication table ==

This article should have the multiplication table ("times table"). I suppose that the generic child using Conservapedia already knows it, but having it for review purposes can't harm. In addition (pun not intended!), the table makes it easier to understand the whole concept of multiplication. Unfortunately, I'm completely wiki-ignorant, and don't know how to insert tables in articles. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:I think that's a very good idea... maybe I'll try to put something together. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:28, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Retreading previous material? ==

Didn't this article used to be longer? I was just putting in some stuff about the symbols used, and it seemed a bit ''deja vu''. Was there a reason for deleting some of this article, and did I miss it? Didn't mean to re-add that which was decided was inappropriate... [[User:Human|Human]] 18:15, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Illustrations and examples==

How about a diagram? I've taught multiplication to several children of one-digit age by showing them rows of objects. Like, 2 rows of 6 eggs is 12 (a dozen eggs) or three groups of two coins make 6 coins. Counting by twos is a cheap way to get started on multiplying (and by the way learning your two times table); see [[times table]].

Don't be in a hurry to get all formal and grad schoolish. We need to give our readers practical knowledge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:36, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:Can you find and upload a picture of a carton of eggs for us to use? That would be cool. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:47, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

==Symbol==
Several conventions are used to indicate multiplication.
*For simple numbers, the symbol (<big><math>\times</math></big>) used looks much like the letter "X", as in the examples above.
*Since the "X" looks like a letter, and letters are commonly used in algebra to indicate [[unknown]]s, or [[variable]]s, the "dot" is frequently used: A B = B A.
*Alternatively a period may be used to denote multiplication
*Also, in [[algebra]]ic use, quantities are simply juxtaposed to indicate that they are to be multiplied:
: Y = 3aX + 4bZ

Please rewrite the above content, which I just now removed from the article. (Do you know how to use article history? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:16, 3 September 2008 (EDT))

::: I don't really see anything wrong with that content. What is confusing about it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::In the UK when I was at school, a long time ago before the liberals ruined education with "modern math", it used to be the convention that X was the symbol for multiplication and x was the symbol for an unknown quantity.[[User:Malakker|Malakker]] 10:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT) (sorry, hit the wrong button first time.)[[User:Malakker|Malakker]] 10:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::An asterisk * is often sometimes used for multiplication (and / for division), especially on computer systems such as Microsoft Excel, although I have also seen it in printed documents as well. I believe (although I may be wrong) that this originates from its use in early computer programming languages such as BASIC. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes, that should be added to the list. I actually used it in place of the dot when I was writing the above while I went and searched for the code for the "dot product" symbol. And, yes, the 'sterisk goes back at least to BASIC. I think it's mostly because the dot isn't in the basic ASCII character set (also, it's not on your keyboard...). By the way, who added the incorrect "parentheses" example at the end of the article? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

If someone can explain how multiplication is used in [[algebra]], then a tiny note about * or "dot" may be in order. But not before. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:I thought the "target" age group was "college bound high school age students"? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You thought right. Now stop blathering and do some writing. I want that on my desk in the morning, Jimmy Olsen, or by Great Caesar's Ghost I'll know the reason why! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:43, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I think Human might have meant through his question that if this article was intended for college bound high school age students, explaining the use of multiplication in algebra would be unnecessary. It would be assumed that most people in that age group and at that educational level would have learned the basics of algebra long ago. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:32, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::"Now stop blathering and do some writing." - I don't know if that was supposed to be a joke? I was writing, what I added got edited a bit (what is above is partly wrong...), and then moved here to discuss. Perhaps you (Ed) could write at least an outline of what you envision this article covering? Better yet, as a math teacher, surely you could write it with one hand tied behind your back while being pelted with spitballs? [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

== Math rendering ==

Is there a problem with the rendering of the math mark-up? For me (in both IE and Firefox) the expression following "Likewise" is much larger than the previous examples despite having identical mark-up tags. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:09, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:Looks fine to me (Firefox). However, before Ed's "force rendering" edit, the expression after "Likewise" looked slightly ''smaller'', so I'd assume that that edit is the key to the size issue. But don't ask me why it's fine for me now while not for you. Check the version before Ed's edit - do the lines look the same to you there? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:37, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::It still looked different in both Firefox and IE so I removed the slash at the end and it renders OK now. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:56, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You maybe missed the part where I said that the version you just restored makes the lower line look significantly smaller for me at least. I mean, it's nice that it renders okay for ''you'' now, but I believe that we should rather investigate the cause of this instead of playing a rendering tug-o-war ;) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:00, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== Numbers vs Real numbers ==

Typically students learn addition and multiplication with Natural numbers. Then come Integers, Rational and Real numbers. For a student it is important to know that those are the most well known commutative operations with numbers. Why would you restrict the field and confuse their mind with "real numbers" only? Huh. --[[User:BillP|BillP]] 16:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'm not sure I see your point. Why do you insist on replacing a clear and precise statement with a fuzzy one? The way it reads now, multiplication of complex numbers is included in this, which is borderline wrong because multiplication of complex numbers is most definitely not well-known to anybody but the more advanced math students. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Multiplication

2008-09-05T20:58:15Z

DirkB: /* Numbers vs Real numbers */

==Removing Bible material whose relevance to multiplication is slim==
:Multiplication is mentioned in the [[Bible]] when God tells [[Noah]] to go forth and [[multiplication|multiply]]. (Joke! Really that is a different kind of multiplication.) However, Noah did have to use multiplication when he made the [[ark]], because [[Genesis]] 6:15 says:
::And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
:So Noah knew the [[ark]] had to be a volume of 300 times 50 times 30 is 450000 cubics3, to fit two of all the animals in the world in it.

Since the first sentence is acknowledged to be a joke and not to refer to the arithmetic operation, it shouldn't be there.

The Ark example isn't very good, for two reasons. First, in the Bible, the product of the three numbers is not mentioned, so this is not an example of a use of multiplication in the Bible. (It would be very relevant in an article about the three dimensions of ordinary space).

Second, the computation as presented is almost certainly wrong, since the Ark was surely shaped shaped like a boat, not like a rectangular box, and therefore its volume would '''not''' have been 450,000 cubits3 but some subtantially smaller number, which cannot be calculated exactly from the given data. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Multiplication table ==

This article should have the multiplication table ("times table"). I suppose that the generic child using Conservapedia already knows it, but having it for review purposes can't harm. In addition (pun not intended!), the table makes it easier to understand the whole concept of multiplication. Unfortunately, I'm completely wiki-ignorant, and don't know how to insert tables in articles. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:I think that's a very good idea... maybe I'll try to put something together. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:28, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Retreading previous material? ==

Didn't this article used to be longer? I was just putting in some stuff about the symbols used, and it seemed a bit ''deja vu''. Was there a reason for deleting some of this article, and did I miss it? Didn't mean to re-add that which was decided was inappropriate... [[User:Human|Human]] 18:15, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Illustrations and examples==

How about a diagram? I've taught multiplication to several children of one-digit age by showing them rows of objects. Like, 2 rows of 6 eggs is 12 (a dozen eggs) or three groups of two coins make 6 coins. Counting by twos is a cheap way to get started on multiplying (and by the way learning your two times table); see [[times table]].

Don't be in a hurry to get all formal and grad schoolish. We need to give our readers practical knowledge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:36, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:Can you find and upload a picture of a carton of eggs for us to use? That would be cool. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:47, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

==Symbol==
Several conventions are used to indicate multiplication.
*For simple numbers, the symbol (<big><math>\times</math></big>) used looks much like the letter "X", as in the examples above.
*Since the "X" looks like a letter, and letters are commonly used in algebra to indicate [[unknown]]s, or [[variable]]s, the "dot" is frequently used: A B = B A.
*Alternatively a period may be used to denote multiplication
*Also, in [[algebra]]ic use, quantities are simply juxtaposed to indicate that they are to be multiplied:
: Y = 3aX + 4bZ

Please rewrite the above content, which I just now removed from the article. (Do you know how to use article history? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:16, 3 September 2008 (EDT))

::: I don't really see anything wrong with that content. What is confusing about it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::In the UK when I was at school, a long time ago before the liberals ruined education with "modern math", it used to be the convention that X was the symbol for multiplication and x was the symbol for an unknown quantity.[[User:Malakker|Malakker]] 10:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT) (sorry, hit the wrong button first time.)[[User:Malakker|Malakker]] 10:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::An asterisk * is often sometimes used for multiplication (and / for division), especially on computer systems such as Microsoft Excel, although I have also seen it in printed documents as well. I believe (although I may be wrong) that this originates from its use in early computer programming languages such as BASIC. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes, that should be added to the list. I actually used it in place of the dot when I was writing the above while I went and searched for the code for the "dot product" symbol. And, yes, the 'sterisk goes back at least to BASIC. I think it's mostly because the dot isn't in the basic ASCII character set (also, it's not on your keyboard...). By the way, who added the incorrect "parentheses" example at the end of the article? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

If someone can explain how multiplication is used in [[algebra]], then a tiny note about * or "dot" may be in order. But not before. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:I thought the "target" age group was "college bound high school age students"? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You thought right. Now stop blathering and do some writing. I want that on my desk in the morning, Jimmy Olsen, or by Great Caesar's Ghost I'll know the reason why! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:43, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I think Human might have meant through his question that if this article was intended for college bound high school age students, explaining the use of multiplication in algebra would be unnecessary. It would be assumed that most people in that age group and at that educational level would have learned the basics of algebra long ago. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:32, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::"Now stop blathering and do some writing." - I don't know if that was supposed to be a joke? I was writing, what I added got edited a bit (what is above is partly wrong...), and then moved here to discuss. Perhaps you (Ed) could write at least an outline of what you envision this article covering? Better yet, as a math teacher, surely you could write it with one hand tied behind your back while being pelted with spitballs? [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

== Math rendering ==

Is there a problem with the rendering of the math mark-up? For me (in both IE and Firefox) the expression following "Likewise" is much larger than the previous examples despite having identical mark-up tags. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:09, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:Looks fine to me (Firefox). However, before Ed's "force rendering" edit, the expression after "Likewise" looked slightly ''smaller'', so I'd assume that that edit is the key to the size issue. But don't ask me why it's fine for me now while not for you. Check the version before Ed's edit - do the lines look the same to you there? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:37, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::It still looked different in both Firefox and IE so I removed the slash at the end and it renders OK now. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:56, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== Numbers vs Real numbers ==

Typically students learn addition and multiplication with Natural numbers. Then come Integers, Rational and Real numbers. For a student it is important to know that those are the most well known commutative operations with numbers. Why would you restrict the field and confuse their mind with "real numbers" only? Huh. --[[User:BillP|BillP]] 16:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'm not sure I see your point. Why do you insist on replacing a clear and precise statement with a fuzzy one? The way it reads now, multiplication of complex numbers is included in this, which is borderline wrong because multiplication of complex numbers is most definitely not well-known to anybody but the more advanced math students. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Multiplication

2008-09-05T20:11:10Z

DirkB: Undo revision 511105 by BillP (Talk) I agree that we shouldn't overcomplicate things, but this was pushing it into the "Huh?" territory.

In its most elementary form '''multiplication''' is the repeated [[addition]] of [[whole numbers]] or [[integers]].
:For example, <big><math>3\times 2 = 2 + 2 + 2 = 6</math></big>

The result of a multiplication is the ''product''. The numbers which are multiplied together are called ''factors''.

Multiplication and addition of [[real number]]s are the two most well-known [[commutative]] operations: They yield the same result, regardless of placement of numbers.

:For example <big><math>3\times 2 = 2\times 3</math></big>.
:Likewise <big><math>4 + 5 = 5 + 4\ </math></big>

==See also==
*[[Multiplication Property of Equality]]
*[[Arithmetic]]

[[Category:Algebra]]

Talk:Multiplication

2008-09-04T21:37:06Z

DirkB: /* Math rendering */

==Removing Bible material whose relevance to multiplication is slim==
:Multiplication is mentioned in the [[Bible]] when God tells [[Noah]] to go forth and [[multiplication|multiply]]. (Joke! Really that is a different kind of multiplication.) However, Noah did have to use multiplication when he made the [[ark]], because [[Genesis]] 6:15 says:
::And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
:So Noah knew the [[ark]] had to be a volume of 300 times 50 times 30 is 450000 cubics3, to fit two of all the animals in the world in it.

Since the first sentence is acknowledged to be a joke and not to refer to the arithmetic operation, it shouldn't be there.

The Ark example isn't very good, for two reasons. First, in the Bible, the product of the three numbers is not mentioned, so this is not an example of a use of multiplication in the Bible. (It would be very relevant in an article about the three dimensions of ordinary space).

Second, the computation as presented is almost certainly wrong, since the Ark was surely shaped shaped like a boat, not like a rectangular box, and therefore its volume would '''not''' have been 450,000 cubits3 but some subtantially smaller number, which cannot be calculated exactly from the given data. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Multiplication table ==

This article should have the multiplication table ("times table"). I suppose that the generic child using Conservapedia already knows it, but having it for review purposes can't harm. In addition (pun not intended!), the table makes it easier to understand the whole concept of multiplication. Unfortunately, I'm completely wiki-ignorant, and don't know how to insert tables in articles. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:I think that's a very good idea... maybe I'll try to put something together. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:28, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Retreading previous material? ==

Didn't this article used to be longer? I was just putting in some stuff about the symbols used, and it seemed a bit ''deja vu''. Was there a reason for deleting some of this article, and did I miss it? Didn't mean to re-add that which was decided was inappropriate... [[User:Human|Human]] 18:15, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Illustrations and examples==

How about a diagram? I've taught multiplication to several children of one-digit age by showing them rows of objects. Like, 2 rows of 6 eggs is 12 (a dozen eggs) or three groups of two coins make 6 coins. Counting by twos is a cheap way to get started on multiplying (and by the way learning your two times table); see [[times table]].

Don't be in a hurry to get all formal and grad schoolish. We need to give our readers practical knowledge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:36, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:Can you find and upload a picture of a carton of eggs for us to use? That would be cool. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:47, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

==Symbol==
Several conventions are used to indicate multiplication.
*For simple numbers, the symbol (<big><math>\times</math></big>) used looks much like the letter "X", as in the examples above.
*Since the "X" looks like a letter, and letters are commonly used in algebra to indicate [[unknown]]s, or [[variable]]s, the "dot" is frequently used: A B = B A.
*Alternatively a period may be used to denote multiplication
*Also, in [[algebra]]ic use, quantities are simply juxtaposed to indicate that they are to be multiplied:
: Y = 3aX + 4bZ

Please rewrite the above content, which I just now removed from the article. (Do you know how to use article history? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:16, 3 September 2008 (EDT))

::: I don't really see anything wrong with that content. What is confusing about it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::In the UK when I was at school, a long time ago before the liberals ruined education with "modern math", it used to be the convention that X was the symbol for multiplication and x was the symbol for an unknown quantity.[[User:Malakker|Malakker]] 10:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT) (sorry, hit the wrong button first time.)[[User:Malakker|Malakker]] 10:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::An asterisk * is often sometimes used for multiplication (and / for division), especially on computer systems such as Microsoft Excel, although I have also seen it in printed documents as well. I believe (although I may be wrong) that this originates from its use in early computer programming languages such as BASIC. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes, that should be added to the list. I actually used it in place of the dot when I was writing the above while I went and searched for the code for the "dot product" symbol. And, yes, the 'sterisk goes back at least to BASIC. I think it's mostly because the dot isn't in the basic ASCII character set (also, it's not on your keyboard...). By the way, who added the incorrect "parentheses" example at the end of the article? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

If someone can explain how multiplication is used in [[algebra]], then a tiny note about * or "dot" may be in order. But not before. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:I thought the "target" age group was "college bound high school age students"? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You thought right. Now stop blathering and do some writing. I want that on my desk in the morning, Jimmy Olsen, or by Great Caesar's Ghost I'll know the reason why! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:43, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I think Human might have meant through his question that if this article was intended for college bound high school age students, explaining the use of multiplication in algebra would be unnecessary. It would be assumed that most people in that age group and at that educational level would have learned the basics of algebra long ago. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:32, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Math rendering ==

Is there a problem with the rendering of the math mark-up? For me (in both IE and Firefox) the expression following "Likewise" is much larger than the previous examples despite having identical mark-up tags. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:09, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:Looks fine to me (Firefox). However, before Ed's "force rendering" edit, the expression after "Likewise" looked slightly ''smaller'', so I'd assume that that edit is the key to the size issue. But don't ask me why it's fine for me now while not for you. Check the version before Ed's edit - do the lines look the same to you there? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:37, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

User:DirkB

2008-09-04T18:45:02Z

DirkB: /* Notes to self */

I'm coming back with careful optimism. A major thank-you to all those who made it possible for me to return. Especially thanks to TerryH - one of the few sysops I had still been able to contact (my mailing rights had been blocked, and the cpwebmaster mail address somehow bounced, and he has his mail address listed in plain sight).

==Articles created by me==
(List ''might'' be incomplete)
*[[Birth certificate]]
*[[Bribe]]
*[[Bumper sticker]]
*[[Cage]]
*[[Cameo]]
*[[Endorsement]]
*[[Forensics]]
*[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]]
*[[Resignation]]
*[[Vote]] (full rewrite of existing article; existing article merged elsewhere)

==Notes to self==
*[[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page]] - always a handy source for inspiration
*[[Multiplication]] - makes me scratch my head

Multiplication

2008-09-04T18:38:10Z

DirkB: Some cleaning up.

In its most elementary form '''multiplication''' is repeated [[addition]] of [[whole numbers]] or [[integers]].
:For example, <big><math>3\times 2 = 2 + 2 + 2 = 6</math></big>

The result of a multiplication is the ''[[product]]''. The numbers which are multiplied together are called ''[[factor]]s''.

Multiplication and addition of [[real number]]s are the two most well-known [[commutative]] operations: They yield the same result, regardless of placement of numbers.

:For example <big><math>3\times 2 = 2\times 3</math></big>.
:Likewise <big><math>4 + 5 = 5 + 4\ </math></big>

==See also==
*[[Multiplication Property of Equality]]
*[[Arithmetic]]

[[Category:Algebra]]