Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-03-27T04:24:34Z

ELeger: /* Gothic architecture */ new section

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



==Farah Quote==

The Joseph Farah quote on Wikipedia is good, but it's at the top of this page and at the top of the [[Wikipedia]] page. I think that one appearance of the quote is enough and that it fits in better on the wikipedia page. Does anyone else have an opinion? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 13:18, 22 February 2009 (EST)

: I agree. You can move it into a new paragraph. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)

:: Done. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 14:10, 22 February 2009 (EST)

==Religious affiliation of Wikipedians==
I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--[[User:Java7837|Java7837]] 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place. It was put there by [[user:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]], but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from. Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus. And by the way, the graph ''does'' include agnostics, and how does 515 <s>outnumber</s> mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]" ==

I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 01:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==

Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?

The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.

That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?

I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.

It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …

Well lets hope not ...

{{unsigned|Qgobo}}

:Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe. That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Faith]] is a uniquely Christian concept. It is being used incorrectly above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". {{unsigned|Qgobo}}

::: That's a meaningless category. It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A". They disagree among themselves.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia. Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all. It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.

:::: I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest <s>faith</s> {non- atheists} group on it).

:::: Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy. So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith". They ''all'' have faith: Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.

The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.

Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of [[faith]]. Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis.[11]

doesn't this seem like a moot point simply because of the number difference does the wikipedia article mention that in the more atheistic countries it's the opposite?

== People for the American Way ==

Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: That does look biased. Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Why some of these problems don't count==
Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!

Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.

{{unsigned|Margheritapizza}}

: No, you're wrong. Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the [[Wikipedia police]], even though [[Wikipedia]] has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Regarding deletion of bios of conservative people: If you can back up your biography with plenty of sources independent of the subject, then the "police" will approve. For more check out Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) notability guideline for people]. Notability trumps any ideology, liberal, conservative, moderate, libertarian, radical, you-name-it. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 19:38, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::::Wikipedia does not follow its own policies. If wikipedia was actually neutral, why would it delete the page for Al Gore III [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Uncensored:Al_Gore_III] while keeping the page for Mary Cheney [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Cheney]? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:59, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Regarding Al Gore III: the article was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Gore_III_(8th_nomination) deleted in February 2008] after Wikipedians decided that they just couldn't write a biography of him that met the "biographies of living persons" and "notability (people)" standards. If you actually read the Wikitruth archived version you provided, you'll probably find out that it's full of gossip and doesn't explain ''why'' he's relevant to the world beyond being given his 15 news headlines of fame due to minor injuries and run-ins with the law. Furthermore, WP's people notability page states that "notability is not inherited" - in other words just because a certain person meets WP's notability standard doesn't mean that his/her friends, relatives, or associates are as well. Among all the sources cited in that "article", the sources that focus on him are about his legal run-ins, and the less distressing sources have him not as the focus of the article.
:::::On the other hand regarding Mary Cheney: the article does assert that she is relevant to society, as she has worked for Coors (one of the most prominent beer breweries in America) and the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign, and her "marriage" has been a subject of much debate in the news media given VP Cheney's opposition to same-sex marriage. She also wrote an autobiography that was published in 2006.
:::::Thus, WP deleted the Al Gore III article but kept the Mary Cheney article because Cheney is so much more noted and discussed in the media than AG3 has been. BTW, I'll go on WP later and expand on AG3 on the Al Gore article.--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 19:56, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

==WP: Sexist?==
Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Reversion==
I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true. In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is ''"Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988."'' Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==43==
Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. [[User:Mwaetht|Mwaetht]] 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?
: How is No. 33 an ''ad hominem'' argument? An ''ad hominem'' argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument. No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
: And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Smoking example ==

I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking. Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page ==

== Question ==

Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is biased...how can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: My [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes part way to answering your questions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case. For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it). It was not an article ''about'' Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong. And ''numerous'' editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them. It truly was a mobocracy. I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism. I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles. See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page] for more detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does '''not''' mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly ''about'' Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance. In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is ''not'' neutrality, but majority rule. Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory. "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight". And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be ''fair'', but it's hardly ''neutral''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID. Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space. By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of [[liberal style]]: overreliance on [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things '''with an open mind'''. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., [[Exobiology]]. Rest assured I was not ''relying'' on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of [[liberal]] falsehoods on my own talk page. Please illustrate point 11 of [[liberal style]] somewhere else. In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.

: Further attempts at [[liberal]] [[last wordism]] on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Translation: "It's my website, so I get the last word." (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy. I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5, you're clueless also. We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with [[Wikipedia]]. See point 11 in [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Insist on [[last wordism]] on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Maths, anyone? ==

''"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."''

700 out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%. That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave. Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?

Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.

- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

--[[User:Tommy|Tommy]] 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim. Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point. Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It should be made clear what "reject evolution" means, or this debate is kind of pointless. I'm also not sure why the 'religious' comment and the link are relevant. I think the key to that objection what the first percentage, indicating that 0.0014% of scientists definitely "reject evolution". By the way, it should actually be 0.14%; 700 / 500,000 = 0.0014, but you must multiply by 100 to get the percentage. Either way, the figure is small. Aschafly is correct that assuming that ''all'' other scientists (the remaining 99.84%) "support evolution" (which doesn't mean any more than "reject evolution" does) is not necessarily valid, but as a student who knows and has spoken at length with many scientists and professors on a variety of issues, I would consider it fair to assume that ''most'' scientists have some conviction about the correctness and utility of our current theories on evolution. It is not nearly so black-and-white an issue as simply "supporting" or "rejecting" evolution. Is this covered in one of the points on this article? This probably should be changed on Wikipedia, if only because it sounds to me like this poll was conducted in improperly simplified terms. I'll look for it. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 10:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I've looked into this reference on Wikipedia, in their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution Level of support for evolution] article in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support Scientific support] section. Due to the subtleties involved in this debate, I would still like to know more about how the poll discussed there was conducted. I did find a lively debate over the validity of using this poll in the article in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution/Archive_3#Newsweek_article article's 3rd and most recent talk page archive]. There did not appear to be a consensus. If it makes any of you feel better, consider the context of this poll and remember that it was conducted in 1987 and appears to have used blunt, oversimplified questions. It's more of a historical reference than a current item now. Either way, the debate goes on.

By the way, I'm curious to know if any of you can direct me to any papers published in peer-reviewed journals that presented data or explained experiments whose results clearly supported Intelligent Design. I've read about ID supporters' thought experiments and probability-based arguments, but I don't know anything about their supporting data or experimental evidence. If any of you know where I can find papers on this data and evidence, let me know. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 11:01, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obvious bias in liberal page ==
Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for [[Liberal]], there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Liberal Myths]]), while the same section for [[Conservative]] has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?

--[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Administrator names? Huh?==

This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate ''what'' it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with ''how'' its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't ''create'') the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a [[liberal]] [[Socialist]] [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] who once referred to [[Christianity]] as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I concur. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:

* criticizing anti-intellectual user names
* criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance

: That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer. And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:Huh?--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peter Singer==
New to this site. Check out the article on Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide. The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book. An excerpt from one of his books can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm [[User:Egd|Egd]] 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

* Quotes such as '''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person''' were ''removed'' as being POV

:Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Deleted_content] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question of Logic ==

The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded. While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals. Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world. 
 
To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian). I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think '''this''' community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous. As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others. If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. [[User:Zebu1911|Zebu1911]] 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Creation "myth" ==
Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth {{unsigned|Cal05000}}

: Wikipedia is redefining words to advance its [[liberal]] agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::What does wikipedia define myth as, and what is myth defined as? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 18:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia does specify that the definition of "myth" is just a traditional story with no implications of truth or un-truth. I can confirm definition this in several dictionaries. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 20:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The word "myth" plainly connotes falsity, which is what the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia want to connote about [[creation]]. See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth Webster definition]. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::::: Aschlafly you should sign your posts. And if you read the beginning of the article you can see that the author of the article goes out of their way to define myth. The article is about creation stories, including every major religion. Not just christianity. I fail to see your problem with this. But realizing no matter what I say you will never change your opinion, or for that matter admit you were wrong. So feel free to not comment back. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You are both right. "Myth" does not imply truth or falsity ''when used in a scholarly sense''. The Merriam-Webster definition 1 (see Aschlafly's link) reflects this. But when used in an everyday sense, it implies something that is not true, as per Merriam-Webster definitions 2b and 3. Wikipedia uses the first definition as an excuse to tar creation accounts as unreliable, but contrary to your claim about "every major religion. Not just christianity", does not include atheism and apply the term to its origins account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Great points, Philip. In sum, Wikipedia's [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]] bias is demonstrated by how it applies the term "myth" to [[creation]] but not to [[evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I completely agree that the word "myth" carries connotations of falsity, and for a while I was of the opinion that the title in question was not NPOV, but after reading the arguments on Wikipedia, there are several definitions of the word which do not define a myth as either true or false, which describe the topic in hand far more accurately than something like "story" or "belief". Here are some examples of the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 dictionary websites I found:

::*''"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."'' ([http://www.dictionary.com])
::*''"an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts"'' ([http://dictionary.cambridge.org])
::*''"a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"'' ([http://www.merriam-webster.com])
::*''"ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior"'' ([http://encarta.msn.com])

::In my opinion, the definition of the word "myth" is perfectly inline with the definition of Creationism, while it doesn't describe recent scientific theories like the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The fact that the article clearly explains that it is using the strictly academic definition of the word makes it an acceptable title, and I don't think a more vague, politically correct word is needed. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 22:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::: [[Wikipedia]] is a good home for you then. You selectively quote from the dictionary definitions about myth and then, once you settle on a misleading meaning, you apply it in a biased way against creation but not evolution. You've illustrated and embraced the bias at Wikipedia well. Enjoy it there. We don't allow such bias here on our content pages.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I did not selectively quote dictionary definitions, I clearly stated that I chose the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 (and, in fact, only) dictionary websites that I looked at (typed "dictionary" into google and chose from the first page of results). I acknowledged that "myth" carries negative connotations, and that at first I felt that the title did need to be changed. However, I felt after consideration, that due to word (or at least the primary definition of the word) being far more descriptive of the topic at hand than other potential replacements, along with the definition of the word within the article itself, it was better to keep the title than to change it because of the connotations it carries. This is of course my opinion, and is based on my view of how negative the word "myth" is. Others are likely to have different perceptions, and thus disagree with me.

::::The other main definition of "myth" seems to be ''"false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief"'' (encarta). Both Evolution and Creationism could fall under this description, depending on your POV/bias. Evolution however, in my opinion, does not fall under the other definition, as it is in no way "traditional", "supernatural", "historical" or has anything to do with "deities", whereas Creationism does (if you disagree I would be happy to hear your points).

::::I do not support any form of bias in this context, and agree with Conservapedia that there is significant bias throughout Wikipedia that needs to be amended. I hope that I have cleared up my views on the matter. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 00:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: Evolution wasn't invented by Darwin. He merely popularised it by giving it a pseudo-scientific explanation. The general idea of evolution is ancient, so it ''does'' fit some of the definitions you provided (note that reference to a deity was not in all definitions, and not a requirement in others). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia obviously cant say it isnt a myth either so how you put it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip you make a good point, but you have one flaw in your logic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is the present factual information based on the official definitions. Yes, popular and actual definitions are often at odds, but encylopedias present the actual definition. I disagree that a evolutionist/atheistic view of creation should be added. The page is about religious creation myths, and it does include a link to the article on evolution. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 13:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not aware that anyone has decreed that encyclopedias can only use "official" definitions.
: If the page is about ''religious'' creation myths, then why exclude the "creation myth" of atheistic religions? This is part of the atheist agenda: Label everyone else's worldviews/beliefs as "religious", but their own as "non-religious" or "rational" or whatever, and label everyone else's beliefs about origins as "creation myths" but their own as "scientific". Such artificial self-serving distinctions are not accepted on Conservapedia. Granted, Wikipedia does define how it is using the term "myth" in that particular article, but, as pointed out, does not include the atheistic origins myth. Further, at the top of the page are links to "scientific" views, a non-so-subtle inference that the "creation myths" are not scientific.
: And the only link to evolution ''per se'' is buried within the "Hermeticism" section half way through the page.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

While that may be so Philip I think it prudent to mention that many links on this website either redirect to another conservapedia page, are missing altogether or are linked to a page that says nothing in regards to the intended point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to the discussion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you said the only link to evolution in wikipedia when discussing the 'creation myth' was buried ''per se'' (in what I gather) rather obscurely. I was pointing out that many CP links demonstrate this also, if not worse.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: My ''criticism'' was that Wikipedia treats creation but not evolution as a "myth". My reference to an evolution link was simply a reply to your claim that the Wikipedia article did link to evolution. It does, but not in any way that could be construed as including evolution as a "creation myth". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Has anyone else noticed the further evidence of systemic bias in the Wikipedia Creation myth page? "Some Jews and Christians believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Every other subsection starts without such a qualifier:
* "The Aztec narrative describing creation proceeds with..."
* "In the beginning, there was just water..." (Cherokee)
* "The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean..." (Shinto)
* "The Voluspa opens with the Norse account of the creation of the present universe :"
Wikipedia insists on qualifying every statement regarding Christianity to suggest that those who believe in the Bible, or in this case that Genesis is the Christian story of creation, are offshoots of the mainstream. [[User:Egd|Egd]] 10:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Right. The hostility and bias on Wikipedia against Christianity are undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, I've seen that sort of thing before, although probably not that particular example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Also wikipedia has a categories for alleged Christian mythology and Jewish mythology -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I just removed a 'bias' example regarding the Wikipedia article "Creation myth" because it talks about myths from all sorts of religions and cultures. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Categorization ==

Would anyone object to an effort to categorize the examples in different sections, such as Wikipedia attacks on religion, Wikipedia pro-liberal bias, examples that have been corrected and so on? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: That's OK, provided it does not dilute the entry or introduce [[placement bias]] by moving stronger and more recent points lower in the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== #12: Ron Paul smear ==

As a huge Ron Paul supporter, #12 sent me to straight to wikipedia in hopes of setting things straight, only to find that the article clearly shows that the comments were not made by Ron Paul. I fail to see the smear here. -[[User:Crimson30|Crimson30]] 14:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why is the smear so extensive on Ron Paul's entry given that, as you say, he did not author the comments? When the entry is about a [[liberal]], Wikipedia does not smear the person in such a manner. Hence this illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:: How is the entry in the Wikipedia article a smear? It's responsible of the article to mention the controversy over the newsletters given the widespread coverage it has in anti-Paul propaganda online, and the article clearly states that Ron Paul is not the source of those comments and that they are not his beliefs. If there was a Wikipedia article about you, and there was a widespread story on the internet that falsely attributed Holocaust denial remarks to you, would you think Wikipedia worse for noting this story and refuting it? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia is like the National Enquirer, then, in simply repeating smears about people without any educational value.

::: But the reason the point is here, as I said, is because Wikipedia does NOT smear liberals as it smears conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: But it *does* have educational value - it informs people that Ron Paul did not write those things, does not believe those things and that he finds what was written morally reprehensible. It's not a smear, because it presents the facts of the matter. And if it's not a smear, the point has to be made with a different article. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 17:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Wandering", it obviously is a smear. If you can't admit that, then this discussion is a waste of time. Ron Paul's opponents used that information to attack and smear him. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: They cannot use that information to smear him, because the information directly indicates that it is not smear-worthy material. The information clearly shows that Ron Paul did not write and in fact repudiates the controversial content from the newsletters. I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read that portion of the article word-for-word, instead of just skimming it. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Points #1, #4 ==

I do not see how the image of the minuteman statue is presented as "proof" (although the caption is admittedly quite poor). On the point of the two articles concerning religious terrorism, "body" seems somewhat of a misnomer, since the articles are not essays. Regardless, reference link 6 is broken. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Defamatory material in American Family Association article ==

Wikipedia's article for the group includes numerous defamatory assertions which are either unsupported or poorly supported (e.g. with biased references). For example, the article claims the AFA supports "the criminalization of homosexuality," yet neither source supports such a blanket assertion (one of the sources actually says the AFA supports criminalizing ''public displays'' of homosexuality). Another example, the article states, "The March 2005 issue of the AFA's Journal contained an article which insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society," yet the article in question makes absolutely no such insinuation. Wikipedia also categorizes the article under "Homophobia" even though phobias are disorders requiring a clinical diagnosis to identify. Attempts to correct material within the article are met with vicious and unrelenting opposition by homosexual and pro-homosexual editors. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
:Check out the recent edit history. WP editor (who is gay, unsurprisingly enough) is reverting my properly rationalized edits for no good reason. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The Wikipedia entry does misrepresent what the [[American Family Association]] article says, probably in a misguided attempt to smear the [[American Family Association]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Family_Association&diff=216091906&oldid=216091846] Let's see how long Wikipedia persists in its misrepresentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to admit that there was a show of bias on the part of WP editors, or to be more precise two of them. If you follow guidelines like I did and initiate discussion rather than just engaging in all out edit wars you will find that the greater community is more than willing to listen. Try doing that next time, the talk page is there for a reason. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:59, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't see any improvement. Illustrating its bias, [[Wikipedia]] simply reverted or overwrote the corrections in order to continue to smear the [[American Family Association]]. The [[Wikipedia]] entry even resorts to smearing the [[American Family Association]] for something it did not even write in one of the widely read textbooks of all time. Contrast that with how [[Wikipedia]] does not criticize John Scopes and the [[ACLU]] for defending the [[racist]] textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Look closer, if you have any problems with the current article perhaps you could list them here and we could see if we can try to fix them. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:07, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It's essentially the same as when I (and Jinxmchue) complained. The Wikipedia entry is a complete hatchet job. No, I'm not going to waste all night on this. The [[anti-conservatives]] running [[Wikipedia]] will revert any corrections to this entry. This is a determined smear by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Well the thing is Jinx didn't complain, he engaged in an edit war. Just list a couple of things here and we'll see if we can't get them changed. If they aren't then that's that, if they are then we can start working on other problems with the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:19, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Edit war. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no one else there was involved in any edit war. Nope. They can revert edits they don't like without any sort of attempt to address issues, get their friends involved to subvert the three revert rule, but they aren't ever accused of starting edit wars. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:29, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::I didn't say the others weren't also involved in an edit war, obviously you would need two sides to do it. However, if you observe what I did (discussed, rather than continually revert and get blocked for it) you will see that I achieved my goal (as stated on the article's talk page). Now, give me something else wrong with the article and we will see if we can change it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:31, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If you want to see what I did, check the edit history for AFA's article over there. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted. There's just a couple of AFA-hating gay editors who want the article to be a hit piece. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

<- Yes there were a couple of anti-AFA editors who chose to revert the article, and if you look closely they also got blocked for it (one has since left). If you did what I did and tried to initiate discussion on the article's talk page you would not have gotten blocked, and others would have come to your assistance, as they came to mine. The AFA article has also been reported to ANI/NPOV for further assessment of bias against the organisation. Now, if you or Andy would care to give me another problem with the article then we will see if we can get that changed too. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:36, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: We did. See the first and fifth paragraphs above. Those smears are still in the Wikipedia entry about the [[American Family Association]] despite the high-level review that you apparently initiated, and despite Wikipedia not smearing liberals like that. If AFA supported the [[homosexual agenda]] rather than opposing it, then you can be sure that Wikipedia would have a very different and favorable entry about it. So, the bottom line is clear: this is yet another example of bias at Wikipedia, and it's not likely to change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:I am making some corrections now. We will see if the one remaining gay editor who wants to control the page will leave them be. I doubt it, but then years of experience with such people have turned me into a cynic. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::My cynicism was well-founded. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Point #44 re: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ==

The reader who submitted this comment claims that it was "guilt by association" to repeat "a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS."

However, the factual basis for associating AAPS with the John Birch Society is much stronger than a mere "newspaper claim". For example: in the early 1960's, the AAPS Board of Directors included Dr. Granville Knight (a JBS National Council member), Dr. Charles W. Pavey (a JBS member),Dr. James L. Doenges (a JBS endorser) and Dr. George J. Hess (a JBS member who was AAPS President in 1962).

Furthermore, AAPS annual conventions featured speakers and exhibitors which were recommended by the the JBS in its own literature. In fact, the exhibitors often were organizations that were created or led by JBS members, endorsers and sympathizers -- including, for example, Southern States Industrial Council, National Education Program, National Committee For Economic Freedom, and American Opinion magazine (the JBS magazine!). AAPS described these organizations as "freedom organizations". Speakers at AAPS conventions included prominent JBS members and sympathizers such as JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver.

Incidentally, senior FBI officials (including Director J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Division Chiefs, and Supervisors within its Domestic Intelligence Division) routinely referred to the JBS in FBI memos as "irrational", "extremist",
"irresponsible", "fanatics", and "lunatic fringe". They did not describe the JBS as a "freedom organization".{{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

: Your 40-year-old [[gossip]] is silly and unsupported. Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc., also belong to numerous organizations. Smearing through use of guilt-by-association is criticized by [[liberals]] and against official Wikipedia policy. So why this reliance on 40-year-old gossip against this organization? This selective smearing illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: : REPLY TO ASCHLAFLY: Not sure why you describe what I presented as "gossip". The details concerning JBS member connections to AAPS come from AAPS publications. Is that "gossip"? The info I provided regarding comments made by top FBI officials originate in FBI internal memos---all of which I have in my possession. Is that "gossip"? You can certainly disagree with their judgments -- but why misrepresent and de-value the quality of the data as nothing more than "gossip"? {{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

::: You lack dates, sources or logic for your gossipy accusations. The accusations have no relevance today. Do you spread the same silly gossip about the Democratic Party, such as claiming that many KKK members were delegates at Democratic Party conventions a hundred years ago? No, Wikipedia only uses this silly smear campaign against conservative organizations. That's called bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

With respect to your larger point (i.e. unsavory people belong to all sorts of organizations) -- yes, that's true but you conveniently ignore the salient difference i.e. such individuals did not represent the official position of those organizations nor were they knowingly embraced by such organizations. In fact, if "Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc." were identified -- most organizations would expel them. BY CONTRAST, AAPS enthusiastically welcomed JBS members and even invited them to be speakers and exhibitors at AAPS functions!
:JBS itself doesn't deny that it's hired AAPS members. Examples include Nathaniel Adamson, Ray Clark, and Arthur Crino. [http://www.jbs.org/index.php/about/john-birch-society-national-council].--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 22:40, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The recent edits by [[User:Dnotice]] had an egregiously misspelled word, several inappropriate edits, and did not recognize that some Wikipedia improvements were after (and probably the result of) criticisms here. Some of the edits reverted had some value if presented properly. We welcome proper update of the points edited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Egregiously misspelled"? "Inappropriate edits"? Which are you referring to? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Dnotice, you have this backwards. Please fix your own misspelling, and don't make as many potentially objectionable edits without discussing them here. OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The whole idea of a Wikipedia-style website is that if a mistake is noticed, e.g. spelling, then the next user amends that error, instead of removing all of the previous user's edits on that page. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, which parts of my edits are are you specifically referring to? If I know which are incorrect or "potentially objectionable" on this site, I can ensure that future edits don't fall into that category. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::As you've made amendments to my further edits, any chance of a response to my questions? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 05:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Dnotice, you have to try harder first. Sorry, I wish I had the time to correct your mistakes, but I don't. In addition to an egregious misspelling, your edit to the point about Conservapedia being supportive of YEC was improper as it does not properly reference the prior version of the Wikipedia entry that illustrated the bias, and does not note how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Unless you fix your edit yourself, I will probably revert it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is Conservapedia supportive of YEC? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: StatsMan, please read the relevant points in the entry first before asking questions that distract from the issue at hand, and then stick to the issue of how Wikipedia falsely portrayed Conservapedia in order to try to smear it in front of the Wikipedia audience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You didn't answer his question. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::My edit took a direct quote from the link that was already in place. Anyway, it's odd that you've now decided to keep in my effective re-instatement of your deletion of this point... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 11:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, I'm hoping you'll fix your edit to reflect how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Will you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::How could I show that? Especially when you don't deny what I said about my edit reflecting the what the quote actually said. With all respect, the previous edit was guilty of [[Quote mining|quote-mining]] as the Wikipedia article (even at that particular time) had a lot more than what this site portrayed it did. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==Criticism of Conservapedia "rare or non-existent"==
Your suggestion that criticism of Conseravpedia "are rare or non-existent" seems blind to the day-to-day reality of Conservapedia. Criticism of your articles here features loudly on many, many Talk pages, much of it vandalism, yes, but much of it also well founded, well reasoned and intelligent criticism. And this is not just criticism based on ideology - this is often criticism of factual inaccuracy and misleading information. I think it's only fair to point this out in the interest of Fair Balance. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

: You misunderstood what your quote refers to, and falsely stated that the quote applies to all criticism. Of course many people who do not like the truth are going to criticize the truth, but that is not what the quote refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:07, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Correct me if I'm confused, but were you not referring to the sentence in the WP article which states "The site has come upon much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias"? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, but there are few or no criticisms of Conservapedia for "factual inaccuracies." The citation by Wikipedia for its claim is to a New York Times article that actually criticizes Wikipedia for harping on such a claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Belfast Agreement==
Although both 'Belfast Agreement' and 'Good Friday Agreement' are used almost interchangeably, it has become common for Irish and UK people to refer to this agreement as 'Belfast Agreement'. Some references from major Irish news sources are listed here - [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0527/breaking59.html], [http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0408/north.html], [http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dissecting-north-agreement--for-all-its-worth-363083.html]. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:27, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:But it is better known as "Good Friday Agreement" elsewhere. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I am British and would say that use of 'the Good Friday Agreement' is far more common, in Great Britain at any rate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Where is the 'elsewhere' you refer to WilliamH? Even the Northern Ireland Office refers to it as both [http://www.nio.gov.uk/the-agreement]. I am Irish and would say 'Belfast Agreement' is much more commonly used on our island. I'm mostly curious to know why Wikipedia's use of one term over the other is considered 'bias' here? It reeks of grasping at straws, as it's perfectly appropriate to use either term. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::'Elsewhere' as in everywhere else outside Ireland or the UK. (I might have forgotten a few places or two, but the point stands.) [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 20:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, I've removed the reference from the article, because while facts usually contain a 'liberal bias', I don't believe they're geographically biased. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 21:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Google shows that uses of "Good Friday Agreement" outnumber "Belfast Agreement" '''by more than a 3:1 ratio.''' It's irrelevant that Ireland newspapers prefer "Belfast Agreement" because Wikipedia does not ordinarily defer to an Irish point-of-view!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The popularity of a term "on Google" is simply not a metric on which to base an encyclopedia - if you go down the road of determining 'fact' based on Google cites, you're in deep trouble. The simple fact is, to those for whom the Agreement matters, both terms are interchangeable, and in fact Belfast Agreement is probably more commonly used. Finally, to use the choice of one term over the other as implying 'bias in Wikipeida' is to invent controversy where there is none, and in itself, biased - in this case, against Wikipedia, the editors of which can fairly choose to use whichever term they want. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: An illustration of bias is how decisions that could go one way or the other (i.e., "interchangeable) are, in fact, always decided one way. In Wikipedia's case, that bias is against religion. Wikipedia censors religious references every time it can, and insisting on the unfamiliar "Belfast Agreement" rather that the more popular "Good Friday Agreement" is merely one of many examples. Alone it may not be significant, but with numerous other examples it reinforces the existence of the bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: You are guilty of trying to foist a conspiracy theory into on an 'encyclopedia' article. Have you considered that those who would be most knowledgeable about the Belfast Agreement might, in fact, be from Ireland? And that therefore the Wikipedia articles may well be written by Irish editors? And that they may simply be using the term that is most familiar to them? And that the choice to not use the term containing a religious holiday reflects no "conspiracy against religion" as you have invented? Not everyone in the world is American, you know - in fact, Americans barely make up 5% of the world's population. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Maybe there are more non-Americans in the world than Americans, but there definitely are more Americans in Wikipedia than Irishmen (plus, all the other english-speaking nationalities that don't call it 'Belfast Agreement') so bias is the most plausible explanation. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 23:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: I take it you are certain that the proportion of Irish editors on the Wikipedia article is no higher than on, for example, an article about Alabama? [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 00:00, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Some protestant groups in Northern Ireland do not celebrate Good Friday, preferring to observe the crucifixion on Wednesday, so the neutral term 'Belfast Agreement' gained favour in diplomatic circles in order to avoid suggestions of anti-protestant bias. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 23:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Exactly, Jalapeno. Thank you for pointing out the political sensitivities that those of us on this island take for granted, and foreigners are clueless about. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Walter, you protest far too much, and now you have the fringe below even siding with you. Wikipedia editors are predominantly American and British, far more than Irish.

:::::::::::::: By more than a 3:1 margin the term "Good Friday Agreement" is used by the public. The fact that some Irish newspapers, which are themselves more liberal than the Irish public, use the term "Belfast Agreement" is an awfully weak rationale. There is no sign that the decision at Wikipedia was made by Irishmen. Odds are that this decision was made by the typically liberal editors there who seek to censor Christian. Many other points in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] illustrate the same bias at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::WP's bias is shown by it using the document's official name? (See WaltherPPK's link to the Northern Ireland Office) [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 19:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I protest because I know I am right and that you are wrong. First, I note you continue to assert the Google-sourced 3:1 ratio - except you now claim it's "the public". If Google is equal to "the public", I'll be damned. Please don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes - the world exists beyond the confines of Google, you know. Secondly, you clearly know ''nothing'' about the Irish media landscape (and, in fairness, I wouldn't expect you to), and you obviously haven't read any of my supporting references. Two are from newspapers - one being slightly left-of-centre (Irish Times), and one being right-of-centre (Independent). The third reference was a TV channel. They represent the non-tabloid news sources in the country. The other non-tabloid newspaper is to the right of these, and is only published on Sundays. Given your lack of knowledge of the Irish media scene, how you "know" that Irish newspapers are more liberal than the Irish public, I'd be interested to know. Are you an expert on every country in the world? Finally, you have obviously not looked at the Northern Ireland Office (of the UK Government) document on the Agreement (which I referenced above), which states "The Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement) was reached in Belfast on Friday, April 10 1998". Re-read Jalapeno's comments above as to the reason WHY politicans and public figures in Ireland PREFER the term 'Belfast Agreement to Good Friday Agreement. While your ignorance of the world may be appealing to an uneducated Amero-centric reader base, rest assured those of us from other nations will not lie down and let YOU tell US how we name our institutions, offices, or policy. Good day to you Sir. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:19, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Walter, your ranting is getting out of control. I do know quite a bit about the Irish press, Ireland, and Wikipedia. In fact, I've been quoted in the past in the Irish newspapers. Yes, they are more liberal than the Irish public, and Irishmen have relatively little influence at Wikipedia. The British and American influence, by liberals, is far stronger. It's absurd, frankly, for you to claim that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press.

::::::::::::::::: Want to rely on the Northern Ireland Office? Fine. It provides the "Good Friday Agreement" as the first choice, even though alphabetically it would come second. Use it and please stop pretending that the atheists at Wikipedia lack bias. Read the scores of other examples of the same [[Bias in Wikipedia]] and end your [[liberal denial]]. Godspeed. I expect you will insist on [[last wordism]] now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, Where did I claim "that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press"? We're trying to make you understand the sensitivities of Northern Irish politics - re-read Japaleno's comment above please as to why "Belfast Agreement" is actually the '''preferred''' term - you should be especially sensitive to the fact that the reason it's ''not'' named "Good Friday Agreement" is '''for''' religious reasons. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

===References===
Here's [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=361&docID=219&COMMAND=PRINTER the document itself], which shows that ''technically'', its title is '''The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement'''. (''All other names are therefore colloquial terms''). Here are some references from official Irish government websites showing many different terms used for the Agreement: [http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=507], [http://www.citizensinformation.ie/References/legislative/legislative-background-to-irish-citizenship], [http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/Legislation/TheOmbudsmanAct1980/], [http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=176&lang=eng], or [http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY102655 this one, wherein it is referred to as "The Belfast Agreement of Good Friday"]. A brief scan of any of these will show you that any term is equally usable, and that 'Good Friday Agreement' is simply one of them. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Could someone move [[Camp David Accords]] to [[Constitution Day Agreement]] or [[Saint Lambert Agreement]]? It just happens that September 17th (the day the accord was signed) is a a political holiday in North America and it should be named accordingly. Alternatively, September 17th is also the feast of Saint Lambert and it is disappointing that people are not recognizing the religious significance of the date and instead using the more widely known, secular, place name. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this mean that CP has an anti-Christian and/or anti-American bias? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 18:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
----
Google may not be the same as the public, but it's likely to be fairly close, and is about the best idea of public usage that we have readily available. So Andy's correct point that the term "Good Friday Agreement" is more common that "Belfast Agreement" holds up, pending better evidence to the contrary.

However, I don't think it's a good entry to have in the list, unless we have some evidence of Wikipedia using the Belfast name for (anti-)religious reasons. That may be a plausible explanation (Wikipedia does tend to be anti-Christian), but in this case using the Good Friday name hardly advances Christianity at all, so Wikipedia would have little motive to change it on that basis. So although the argument ''may'' be correct, it would be better to not use this example and stick with just having stronger examples.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Philip, a few points. 1) The specific words written by ASchlafly which I objected to and removed from the article described the term "Belfast Agreement" as "ambiguous and unfamiliar", not 'less popular'. The copious evidence I have provided has shown that the term is neither officially nor colloquially considered "ambiguous and unfamiliar", but is in regular, everyday use in the community where it is most often discussed by both of the Governments concerned and amongst the press and general public; 2) Not only that, but others have explained that there is actually an underlying reason why, for obvious reasons of religious sensitivity to all communities, religious terms are generally ''avoided'' in political debate in Northern Ireland; 3) It seems Mr.Schlafly's Amero-centric view of the world and his ignorance of Irish affairs led him to presume guilt on behalf of the Wikipedia editors where there was none; 4) Finally, I note that the Wikipedia article on the Agreement '''very clearly''' lists the term 'Good Friday Agreement' as "alternatively and widely known" in the opening sentence of their article, and the term Good Friday Agreement redirects to the article as one would expect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement]. In short, not only was the assumption wrong, the facts were wrong, and the case didn't even exist. I notice you too are sometimes upset when foreigners presume to know about Antipodean affairs, so I thank you for your analysis of this mistaken example. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 12:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) I agree. I was responding to comments on this page, not to the wording in the article.
:: 2) This seems to be supporting that Wikipedia's choice of label ''was'' chosen for religious reasons.
:: 3) I can't see what US-centricity has to do with this particular case.
:: 4) I can't see that this is any sort of rebuttal. The fact is that Wikipedia has chosen to not use (as the article title) the official name of the agreement, but what appears to be the lesser-used of the two most-commonly-used unofficial titles. And by the way, I Googled the two unofficial names on all English-language pages, on .au pages, and on .uk pages, and in all three cases, the Good Friday name was the most popular by a significant margin. So it's not as though one is more popular in American and the other in Britain, for example. So although it's unknown why Wikipedia has gone for the lesser-used title, I don't think that it's safe to jump to the conclusion that it's for anti-Christian reasons, although neither should that reason be ruled out.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Walther, Wikipedia has chosen the less popular, but more secular, name. As Philip observes, you now seem to be saying that Wikipedia did do this for religious reasons after all. Maybe what is needed is for Wikipedia to explain its decision. Perhaps the edit history can be checked, and the person responsible can be asked. I'm confident that Irish newspapers had nothing to do with the decision.

::: There may even be a formal Wikipedia policy favoring secular names rather than religious ones. Guess what? I just typed in "Saint Valentine's Day," and Wikipedia redirects me to the secular form, "Valentine's Day." I could repeat that exercise with other examples and I'm confident the same pro-secular result would be obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The edit history shows that the Wikipedia article was started in 2001 as 'Belfast Agreement'. There was a proposal to move the article to 'Good Friday Agreement' in 2005 that failed due to lack of consensus. There is a long and ignoble history of naming disputes in Northern Ireland (e.g. [[Londonderry#Nomenclature]]) and those of us who are familiar with this part of the world know will appreciate that if there is a workable neutral term available then it's almost always best to stick to that rather than risk stirring up sectarian passions. Of course Conservapedia, as an explicitly pro-US site, is free to ignore political subtleties in other parts of the world. Interestingly Conservapedia has ''separate'' articles on [[Belfast Agreement]] and [[Good Friday Agreement]] -- what should we make of that! [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Oh no, we have entries for each! :-) Thanks for pointing that out. What do you suggest we do about it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I'm not really part of this argument, but I suggest they be merged, under whatever name you prefer, with the other redirecting to it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 09:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Given the far greater usage, familiarity and descriptiveness of the term "Good Friday Agreement," I think that is the obvious choice. Wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not sure that "Good Friday Agreement" is more descriptive, but I agree that it appears to be more common. However, rather than take sides on this, why not go with the ''official'' title given above (assuming that's correct; I haven't checked it): "The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement". Both the other terms can be redirects to that. I'm not suggesting this solely to avoid taking sides (I'm happy to take sides where it's warranted), but when there is an official title and two unofficial titles, why not go with the official title? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your suggestion is a good one, assuming that really is the official name. Let's see what others have to say here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Please create the new article as Philip suggested. It is really the only ''correct'' way to title the article, and you can finally claim to have an article that is ''more correctly named'' than Wikipedia. It is the official name for the Agreement, as evidenced by [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/NIPeaceAgreement.pdf this, the official Irish Government PDF version] of the document. All other names are colloquial terms and may be redirects to it. Thank you for finally understanding my position. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: OK, but do you agree that "Saint Valentine's Day" is the correct name for that entry and that Wikipedia is biased in claiming otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Google shows that uses of "Valentine's Day" outnumber "Saint Valentine's Day" by '''more than a 235:1 ratio''', so I think the answer is obviously not, no. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy invited him to kick the football, but then pulled the ball away at the last minute (using incorrect data as well - try "St. Valentine's Day" too). Walther, you just refused to apply your reasoning to an analogous situation, and instead insisted on censoring the religious name a second time. To say your approach just lost credibility would be an understatement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I am using the methodology you recommended [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=465265 in your comment above] - using Google hits to determine 'truth'. As to spellings and typos, it makes little difference - "St.Valentine's Day"=563,000 hits and "Saint Valentine's Day"=176,000, a total of 739,000 hits. "Valentine's Day"=41,500,000 hits, and "Valentines Day"=19,600,000 hits, or a total of 61 million hits, giving a ratio of 82:1 in favour of the non-religious form. Thus, by your suggested methodology as above, all articles regarding the 14th Feb should be retitled "Valentine's Day", and the religious forms should be redirects. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 13:15, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: But you already emphatically rejected that methodology and, besides, "St. Valentine's Day" is unquestionably the historically correct name. "Belfast Agreement" has no historical claim to accuracy. While I was willing to compromise, you were not: you are adamant that the non-religious name be chosen in both circumstances, for contradictory reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::So let me get this right: Your methodology is using Google rankings and hits to decide whether or not to use a certain name for an article on Conservapedia. First of all, you have a go at [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] for not using your methodology and then, after using it and displaying the results, you criticize him even more for doing so? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Rather than creating a new article, one of the existing articles should be renamed. Probably the Good Friday Agreement one, given that it was started first. Of course only a sysop can do that, but there's enough of us around. Are we agreed on that course of action? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia "bias" ==

When Wikipedia says that "Obama entered Harvard Law School in fall 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition", it's because it's [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=full sourced.] The fact that [[User:ASchlafly|you]] disagree doesn't constitute bias.{{unsigned|Tennant}}

: Surely you don't suggest that merely citing a (liberal) source makes something true and unbiased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think the Wikipedia sourcing is somewhat poor, but until there's evidence that he was chosen due to the quota, this "example of bias" should definitely be removed. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah yes, because no non-anglo-saxon person ever has good grades. That sounds a lot like racism on Mr. Schlafly's part. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::To my knowledge, the policy at Wikipedia is that everything must be correctly sourced - i.e., it's enough if the source is reputable, and the entry is relevant. It doesn't matter if the source is liberal, conservative, anarchist, fascist, monarchist, socialist, regionalist, communist, christian, buddhist, atheist, nationalist, chauvinist, et cetera. Thank you. --[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 17:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, the problem with your entry is that if you follow that pattern, then you should insert each and every liberal quote on Wikipedia, from ''every'' article. '''--[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 18:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)'''

:::More to the point there is nothing in the reference we supply here to indicate that Obama was selected on the basis of his race. Does Conservapedia want to have a ''lower'' standard of fact checking than Wikipedia? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Isn't this article biased as well?==
Sorry-I'm new-but isn't this article biased by saying that Wikipedia is biased? This is sort of like a personal account, depending on personal judgement. And plus this sounds like publically directing a criticism against Wikiepdia. PLus I think some of the stuff has already been changed or reverted--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:How does claiming that something is biased constitute bias? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia includes phony quote for over three years ==

The phony quote in question is as follows:
<blockquote>
The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'
</blockquote>
This appeared on at least three pages. Here is how the pages appeared recently before I attempted to remove the quote:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&oldid=219686529#Criticisms Phillip E. Johnson] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&oldid=219162996#The_Discovery_Institute Teach the Controversy] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&oldid=215173365#Origins_of_the_movement_and_strategy Wedge strategy]

And here's where the quote was added for each page:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=12617922 Phillip E. Johnson - April 21, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&diff=prev&oldid=12219123 Teach the Controversy - April 12, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=15250578 Wedge strategy - June 15, 2005]

There's absolutely no indication that this is anything other than a direct quote. I found that the quote was completely bogus [http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/post-4.html here] and [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson here]. According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons] policy, such false material should be removed immediately and without discussion.

This removal didn't sit well with the anti-ID crowd, however, and I came under vicious assault, particularly from one editor. I ultimately prevailed, and though the quote was not removed, it was moved and clarified as being a paraphrase. All the accusations made against me were found to be without merit, but the person making them continues to make them. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Obama's selection as editor==
This article states as if it were a fact that Obama was chosen for this position on the basis of his race. However the references don't say that - they do say that a person ''might'' be selected on the basis of affirmative action, but there is nothing to indicate that Obama's selection was on this basis. We need to fix this. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Michael Moore==
"the lying, deceitful films of Michael Moore". What, are we deliberately trying not to get taken seriously here? How can we go around accusing other people of bias and then expressing what is clearly someone's opinion as if it were fact? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it's pretty much a proven fact that Moore deceptively edits his films. Two examples in particular are his acquisition of a gun at a bank and his manipulation of statements made by Charlton Heston. Those are just two out of many that immediately come to mind. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:It's bias to push this point up front. We don't describe Richard Nixon as "liar and felon" every time we talk about him. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:18, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Analysis of Claims ==

I am One For Logic (also spelled oneforlogic or Oneforlogic), a regular user and editor of Wikipedia for several years. I began reading some articles on Conservapedia a few weeks ago. This is an interesting project. I will readily admit that the quality of writing and sourcing of articles in Wikipedia is not always the highest, so in the spirit of supporting well-intentioned dissent (which is what I’m assuming this is; let me know now if I’m wrong) I’m going to check on the claims on this page and explain what I find. If I conclude that any of these claims are valid, I will discuss and attempt to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles myself. I expect many of you will want to comment on this effort; please do so in the next section. I welcome your input. Signed [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:01, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current Issue 1: SDI'''

Wow, you guys are good at this. Slow down on the new claims a little so I can keep up. I'll study the SDI article later. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:16, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Current Issue 2: Controversy Sections'''

The articles provided as examples are definitely organized differently. If any Conservapedia editor is sufficiently knowledgeable about Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, or Jane Fonda and would like to take the time to reorganize the material in the Wikipedia articles, go for it. I'm afraid I don't know enough about any of them and don't have enough free time to reorganize the articles myself. I also don't think this is really a case of serious systematic bias; I'd need to see more examples before I'd be convinced. It may also be relevant to note that Wikipedia guidelines discourage use of "Controversy" sections, and that those sections in both the Limbaugh and Malkin articles had been flagged to be reorganized or otherwise improved. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 21:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

: You describe a futile exercise, as many of us here have tried to edit out some of the liberal bias in Wikipedia. The mob there simply reinstates the bias and even seems to enjoy doing so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure you've been studying this longer than I have, but I have not yet encountered this angry liberal mob you describe. I have, just like all of you, had some of my edits falsely described as vandalism or removed without reason, but I have always discussed any changes to my work that seemed inappropriate and have often gotten useful feedback. Most of the people that care about an article enough to quickly revert edits they find disagreeable seem, in my experience, willing to discuss those edits. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
: For more about how WP deals with these "Criticism/Controversy" sections read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism Wikipedia's guideline on including Criticism] --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 20:46, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
'''Issue 3: GA status of Wikipedia's Conservapedia article

I would not have nominated this article to be listed as a good article. You were correct that the new cite on that statement did not ''explicitly'' state that Conservapedia contains factual errors. I have since revised the statement to more closely reflect what the article does say, which is still harshly critical of Conservapedia.

Update: I've been going back and forth on this with a few other editors. Most of the other editors agree that we need very explicit sources to claim that Conservapedia has factual errors. I am now convinced that we have three, and I have attached all of them to the 'factual errors' claim in the introduction. I still don't think the first cite on that claim supports it, but the editor that insists on including it hasn't responded to my discussion thread for a couple days. I do now believe that the claim is sufficiently verified. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

: "Oneforlogic", you lack logic here and show your own bias. The "factual errors" claim is an obvious smear and the citations both utterly fail to support the claim and are absurdly biased themselves. You seem to think it's OK to cite a heavily biased source to justify a smear. It isn't, obviously. Conservapedia has no more "factual errors" than any other wiki. If you persist in asserting this harmful smear, then I'm unlikely to bother reviewing any of your other arguments further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

"Both" citations? Which ones were you looking at? Both occurrences of the factual inacuracy claim now have 4 citations: one (#8, the Guardian article) that I believe does not directly address factual errors but is favored by another editor (and does mention that liberals engage in factual relativism as often as conservatives, which I consider generally true), and three that, while they address other issues and are obviously not supportive of Conservapedia, do directly discuss factual issues. I'm certainly not arguing in any way that Wikipedia is error-free, or even particularly more accurate than Conservapedia; I'm looking specifically at the claim made by previous editors to Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia that Conservapedia has factual errors. I currently consider this a sufficiently verified claim.

If there must be an agenda or conspiracy behind my actions here, it is this: I want to improve Wikipedia in whatever small ways I can as an individual editor, and I want to come to understand the conflict between conservatives and liberals better. I don't consider myself either, and you'd find that my political inclinations really don't line up consistently with either general ideology. If you're interested in any particular examples, let me know and I can post a few on my user page here. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 21:15, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: Sir, you call yourself "Oneforlogic", but you haven't even quoted my concise reply in a logical matter. Read it again, and then read your quote of "'both' citations." Hopefully you can see yourself the flaw in your analysis of my straightforward reply.

: The broader point is this: Wikipedia's biased smear of Conservapedia is unsupported by the citations and contrary to logic, yet you now defend it primarily because another editor at Wikipedia wants it to stay. Alas, that is the essence of liberal bias on Wikipedia. Wikipedia bias is not a conspiracy; it's bullying by liberals until others simply give in because they don't care to oppose it. Needless to say, Conservapedia editors are cut from a different cloth: we do care about the truth and we don't allow here the smears, half-truths, and gossip that plague Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:: If I may ask, the page on Barack Obama starts off with the claim that he wasn't born in Hawaii (http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert is a scan of his birth certificate), claims that he is islamic and makes use of a number of smears, half truths, and repeating of gossip. If it is as important as you say that these things are not allowed on Conservapedia, who should we see about getting the page unlocked and rewritten in an honest and truthful manner? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:33, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

::: "Rutm", your comment is off-topic because the issue here is Wikipedia bias and Conservapedia accuracy. Our entry about Obama is accurate and your comment is misleading in claiming that our Obama entry is otherwise. Proper questions have been raised by an objective Israeli news service about the authenticity and type of Obama's birth certificate (why is the certificate number blotted out, for example, which would reflect the time the certificate was issued?). Also, "Rutm", as I've indicated before, your insulting name is getting tiresome. Request a change to your real first name and last initial or your account will be blocked, and you can push your liberal POV on Wikipedia instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Excuse me for being unable to reply more quickly, Aschafly, as someone seems to have blocked my normal account. So you meant “both” as in “the citations fail to meet both objectives” instead of “both citations fail to meet the objectives”. You know as well as I do that these are equally valid interpretations. My apologies for being such a liberal idiot that I picked the wrong one.

::::So, to be clear, instead of having an honest and open discussion of the other editor’s views and thoughts on his work, you would have me arbitrarily remove it without discussing it? That is completely contrary to the purpose of a wiki-based project. The wiki format only really works if people collaborate and discuss their differences, openly and publicly. You’ve made it clear that you are not comfortable with any working conditions in which you exercise less than complete control. I even offered to defend ''your side'' in this issue and you still brand me as your enemy by locking out my account.

::::I really did hope to learn about conservatives and their conflicts with liberals here. And, in a way, I guess I still did. I already knew that radical liberals could be hostile and repressive toward people with views they disagree with, now I know that radical conservatives are just as bad. It’s kind of ironic that in that way, at least, the two extremes are exactly alike. Signed, [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]], aka [[User:OneAgainstRepression|OneAgainstRepression]] 13:42, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Ok, another idea, since you probably still need convincing on my good intentions, let's talk about an interesting caveat in Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Contrary to popular opinion, WP:NPOV indicates that all majority or large minority views on an issue should be presented in the relevant article, preferably in proportion to their level of support. It does not state that only neutral views should be presented. I imagine you had already read such policies carefully, but it's good to remember for context. So, to prove my goodwill, do you know of a source that supports Conservapedia's factual accuracy? If you do, post a link on my talk page and I will add mention of it to the Wikipedia article and defend the source if/when it is removed. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 22:02, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 4: Liberal Criticism'''

I believe that any liberal bias present in Wikipedia is far less systematic than Conservapedia admins would have us believe, but I’m not going to go read every Wikipedia article to try to evaluate such a general claim. More specifically, the article on Debbie Riddle is fairly short, so the ‘free education comes from Russia’ quote will easily dominate the article until it is expanded. I highly doubt that any Wikipedia editor would object to more information on her accomplishments being added. Chuck Schumer’s article does indeed speak favorably of him at several points; there is a healthy discussion of the article’s neutrality in the discussion page. I’ll look for sources critical of the senator and add them to that discussion soon. Of course, any and all Conservapedia users are welcome to do the same.

'''Issue 5: Obama’s selection as an editor on the Harvard Law Review'''

Your own source makes this issue clear; in 1982, the Review adopted a policy that allowed editors to consider race while selecting new editors but did not provide for specific racial quotas. This source does discuss a short-lived quota-like policy, created in 1981, that was quickly replaced by the much less specific 1982 racial consideration policy. It cannot be clearly established how much this policy contributed to Obama’s selection as an editor, and as the Wikipedia article in question does not and should not focus on the specific policies of the Review, it seems acceptable to me that this article does not highlight this policy.

'''Issue 6: Censorship'''

The Wikipedia article on censorship does need to be expanded by an expert. I am not familiar with any specific cases of prayer, pro-life advertisements, or conservative newspapers being successfully censored, but I know that attempts to censor these things are made and they should be mentioned in the article. Let me know if any of you know of good sources of more detailed information on this kind of censorship. However, the article does discuss the issue of censoring discussion of creationism in public schools. The article indicates that many religious groups feel that not being allowed to teach creationism is censorship; it goes on to reference two court cases that established, first, that teaching creationism is equivalent to promoting the Christian faith and is illegal in public schools, and second, that intelligent design is a form of creationism. Regardless of your opinion on these issues, the Wikipedia article does cite and explain (in separate articles) the relevant court cases, which seems to me to be a completely legitimate way to discuss censorship of intelligent design.

'''Issue 7: Smearing Conservapedia'''

Wikipedia’s article on Conservapedia appears to have been discussed and improved a lot in recent months, and I would consider the current version ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=221432211 13:49, 24 June 2008]) to be at least decently written and sourced. Wikipedia’s article no longer cites that particular New York Times source. There are, indeed, a great many sources that criticize Conservapedia as biased or just plain humorous, and I have not yet found any sources of serious support for Conservapedia. If any of you know of such a source, it may be worth adding to Wikipedia’s article. You may be technically correct that criticisms of Conservapedia’s factual accuracy, specifically, are rare, but that would only be because so many of the critical articles out there just skip straight to denouncing Conservapedia as a joke and don’t really seriously analyze it. Whether this is fair and proper or not is a separate debate. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 10:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Issue 8: Homosexual Agenda'''

The Wikipedia article on Robert Maplethorpe does mention criticism of his “sexually-charged photographs of black men” and the “racial undertones of [his] imagery”; this article could benefit from being expanded generally, and a reference to the biographer cited here could be a useful addition. The Wikipedia article on the American Family Association’s section on the group’s anti-Semitism now has many citations, most of which seem to legitimately support their claims. It is possible that some of these are recent additions.

Regarding the alleged “homosexual agenda” in general: I believe that both sides are handling this issue badly. The anger and indignation on both sides become harder and harder to calm as the conflict goes on. There are always moderate solutions to be found if both sides are willing to look for them and negotiate with each other. Being "anti-gay" and "anti-Christian" are both pointless positions; the average viewpoint of society will, inevitably, end up somewhere between the extremes.

I'll continue to add more as I have time to do so.

== Reactions ==

I look forward to your feedback. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== There were some notable incidents in the media ==

One was the SlimVirgin/Linda Mack stuff. A lot of press. Then there was the Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland socking that for years he got away with using lots of sock puppets to spin biases in favor of illegal activity and anyone who tried to stop him was banned. This was in the media a lot, but not as much as the Linda Mack spy stuff. Then there was the Harsbara Fellowships, a group that hired people to insert biases into the encyclopedia and was led by one of their top administrators, Jayjg, though this doesn't have as much news article as the other two. Anyone else familiar with these? They are well known. I don't have any news articles right offhand, but could dig some up. It would help if others were familiar with this, too. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I forgot, Rachel Marsden, there were some stuff about this in one online newspaper. She had an affair with Jimbo Wales and so he let her have her way in her biography. Then when news about this got out, Jimbo broke up with her on-wiki, instead of telling her in person and she found out indirectly. So she then sold Jimbo's clothes he left at her apartment on ebay. One shirt even had a peculiar white stain on it. I forgot if Jimbo Wales also is still married, but I think he is. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
: This article is ''examples of bias'' in Wikipedia. I think you want the [[Wikipedia]] article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:21, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Six times==
I'm sorry, but this is funny. One of the accusations of bias is that Wikipedia states "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." However further down the ''same page'' I find "twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative". That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.".

The latter calculation is of such astonishing naivity, and so laughable in it's lack of rigor, that it is totally unsurprising that Wikipedia ridicules it. If we allow statements like this we deserve to be the object of derision. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Aschlafly==
Hi Aschlafly. I notice you just undid some changes I made to this page to reflect a) a logical inconsistency and b) something that was no longer true of Wikipedia. Would you like to explain what the problem was with my edits? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:53, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Barak Obama==
I removed some stuff about Barak Obama being selected as Harvard Law Editor on racial grounds. There was no reference to back it up, so it is not verifiable according to the Conservapedia commandments. The only reference described the affirmative action system of selection, but did not say that Obama benefitted from it (the description makes it clear that only about 20% of people selected are on the basis of affirmative action). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 09:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Title of the article==
I was reading the manual of style, and it says "Titles should be in lowercase except for proper nouns". Shouldn't "bias" be lowercased? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Expelled" the only WP movie article which includes the phrase "nominal dollars" ==

Parenthetical statement in the second sentence of the second paragraph [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed here]. I Googled "nominal dollars" for WP articles [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=frT&q=%22nominal+dollars%22+site:wikipedia.org&start=0&sa=N&filter=0 here] and found that the only movie that shows up is ''Expelled''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#.22In_nominal_dollars.3F.22 My complaint] against the use of the phrase has been met with lackluster defenses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:So I went ahead and added the same phrase into the top 5 documentary films' articles on WP just to see what would happen. Two of the edits remain untouched. Two have been relegated to the status of being turned into bottom-of-the-page reference note. The last one resulted in a disagreement between other editors whether or not the phrase could be applied to such a new movie (''An Inconvenient Truth''), with the deletion of the phrase winning out so far. Let the record show that ''Expelled'' is newer than ''An Inconvenient Truth''. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Wikidrama due to anti-ID bias ==

A request for arbitration regarding the behavior of an anti-ID editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin here], which resulted in his threat to leave, his leaving and then his immediate return and the other anti-ID editor named leaving. In fact, lots of the anti-ID editors are involved. I believe it's all an extension of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design this]. As long as ID is treated as it is on Wikipedia, this will continue to be a perfect storm of contempt, bias and controversy. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 02:25, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Should out-n-out fraud be considered bias in Wikipedia?==

Or maybe just to common. That story of the fired WP editor, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257340,00.html , Fox News, Wikipedia Editor Out After False Credentials Revealed, March 8, 2007</ref> --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:20, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:Kind of old. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

== WP "Quote-mining" article nothing more than an anti-Creationism hit piece ==

Check it out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining here]. Also see the discussion page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quote_mining here]. Lots of claims of this supposedly being a "well-documented" practice among Creationists, but little if any evidence of that is provided. Try to edit the article to reflect this fact and the evolutionist cabal is quick to revert it under false pretenses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:54, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Username "ChristianityMeansFreedom" judged to be "profane, disruptive, or otherwise inappropriate" ==

Holy cow! I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it for my own eyes.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianityMeansFreedom Block message on user page]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=223450235#Disruptive_editor_User:ChristianityMeansFreedom Admin noticeboard history]

The guy's edits weren't even that horrible. Certainly not vandalism. They might have taken some time to discuss the edits with the user, but they judged the user name to be offensive. Right. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:10, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:That user was blocked for his provocatively anti-semitic edits, not his name. Perhaps he should have stuck to posting his right wing garbage over on the [[Stormfront]] forums. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:19, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::But that's not the reason given for blocking him. And I looked at his edits. I saw nothing that was obviously anti-Semitic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:30, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::It says in very clear letters: '''"This account has been blocked indefinitely because it has become apparent that the account is only being used for vandalism."''' The fact that the name could be further construed as an anti-semitic sentiment, given the edit history of the vandal, was mentioned as an additional support for the user account being blocked. The discussion on the admin board is about his propensity for altering articles dealing with Christianity and Judaism to make digs at Jews and Judaism. And they're blatantly obvious. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:49, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Jinxmchue you said "I saw nothing that was obviously anti-Semitic". Did you not see this one here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=211498797]
or do you not think it is anti-semitic? A quick glance through his contributions show them almost all to be anti-semitic [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=ChristianityMeansFreedom&namespace=&year=&month=-1]--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 11:03, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

== Antisemitism in the New Testament? ==

This is cleanly mislead, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_New_Testament]. All I found is people got wrong ideas. I was thinking about adding to the list, but I'm not sure, yet. --[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 21:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia acknowledges all subjects and opinions. Conservapedia does not. Hmmm, which one is biased? ==

TSIB. Step back a minute & think about what you are really objecting to in Wikipedia. What you perceive as bias is the exact opposite. Wikipedia explores all subjects and acknowledges diverse attitudes to them, without jumping to conclusions. It maintains a neutral point of view, since any additions have to be backed up with reliable evidence. You may choose to regard this as "liberal bias", but that is only because Wikipedia does not censor and interpret its subjects as Conservapedia does. Conservapedia does not even pretend to have a neutral point of view. It wears its bias on its sleeve and openly propogates intolerant viewpoints. And it's for this exact reason that Conservapedia, unlike Wikipedia, will never be regarded as a factual or "trustworthy" reference source by the wider community. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 20:43, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
:Please read [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Everything you level as accusations is freely admitted and explained. And incidentally, Wikipedia is not regarded as a factual or trustworthy reference source by most educators and experts. Try to use it as a source on a term paper and you will more than likely get called on it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Of course wikipedia is not a "trustworthy" reference with regards to the scientific/academic community, and by no means is CP. Any website that is openly editable is inherently un-trustowrthy for academia. Wikipedia, however, is a trustworthy reference for the average user, the user who wants a good overview of the subject in question, the user that wants the facts with as little bias or spin as possible. Wikipedia never claims to be an academic resource (and no decent academic would ever consider it as such, even in highschool, wikipedia is never considerd a "citable" source) but rather a means to get the "gist" of a topic and a gateway to more reliable sources. Do not try and put words in the wikipedia mission statement. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 11:13, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== John Edwards ==
Wikipedia is getting hammered over its censorship of the “John Edwards love child” story [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal] [http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2052379/posts] [http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/]. This story has a gossipy feel and Conservapedia discourages gossip. However, several different outlets have reported it. I think it should be included as an example of wiki’s bias, but would like to know what other people think because of the gossipy nature of the story. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 21:33, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
:An entry I made about John Edwards was deleted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=493702&oldid=493701]. This nature of this story is gossipy, but this page is primarily about bias in wikipedia. It’s worth mentioning that wikipedia allows gossipy stories with no credible sources about McCain because he is a Republican, but censors a similar credible story about Edwards because he is a Democrat. Is there a way the entry could be reworded so that it is acceptable? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 18:36, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:: You're so right that Wikipedia promotes gossip about conservatives, but immediately deletes it about liberals. This does illustrate Wikipedia's liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:After the John Edwards hotel story became common knowledge, some wikipedia editors attempted to add it to his page. However, a wikipedia administrator deleted that information and locked the page to prevent the story from being included [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&diff=228426613&oldid=228425805]. Locking the pages of liberals when critical stories appear about them in the media is standard operating procedure at wikipedia. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 22:05, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::As of the time I'm writing this, Wikipedia's article on Edwards [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Edwards&oldid=228904206#2008_Presidential_campaign has]:
::"In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards' chances for the vice presidency were harmed by allegations published in The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage, and that he had recently visited the child's mother at the Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California.[59][60][61] Edwards refused to comment on the allegations, stating "I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that."[62]"
::So now that the ''real'' non-tabloid media has gotten to that story, editors have accepted addition of this information as long as this isn't given undue weight. Whew, we just got saved from another stigma on this page! Now, I'd like to make it clear that me & most other WP editors frown upon tabloids (e.g. ''National Enquirer'', ''New York Post'', ''The Sun'') as sources. Regarding "gossip about conservatives": what suddenly came to my mind was that infamous ''[[New York Times]]'' article that accused [[John McCain]] of having an affair with Vicki Iseman. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&oldid=228831017 WP's article on McCain] makes absolutely no mention of Iseman, but it ''is'' mentioned in WP's article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_The_New_York_Times&oldid=222054349#John_McCain-lobbyist_article_criticism "Criticism of The New York Times"].--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 20:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Furthermore, Wikipedia tries hard [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.nationalenquirer.com not to source] the ''NatEnq'' in articles. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 20:20, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreeing with this article==
I have to disagree with the statements made in this article, mainly because the people who are writing it have a strong conservative bias, (it seems to assume that all liberals are wrong and immoral, and that their opinions aren't valid) and that Wikipedia cannot be perfect. There is not a single entity that creates, reviews, and edits articles, it is millions of people across the globe. With that kind of userbase, bias will be inevitable. It is up to others to notice and repair that bias, as long as they add a properly sourced opinion for the other side, and that they keep original opinions intact. You see, if YOU spot bias, YOU can fix it. For example, for #11, just go fix it! The biography is a valid source, since it is a book and had to be published which has far less margin for error than, let's say, a blog. So just edit the article to say that some claim he is racist, cite the source, leave the so-called "liberal" opinion so it isn't conservatively biased, and you're done! Bias eliminated. A bias is favoring an opinion, whether it be "right" or "wrong", and lack of bias is showing all opinions. Conservapedia has a strong conservative bias, and it should recognize that, and understand that right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder, and understand the opinions of liberals and why they hold them, even if they disagree. [[User:Jedibob5|Jedibob5]] 15:46, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

: No, "right and wrong is" NOT "in the eye of the beholder," and Wikipedia is ruled by a liberal mob. Trying to fix something there is like trying to reason with a lynch mob. I think several of our points demonstrate what happens when someone tries to correct the bias to certain entries.

: It takes affirmative steps, like laws and even-handed enforcement of them, to prevent lynch mobs from forming. Wikipedia does nothing to curb the bias that even you admit is inevitable.

: As to Conservapedia, it discloses its point of view. Wikipedia should be honest and do the same.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:53, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

::First point, Liberals think that their ideas are "right", and conservatives are "wrong", and conservatives think the exact same thing about liberals. All right and wrong is is an opinion in itself. For instance, I believe that abortion, for instance, is wrong, since it kills a child, while another person over there might think that my ideas are wrong, and that outlawing abortion would strip freedom of choice from women. So the definitions of right and wrong are different from person to person, so really, they are "in the eye of the beholder."

::Second point, lynch mobs? WP goes by consensus when there's a conflict, but you can't compare that to a lynch mob. The United States of America does that during an election, which elects those who will make decisions in our government based on consensus, and the ancient Romans decided on consensus as well back when they were a republic. Lynch mobs act on their own sense of vigilante justice, and care not for consensus.

::Third point, "Wikipedia does nothing to curb the bias that even you admit is inevitable." Well, I don't really think that Conservapedia can really say that they do either, can they? And what WP does about curbing this is relying on the editors to do the corrections. Pointing out bias doesn't mean that Wikipedia condones it, it just means no one has got around to fixing it.

::If you try to blame Wikipedia for being liberally biased, all you are doing is blaming the editors, who, invariably, have different opinions. WP cannot be blamed for the stuff that gets put on it, since WP does not put it on there, editors do. [[User:Jedibob5|Jedibob5]] 12:13, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Just because everyone subjectively '''thinks''' that they are right (after all, how can one possibly believe something and simultaneuously consider that belief wrong?) that doesn't make right and wrong subjective. Some issues truly can be called matters of opinion (i.e. not right or wrong, and no real "incorrect" either). However the "conservative" position (& therefore CP's '''acknowledged''' position) is that right & wrong are objective, absolute issues. The "liberal" position of existentialism (which you apparently subscribe to) is ''practiced'' (sort of) on WP but not acknowledged. Ironically, subscribing to the existenitalist/subjective view disallows you from disagreeing with conservative/objective view.

:::Also, you idealise WP somewhat - and reveal a sizable dose of naivetee - if you truly believe what you posted about "consensus" and "no one has got around to fixing it". As one who has seriously attempted to "fix it" and to build consensus I can tell you that that is simply not how WP works, which is what most of the items in this article demonstrate. You also falsely separate WP from its editors; WP ''is'' the body of its editors/admins/oversight. They write the articles, they write the guidelines, they write the policies, they mediate and arbitrate disputes, they grant and remove editor rights.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

==Baraminology==
"The Wikipedia entry on baraminology (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist. [6]"

Interestingly, that doesn't seem to be what the Wikipedia article said as of 07:21, 25 July 2008:

<blockquote>Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[13] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[14] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[15] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact.[16] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[17]</blockquote>

As far as I'm aware, the lack of peer-revied scientific research claim is correct, and worth noting. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:57, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I have read somewhere (I don't remember where, so I can't cite it) that there has been one peer-reviewed research study on baraminology that has been published so far. [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 09:32, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

==Curse the darkness, or light a candle?==

I've got to thinking, why do we curse the darkness when we could just light a candle? Instead of coming here to complain about examples of bias on Wikipedia, why not just edit them out when you find them? [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:34, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

: Because that has been attempted by many of us, only to find the edits diluted or censored and bias reinserted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:20, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Founder of The Weather Channel removed from Category:Global Warming skeptics==

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&diff=232272809&oldid=227980118

100+ scientists, and other global warming skeptics were removed from the category:Global Warming skeptics, because wikipedia decided to delete the category -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 21:57, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: Fascinating, Deborah. Perhaps that should be made into a point here somehow. Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, the reason why Wikipedia decided to delete the category was that its "overcategorization" guideline [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Overcategorization&oldid=233793984#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue discourages] categorizing people by personal opinions on certain subjects.

== Pinochet and Castro ==
While the part about Castro is worth mentioning, we shouldn't exactly be quick to defend Pinochet. After 9/11 when they were investigating all sorts of money laundering schemes, the United States Senate discovered a huge network of money laundering accounts run by Pinochet and Sen. [[Norm Coleman]] referred to him in the [http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=233631 same report] as "a well-known human rights violator and violent dictator." It would be better to leave Pinochet out of the bullet point and focus on Castro. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:24, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== POV on this ==

I think this article's tone should be edited. It tries to slam liberals on everything, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. I do agree that something needs to be done though.
[[User:RussellSprouts|RussellSprouts]] 20:51, 10 September 2008 (EDT) (Sorry forgot to sign)
==Misrepresentations==
I don't expect anything to change, but I feel I should point out a few problems with this page nevertheless:
:2: [deletion of GW skeptics category] The category was deleted because it was poorly defined, not to whitewash. The weather channel guy's article still makes clear his opinion on the subject.
:3: [Claims in the Gardisil article] The claims are backed up by reliable sources. Until they are contradicted by other reliable sources, I'm not sure what one would expect to do about this.
:8: [Removal of claims about John Edwards] The Edwards affair was left out when the only source was the Enquirer, which WP does not consider reliable (for obvious reasons). It was added in very short order, and now the affair has an article of its own [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair].
:9: [Cold fusion] Cold fusion is controversial, and the article makes no claim that it has been successfully carried out. I fail to see what "liberal" about cold fusion. If it can be performed, it would solve a great proportion of the world's energy problems. That is not a partisan issue.
:11: [Avoiding the word "controversy" for liberals] The Jane Fonda article has sections clearly labeled "Vietnam War Controversy" and "Hanoi Jane".
:12 and 16 are basically redundant, and inaccuracies on Conservapedia are cited.
:20: [Article on gun politics] The phrase in question is a caption for a photograph, the photograph is not provided as "proff" for anything. The fact that the right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights shows that guns were a political issue.
:21: [Expelled as a propaganda film] The film is no longer in that category.
:50: [North American Union] There is now an article on this.
There many are others that aren't even worth addressing, though I feel I should mention the BCE issue, as it if oft cited. If you have any questions about the preferred use, type "4 BCE" into the search box at Wikipedia and see what you are redirected to. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 12:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

===Improvements?===
Over the past month or so I've also tried improving certain wikipedia entries based on some concerns raised by editors of this page.
*[[Marcus Borden]]: Since the section regarding the controversy over his prayer wasn't sourced, I researched on it and rewrote based on sourced. Additionally, I removed the biased language in question and instead focused on showing the reader the facts. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Brunswick_Public_Schools&oldid=233151082#Football_coach_prayer_controversy]
*[[James Monroe]]: I added this: "During his presidency, Congress demanded high subsidies for internal improvements, such as for the Cumberland Road.[2] Monroe vetoed the Cumberland Road Bill, which provided for yearly improvements to the road, because he believed it to be "unconstitutional" for the government to pass such a bill.[3]"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=238834883#Policies]
*Philadelphia lawyer: Clarified that the Zenger case merely ''inspired'' the term.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philadelphia_lawyer&oldid=229926894]--[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 21:47, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Also regarding some other issues raised on this talk page and the main page:
*Profanity: The profanity policy I provided states that profanity in quotes can never be censored. Most of the time it's okay to paraphrase a quote that contains a profanity for the sakes of taste, and sometimes it's absolutely necessary to include uncensored profanity when all other choices are lost (i.e. the title of some vulgar songs).
*Bias for evolution and against intelligent design, without disclosing? Actually Wikipedia has FAQ pages regarding why articles about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution/FAQ evolution] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ intelligent design] are written that way; it's that Wikipedia is following the scientific consensus accepting evolution and rejecting ID. I recall Aschlafly stating on a talk page that "Wikipedia should imply its POV" just like Conservapedia [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|does]] too.
*[[Benazir Bhutto]] and abortion: Bhutto's pro-life stance was added on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benazir_Bhutto&diff=196024457&oldid=195739121 March 5, 2008] and remained on the article afterwards. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 17:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== Cause of Bias -- Lack of Oversight? ==

I have recently been concerned over an extreme bias shown by Wikipedia editors on the English version of their web page describing the Falun Gong [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_gong] cult. This cult originated in China and has been the subject of many debates regarding how the Falun Gong followers have been treated by the Chinese government. What caught my attention is that there are material facts about the cult which are not discussed on the Wikipedia page. Digging into the mystery of the omissions, I examined the related "Discussions" page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong]. I found that others have raised the issue of bias and missing information. However, the moderators refuse to allow any information critical of the Falun Gong onto the main page. For example, Falun Gong teaches that its practitioners can gain super-human powers such as levitation and clairvoyance and that there are two-billion year-old nuclear reactors in Africa [http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2922644]. Of course, there are more concerning omissions from the Wikipedia site than these strange beliefs. Their leader, Li Hongzhi, a former government grain department clerk and amateur trumpet player, claims demons and extraterrestrials are everywhere and that practitioners truly adhering to the cult's principles won't be hurt as much when hit by speeding cars as they otherwise would [http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2922644].

Instead, all that is said of the cult is that it is so harmless and pure. I have tried posting my concerns on the Wikipedia discussions page in recent days. My posts were deleted within minutes of submitting. This is frightening in that there are some individuals who rely on Wikipedia, for good or for ill, as a reliable source of information.
==DOMA and Prop 8==
Quick FYI. by law, in a FEDERAL government like ours, the definition of marriage is for the states to do, as it should be. Some states allow girls to marry at 14, others at 16, and others at 18. some states have the same ages for boys to marry as for girls. Still other states they are different ages. As a conservative, it's important to me that the Federal government does not overstep its authority to regulate things and become "big government". (this comment, by the way, has nothing to do with the prop 8 election which is exactly where this issue belongs. in the hands of the '''voters''' of each state! (ie, not the COURTs which like to step in)--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 15:39, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

: JeanJacques, you're entitled to your opinion, but your preface "as a conservative" is misplaced. The overwhelming percentage of conservatives do support DOMA. What's next, for you to say that "as a conservative" you're "pro-choice"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:19, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Pope XIII? ==

Isn't that just simple vandalism? Vandalism ''you could have fixed'' instead of rambling here about how Wikipedia professes hatred by mockingly creating pages linking to him? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 18:14, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Is it vandalism? How can we be so sure about that noncited accusation of AlanS? 'I could have changed', I wouldn't contribute to them if you paid me. It is a pattern, ranked too darn high (no. 3), must have been there along time with the help of enabler and collaborator Google. Just change it, just vandalism Alan says. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 18:25, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:I think he meant it was vandalism at WP, not here. It seems to be a bunch of non-registered user who keep vandalizing it, but people seem to change it back often. As for not contributing, well, I suppose the "light a candle or curse the darkness" quote kind of applies. We probably shouldn't cite the WP article itself, since it doesn't always support the point. Maybe cite one of the differences instead? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 18:37, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: It was there all of nine days, as one can easily see from the history. That is not "along [sic] time". It's nothing more than vandalism of the Wikipedia redirect. And AlanS is right: you ''could'' have fixed it. That you ''choose'' not to doesn't change that fact. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:: We've discussed how Wikipedia will leave up some "vandalism", while reverting others. It's an example of Wikipedia's bias how some vandalism will remain while others are reverted immediately. You can bet many editors saw that edit during the nine days it remained, and left it there. It's irrelevant whether an outsider could have reverted it; the point here is to illustrate the bias of the editors who run Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::: It was a redirect page. Very few editors have redirect pages on their watchlist. Vandalism to a redirect page could go unnoticed for some time. Furthermore, it was vandalism by an IP, so there is no basis for saying that the editors who "run" Wikipedia had anything to do with it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Many editors in control of Wikipedia watch the recent changes and revert nearly all vandalism immediately. But as this (and other) examples illustrate, some liberal vandalism is left unreverted by those editors.

:::: This is a clear example of liberal bias at Wikipedia. Admittedly, bias-by-omission is slightly more abstract than bias-by-action, but the point is precisely the same and it's a mistake to exclude this type of illustration of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: I didn't realise that Superman was an editor in control of Wikipedia. In about the last four minutes, there's been about 500 changes to Wikipedia (about two edits per second) so I have trouble understanding how they could possibly even read the recent changes list, let alone check out every edit. So no, although I totally agree that there is "liberal" bias at Wikipedia, this is not a clear example of it. On the contrary, it's a lousy example of it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Update, somebody changed Bill Oreilly/ Wikipedia link on Google. Still listed number three, still providing a link url of Pope Pius, still linking to Bill's article. Page title changed to Bill Oreilly instead Pope Pius. Still disrespectful, if somebody corrects I can monitor if it returns.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:14, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::: I don't think that's changed at all. Google indexing entries are created automatically; they don't have people changing them manually (well, not for 99.9999% of them). The Google cache shows that it was indexed on 22nd October, during the time Wikipedia's redirect page pointed to Bill Oreilly, which was the case before, so although I don't recall the actually date of it before, I'd say it hasn't changed at all. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:34, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

== If you think wikipedia is biased towards liberals... ==

Why don't you work to fix it? It's nobody's fault but your own, because instead of actively going out and making changes to wikipedia (which is the point of wikipedia), you just sit on your [] and complain about it.
[[User:Bibendum|Bibendum]] 21:37, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:That has been asked and answered numerous times on this page, I believe. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:Because I'm feeling helpful, and I just had this same question: here's a thread from the archives that might shed some light: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia/Archive6#Take_a_step_back]. Enjoy! --[[User:Xanthippe|Xanthippe]] 00:02, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks, I knew it was there somewhere. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== 'Chain of being' ==

<s>RodWeathers reinstated the 'consciousness' entry with the edit comment "''Evolution requires a 'chain of being,' including varying consciousness''". I would like to know what this means and how it addresses the concerns with this entry already explained earlier on this page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 29 October 2008 (EDT)</s>

: Philip, did you post this here by accident?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Ummm, yep. It should have been on the [[Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution]] page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:31, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

== Fairness ==

If there is a page on bias on Wikipedia, than why isn't there something similar on Conservapedia? One of your sysops admitted that Conservapedia has a conservative bias. If this site is to be trustworthy and unbiased, there should be such a page.--[[User:DM333|DM333]] 20:53, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== NAS ==
Articles associated with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Scholars "National Association of Scholars"] are often a target of bias from [[liberal]] tag-team gangs. Ever since I read his book [http://books.google.com/books?id=NN7E3r_w09IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Myth+of+the+scientific+method&ei=iehDSf6nCY3WlQSNkdjGDg ''...the Myth of the Scientific Method''], I've always had a great deal of respect for the author/scientist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Bauer Henry H. Bauer]. The Bauer page is one example of an article associated with NAS on wikipedia. Others can be found by looking through the links to the Bauer and to NAS articles: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Henry_H._Bauer&limit=500] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/National_Association_of_Scholars&limit=500]. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 12:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Here's a link to a much earlier version of the NAS article right before it was mauled by [[liberal]]s: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Association_of_Scholars&diff=202363151&oldid=202337351 "National Association of Scholars" (unbiased)] --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 13:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== What Lies by Wikipedia about Conservapedia? ==

according to the first entry; "Wikipedia's entry about Conservapedia contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence"

what are the "Four Unsupported Smears"? I read the first sentence, and it seems reasonable to me.

: If you don't see the smears, then I'm afraid that is most informative about your viewpoint.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:12, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::I don't really agree. the first sentence contains statements of fact. YEC, american etc. I don't wee what is a smear about that. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 20:08, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::: The four terms in the first sentence are pejorative, particularly with respect to Wikipedia's audience. "right-wing"??? Please. The first sentence is also unsupported and unjustified, and thereby violates Wikipedia's own rules. We do not impose a point of view here.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:25, 14 December 2008 (EST)
::::"''Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a young earth creationist, Americentric, right-wing and Conservative Christian point of view.''" Lets review the claims.
::::1. English Language -- true
::::2. wiki based -- true
::::3. Web encyclopedia project -- true
::::4. Young Earth Creationist -- We at least support the YEC position
::::5. Americentric -- maybe.
::::6. right-wing -- I think so. If we created a visual representation of the political spectrum, where would CP land?
::::7. Conservative Christian --I don't see this one as a negative, and if we aren't then we should be.
::::The claims may or may not be strictly true, but I think that from the outside, they appear to be.
::::What about the POV that Obama is a muslim? we impose that one pretty strictly. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 20:59, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Apart from the negative tone of the wikipedia lede (lead), it misses the mark. The connotation is off. Happens a lot with wikipedia articles. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 21:18, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:::::In furtherance of Rick's observation, Tim, you apparently misunderstand this project and do not describe it accurately. We provide the truth and do not "impose" any point of view. If you can find any statement by me, or other Bureaucrat, or even senior Admin, that supports your claims above (#4-7), then I'd like to see it. I don't think it exists, and Wikipedia offers no support for its smear. I suggest you retract your unsupported claims, just as Wikipedia should.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:40, 14 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Schlafly, if Conservapedia is not right-wing, what is it? I'm actually really confused right now. [[User:SJames|SJames]] 19:56, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: Wikipedia doesn't say that "Conservapedia" is a "conservative encyclopedia" as the name suggests. Instead, Wikipedia tries to smear Conservapedia with unjustified, pejorative terms that is ''not'' representative of the name, the rules, or the content. This is a clear example of how Wikipedia does insist on a liberal and unsupported POV to smear people. See the main page for yet another recent example.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:16, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::What is the difference between being conservative and being right-wing? Its seems this site uses Liberal and Left-wing pretty much interchangeably, I would assume that right and left refer to the political spectrum. --[[User:TuckerM|TuckerM]] 21:21, 15 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::SJames, you'd do yourself a favor if you opened your mind and learned from this site. 2+2=4 is not "right wing," and neither is the truth you'll find here. But you have free will to deny both, so suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::Not to worry, my mind is open. I understand right-wing may incorporate some of the far-right extremists, but to me, the terminology in itself carries no negative connotations. It's just reference to one half of the political spectrum. It's like the Boston Celtics objecting to being referred to as an "Eastern Conference team" because they don't want to be associated with the likes of the Charlotte Bobcats or the general inferiority of the Eastern Conference (though this year has been different!). My point is that there is no need to be defensive about it. If people ask me, "Are your beliefs on the right-wing?", I'll answer without taking offense, "Yes" and then clarify, "--Conservative Christian". [[User:SJames|SJames]] 14:53, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::I personally dont find the words wikipedia uses inaccurate (they are most certainly true), and i really feel the words there have negative connotations (nothing negative in right-wing to me or the others) but thats certainly subjective. --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 21:01, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::I'm curious now too: ''why is it'' called Conservapedia then? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 20:58, 15 December 2008 (EST)

::::::You Don't try to impose any Point of View? Thats Funny, because I had stuff deleted on here earlier and was temporarily blocked from editing.
::::::And I don't get what you are saying is misleading or smearing in there? Are you trying to argue that this wiki isn't from a Right-wing, Conservative Christian, YEC and Americentric Point of View? Its called CONSERVAPEDIA for Allah's Sake! That was the point I was trying to get across in the beginning from asking this question, not to be a jerk and get my stuff deleted and banned or whatever. --[[User:PatF|PatF]] 22:11, 14 December 2008 (EST)

==Lawrence Solomon==
Lawrence Solomon, the author of the 2008 book [[The Deniers]], wrote back in April 2008 an editorial piece titled [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/4/18/hide-your-name-on-wicked-pedia-solomon.aspx "Hide your name on Wicked Pedia: Solomon"] about what newcomers to wikipedia should expect when they try to correct [[liberal]] bias. His experience was not pleasant. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 12:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Article on Biblical Criticism==
In wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism Biblical Criticism] the [[Oxford Univeristy]]-Press-published referenced section regarding those who are interested in biblical criticism and hold to supernatural beliefs was removed. The phrasing of supernatural beliefs came from the [[Oxford University]] Press-Published book. Despite claims that removing well-referenced material is unacceptable, it has not been restored. It is clear that wikipedia does not enforce its "policies" on references. See here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblical_criticism&diff=259607288&oldid=259533753] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblical_criticism&diff=259236232&oldid=259205856].--[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:28, 24 December 2008 (EST)

== I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..." ==

I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race."

The citation was a link to an old revision of a Wikipedia page. The new revision DOES mention this. --[[User:Andrew1123|Andrew1123]] 17:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

==Reference Needed for Claim that Wikipedia Called Bush a Nazi==

The claim that G. W. Bush "was called a supporter of the Nazi regime" on his wikipedia page is very believable, but could someone find a reference proving it? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Is #150 really relevant? (The criticism of GWB/BHO) ==

Looking back at the history of the "Presidency of George W. Bush" article, the Criticism section was not added to the article until July 5th, 2006. If Wikipedia had a liberal bias wouldn't they have added that much sooner? BHO has been in power for less then two months, not enough time to form a valid criticism of his presidency as a whole.

:I'm sorry - and you are?
::20:34, March 9, 2009 Dparker (Talk | contribs | block) New user ‎
::20:44, March 9, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ (→Is #150 really relavent? (The criticism of GWB/BHO): new section)
:Do you have any interest here other than this issue?
:Anyway, to answer your question, the articles are not simply about criticism of the men as they acted as president. They are about them in general. B.O. has been around quite a while before January 20, 2009. Was there no criticism of him before that date? Has there been no criticism of him after it? And what, pray tell, defines criticism as "valid" or not and what is the official figure for how much time must pass for the criticism to be worthy of Wikipedia? I mean, is criticism of George W. Bush's personality - his ''personality'' for crying out loud! - valid? This is a ridiculous line from the ridiculous WP article:
:<blockquote>"Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image, which occasionally served as fodder for criticism."</blockquote>
:Oh, my dear Lord in Heaven, NOOOOOO!!!! His accent! His ranch! His metaphors! Why did we ever let such a man be president with all these valid criticisms?! Chimpeachment!
:Okay, I freely admit that was gratuitous sarcasm, but it sure felt good.
:Bottom line: the excuses people are putting forth to excuse the blatant B.O. worship and kowtowing on WP are lame and don't hold water. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

The WP articles are referenced in the "example of bias" are "Presidency of" articles, not general articles. You would know if you read them. But I guess reading an article on a site with a "liberal bias" is a lot to expect from someone here. Laying the sarcasm so thick isn't helping your argument either. If you think that line is so ridiculous then you've obviously blocked out the last eight years from your memory, not to mention that his attitude is probably the weakest criticism anyone has of GWB. Also, it should be mentioned that if that page on WP is ridiculous, then how do you describe this: [[Religion of Barack Obama]]. The rabbit hole of crazy goes really deep here.

: Your unsigned comment is incoherent. But in answer to your question, it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent" and his "ranch". Do you see similar criticisms of Obama and Ted Kennedy on Wikipedia???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Gothic architecture ==

I am confused by the entry. It is maybe linked to the wrong wikipedia article? Because right now anyway, the article "Gothic Architecture" has its whole 3rd paragraph, out of 5 in the introduction section, about churches and cathedrals. And after that, there is the section "Religious influences" which is talking about christian monastary orders. Then it does mention moslems but only to say that their architecture had pointed arches, and i agree this is bias because there is no reason to think christians did not invent pointed arches themselves, but i still think that the entry bullet point makes little sense. The article mentions christianty in the third paragraph, after maybe 100 words not 1 500. It credits Christianity first and not moslems. It mentions christians many times through out, not "never mentioning christianity again." I am not saying it is unbiased but what we say about it is incorrect in fact. And it is strange to open with this, too. The list should start with the worst, like the black-list on intelligent design and climate sceptics, the celebirty gossip, and then on. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 00:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-03-24T02:43:19Z

ELeger:

The following is a growing list of examples of '''[[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]]'''.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
#On George W. Bush's page, for few days he was called a supporter of the Nazi regime.
#Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards"<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090218.html?loc=interstitialskip</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=273538810</ref><ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/02/19/cnn-talking-heads-unanimously-praise-holders-coward-remarks</ref> when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&diff=next&oldid=274455687</ref> In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=275247574</ref>
#''Alma mater'' normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alma%20mater</ref> However, at [[Wikipedia]], the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=272581018</ref> [[Sean Hannity]] attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=272201242</ref>
#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> Kirk's wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from Tony Rezko <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790</ref>, but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article</ref> Rezko donation. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979</ref> Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568</ref>
#Wikipedia smears [[conservative]] groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy</ref> usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters [[liberal]] groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[evolution]] article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position]] despite the [[evolution|evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it]].
#Wikipedia's entry about the [[Christian]] martyr at [[Columbine]] refuses to admit that she was murdered by an [[atheist]] as she was expressing her [[faith]] in [[God]], as confirmed by multiple witnesses.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall</ref><ref>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm</ref> Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic [[public school]] students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
#Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Index]]</ref> The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
#Wikipedia's entry on the [[Scopes trial]] downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury '''only''' to have them come to a guilty verdict."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)</ref><ref>Thanks much to a student in our [[American_History_Lectures|American History course]] for pointing this out.</ref>
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref>
#The articles on both [[Saul Alinsky]] and his book, ''Rules for Radicals'' make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# The founder of the Weather Channel and 100's of other climatologists have been removed from the category "Global warming skeptics", which Wikipedia decided to delete.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&diff=232272809&oldid=227980118</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_7#Global_warming_and_ozone_hole_skeptics_categories</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# Wikipedia tries to smear [[conservatives]] as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for [[liberals]] who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as [[Hillary Clinton]]'s claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Compare Wikipedia's entry on [[Phyllis Schlafly]], which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</ref> with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[liberal]] [[Michael Moore]], the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[conservative]] [[Oklahoma]] legislator Sally Kern is seething with bias, unjustified smears and outright distortions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref> Wikipedia understates that over 1500 supporters rallied in support of her criticisms of the [[homosexual agenda]],<ref>http://newsok.com/article/3224704/1207238655</ref> and instead Wikipedia highlights predictable [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]] criticisms of her stance. Wikipedia then smears her with false accusations about her family and emphasizes charges that were never brought against her. If that isn't enough, the Wikipedia entry even misrepresents a bill that Kern introduced to protect "a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint"; Wikipedia relies on an anti-[[Christian]] blog to distort Kern's bill.
# The Wikipedia entry on [[baraminology]] (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</reF>
# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the [[liberal]] John Edwards,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the [[liberal]] New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Cold fusion]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Fusion</ref> presents it as a continuing controversy. [[Liberals]] hope that Cold Fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold Fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited <ref>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127</ref> Hydrino theory <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills</ref> as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
# [[Liberals]] loathe self-defense, and [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the national self-defense system of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref> Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed [[John Kerry]] for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased used of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_ref-Clarke_6-0</ref> When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, [[Wikipedia]] simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.
#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref> But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Barack Obama]] claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref> when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.<ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672 (partially explaining the race-based selection system)</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[censorship]] omits any reference to [[liberal]] censorship of [[classroom prayer]], [[pro-life]] advertisements, [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</ref> Instead, Wikipedia falsely claims that "especially [[Evangelical]]s" engage in censorship!
#[[Wikipedia]] falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's former cite to a ''[[New York Times]]'' article for support actually criticizes [[Wikipedia]] because it "does dwell on the ''idea'' that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"<ref>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ (emphasis added)</ref> Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.
#[[Wikipedia]] gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the [[homosexual agenda]], and smears those who oppose it. For example, [[Robert Mapplethorpe]] glorified [[homosexuality]] in photographs before himself dying of [[AIDS]]. His own biographer identified him as a racist, providing quotes to prove it.<ref>http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mapplethorpe_a_biography_patricia_morrisroe/</ref> Yet the [[Wikipedia]] entry about him conceals any reference to his racism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapplethorpe</ref> Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] smears the [[American Family Association]] and claims it is racist for reasons not supported by its citation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Anti-Semitism (March 2005 issue reference)</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].
#Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, [[Jimbo Wales]], is an [[atheism|atheist]], it is not particularly surprising that [[Wikipedia]] is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach [[Marcus Borden]]'s attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. [[Wikipedia]]'s biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States</ref> It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite [[John Lott]], the leading expert whose studies support guns.
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "American propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the Christian terrorism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."'' <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an extensive entry on "[[Creation]] myth".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth</ref> Describing [[Creationism]] as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage [[Christian]]s, and although the [[Evolution|theory of evolution]] satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</reF>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a [[liberal]] advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term [[liberal]] in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>
# On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref> The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref> After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] often smears [[conservatives]] with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, [[Wikipedia]] falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on [[Conservapedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but [[Wikipedia]]'s references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on [[Conservapedia]] is likely older than on [[Wikipedia]], so its smear is particularly hypocritical.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1]</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claimed that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]].
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>.
# [[Wikipedia]] lies to exaggerate the credentials of [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], falsely claiming that Dawkins "was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins</ref> In fact, [[Oxford]] recently confirmed that the "Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Richard_Dawkins</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[intelligent design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a strong bias against the [[Discovery Institute]], a prominent proponent of [[intelligent design]]. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism</ref> and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism</ref>) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
# [[Wikipedia]] displays a similar bias against the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the [[ICR Graduate School]], first in [[California]] and now in [[Texas]], relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research Institute for Creation Research] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref><ref name="tes>Schafersman," Steven. "[http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm The Institute for Creation Research and It's (''sic'') Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education]." ''Texas Citizens for Science'', December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref><ref name="rae>Bergman," Jerry. "[http://www.rae.org/ICRcase.html The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College]." ''Revolution Against Evolution'', May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy in favor of edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a wiki based web encyclopedia project with '''the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide, citing an unpublished PhD thesis at an obscure university.
# [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
# In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many [[disease]]s associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community, the higher incidences of [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
# Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other [[liberals]] in reliance on Wikipedia.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President [[George W. Bush]], then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! After this criticism was posted here, Wikipedia removed the said citation but replaced it with a few other biased citations.
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings</ref> but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL Student Successes Defy Urban Trends]" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref> Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization</ref>
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as [[atheist]]ic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, [[atheist]], agnostic, humanist, secular, other."<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Initially, in December 2006, a Wikipedia administrator named "Nearly Headless Nick" (the signature nickname for Wikipedia user "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington</ref>) deleted an entry about Conservapedia, following a discussion on the "Articles for deletion" section in which a horde of Wikipedia editors demanded and obtained deletion, claiming that the site failed a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) notability guideline for websites]".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia</ref> Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Edits to include facts against [[Evolution|the theory of evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#: The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref>. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# In a brief-lived example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. The latter was deleted after a month along with all other categories focused on the sexuality of Wikipedians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] has revived itself after a delete but is still fighting to not be deleted.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign makes no mention of her endorsement by the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas,<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58699</ref> but lists endorsements of Republican presidential candidates by the Ku Klux Klan.
#Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref>
#Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:
## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref>
## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# For a period of time (January 4, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544</ref> - April 5, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436</ref>), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
# Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia's most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Wikipropaganda On Global Warming] National Review, July 8, 2008</ref> The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia's [[Global Warming]] page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. ''"increase in the average measured [[temperature]] ... since the mid-twentieth century"'' that same paragraph "''solar variation combined with volcanoes ... and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward."'' Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? "''very likely due''" "''probably had''" or "''the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the [[IPCC]]'s main conclusions''"- unsubstantiated bias.
# Wikipedia trivializes the book ''Inventing the AIDS Virus'' by making it a redirect and never discussing it directly in the article. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventing_the_AIDS_Virus</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."
# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref>, but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).
# The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244</ref> and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954</ref>
# Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_George_W._Bush#Controversies</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there is a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_George_W._Bush</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" has been deleted ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 (most recently, March 13, 2009 at 12:10 (UTC)) with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.

==External Links==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
[[Category:Wikis]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-21T01:30:03Z

ELeger: /* Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance */

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

== Not convenient for learning ==

This is a very interesting high school project. However, I was wondering what measures the authors take to prevent stupidity from creeping into these articles? Let's not even talk about the factual correctness -- I am interested in the ability of this "encyclopedia" to present cogent paragraphs of text. Let's look at the first few sentences:

''"In 2007, Obama was rated the most liberal Senator by the National Journal, who had rated Senator John Kerry the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well."''

The construction of this sentence implies that it is Kerry's rating that provides credence to the National Journal. Is the National Journal a questionable source otherwise?

''If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.''

"would likely become" -- this phrase looks like something a recent learner of American English might write. Some examples of recent learners are Arab and Mexican immigrants. I do not see any objective explanations of the likelihood or its impact.

"could use the Koran" -- you are implying that he has the option to use the Koran to be sworn in. I don't see how this is interesting information : there are no rules of conduct during the oath. This sentence is as valuable as "could use a caribou head as a tertiary witness of the oath" -- it is not relevant and does not impact any of the other sentences in the article. I would like some detailed explanations as to why the Koran, specifically is undesirable and why it will bring forth a momentous event in American history.

''"Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet."''

Misplaced metaphor : why is "tripping over his own feet" relevant? The intent of an encyclopedia is to be informative. For a young conservative, the first two paragraphs are highly confusing and hard to read. You have to make this stuff accessible to the kids. Where are the links that specify what "tripping over his own feet" means, and why it is not desirable? An encyclopedia should be complete and sound in its logic and information. Perhaps there should be a link to an article about Tripping.

Also, when talking about a person, one needs present information in an orderly manner. For example, the Obama article should start with lines about his questionable birth, which according to an editorial in a reputed conservative website, would have not taken occurred since Obama mandates the killing of unborn babies from less than ideal circumstances, like his own. Then, it should proceed with details about his childhood in Islamic countries, and then move on to his current stature and his perception amongst the true American people.

If the intent of this website is to inform little children about the true America, then it needs to be complete and comprehensive. The quality of this article will leave kids with more confusion in their minds than they started with. This confusion will lead to a lack in curiosity and will hinder the relevance of this website. Hence, for the sake of Conservapedia project, please improve the way these paragraphs are written.

: Trueism, I think there's some credence to your argument, and the article is due for revision (or at least reorganization). I think a strong and clear organization of the article would lead to greater readability and increase interest. Put up a structure for reorganization and then maybe we can work together on focusing the article into a more cohesive piece and work out some of the grammatical issues. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

: I didn't find anything insightful in the above unsigned comment. Organization of this entry, like all others, is to prioritize the information presented in terms of importance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reprehensible ==

Citations 7, 8 and 9 in the first bit of text on the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to what appeared to be little more than anecdotal evidence based upon the observation of, I can only assume, the person who wrote this. Any teacher, lawyer, judge, etc. would throw that out in two seconds for lack of credibility. An epic failure, indeed, for Conservatives everywhere on the part of whoever wrote that intro. I have edited it out. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 17:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I reinserted the footnotes as well as the paragraph that you removed relating to them. I think that your intentions were to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true rather than things that can be inferred by the users of this website, and it doesn't always work like that. Citations 7 and 9 are inferences, not facts, but are seen as viable. If you have issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Andy.

To be honest, I think the issue you have is with the conservative point of view expressed on the page and site. If this is the case, perhaps this isn't the place for you. I'm not trying to be rude or scare you off, but I do want to explain that if you come to "Conservapedia" and don't expect to see something conservative, then you're kidding yourself.--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 17:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome it; it's the pushing of the conservative political agenda that doesn't belong in a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". But, if CP wants to keep marginalizing itself, I figure that's CP's business. I'll keep contributing either way.
:As for the subject at hand, the references are inadequate. An opinion piece and two unsupported statements. If Obama really said that regarding debates with Hillary, there should be a link or other reference showing it. As for the Saddleback Forum, surely there's a Youtube video or something. Why not link to it and let people decide for themselves whether Obama fumbled or not?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 17:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Meaning of Hussein ==

This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to do some research so we could clear it up: 1st point: According to the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd Edition (published 2006 by the Oxford University Press; authors Patrick Hanks, Kate Hardcastle, and Flavia Hodges; ISBN 0-19-861060-2) Hussein means this: " '''Husayn''' ♂ Diminutive of ''hasan'' 'good, beautiful, exquisite.' Al-Husayn (''c''.626-680) was the grandson of the Prophet, whose supporters emerged after his death as the Shiite party." Hussein is a variant of Husayn, yet it is unlisted in this dictionary. However, I think that it is apparent that this is simply a modified/altered form of the phonetic equivalent, much like Katherine/Catherine/Kathryn. Hussein/Husayn WAS the grandson of the Prophet, but to say that the name means such is akin to claiming that Mary means "Mother of Jesus." It may be a colloquial usage or have that connotative meaning, but until there is proof of that, then the entry seems to be incorrect. 2nd point: The source currently referenced (http://www.sudairy.com) displays this for the definition of Hussein: 
"'''Husain, Husayn, Hussein''' - Beautiful, doer of good deads[sic]; a descendent[sic] of the Prophet" which implies that the Oxford source is 1) more accurate as it is verifiable and edited by a trustworthy source and capable speller, and 2) "descendent[sic] of the Prophet" is in reference to the original namesake, though it is not clearly marked. If we are to trust sudairy.com as being completely accurate, however, then anyone named Hayyan, Hannad, or Nizar have the denotative travesty of meaning "Old Arabic Name." I think the entry should be changed to reflect this. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

: I don't understand. You list one of the meanings as "a descendent[sic] of the Prophet." Are you trying to imply that this is not Mohammed?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I listed the incorrect meaning as "descendent[sic] of the Prophet." This is from the website Suidairy.com, which is not an accurate source of information (my justification is the last paragraph of the first post). The definition I feel is most accurate is the Oxford one, listed above, which lists the definition as "good, beautiful, exquisite." Al-Husayn (a man, not a name) was the descendant of the prophet. For comparison, anyone named Jesus would not be assumed to be the son of God. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

== 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]]

Name calling?....where?[[User:Rkstiner|Rkstiner]]

: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)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Patriot, your argument is one of the weakest that I have ever witnessed in my life; it is biased, and it doesn't stick to facts, rather it reflects your own personal views. You strike me as one of those people who believes that if a lie is told enough it will become true. If we go by your hypothesis, Rkstiner and others are right: a Jew who doesn't attend school on Christmas is transitively a Christian...Why don't you give Ann Coulter a call? I'm sure she'd go on a date with you.

== 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)

I don't get any of the above. What does wearing a flag-pin have to do with one's loyalty to his or her country? The flag-pin evolved as an icon of the Iraq War and a lot of people, Republicans and Dems alike, do not support the war. I don't wear a flag pin, but that doesn't mean that I don't love my country. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Flag-pin evolved after 9/11 as a sign of patriotism. BO's reasons for not wearing and his change of position, plus his other anti-patriotic (see national anthem phot) are relevent.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:37, 14 October 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 Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair.

:: 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)

: A true conservative would be appalled at Wikipedia and not contribute to their cause-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:39, 12 September 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)

You have too much free time, AdmiralNelson [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 11:15, 14 October 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)

: ASchlafly is correct - Philip J. Berg is alleging that Barrack Obama forged his birth-certificate because he was not a Natural Born US citizen. [http://obamacrimes.com/ Berg vs Obama] --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 14:50, 28 September 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)

Remember when George H. W. Bush got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor by months? And he's a WWII veteran! 'Bomb' was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:14, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been some time since I last visited. Your article gives me immense pleasure to read. Imagine if Obama were headed for defeat, rather than McCain. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on McCain began,"Of dubious U.S. citizenship, 'John' McCain was allegedly born in Panama. It is not impossible and cannot be totally ruled out that the "John" refers to a propensity to patronize prostitutes, which are plentiful in that country." Would you not show the article to your colleagues in great delight? We on the left salute you. You are almost as effective in our behalf as a fundraiser. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I am a Canadian Conservative. I was surprised to see that McCain, Palin and Biden all have their official photographs on their pages, but Barack Obama has a press photo that portrays him in a negative light. Surely we can do better than that? Does this not just reinforce the feeling among undecided Americans and the rest of the world that the right has a major grudge against Obama? Perhaps because he is an African-American, etc? I am not attributing a reason why this site chose an unflattering photo of the only non-white candidate among the Big 4 in this election. It is just how it seems to an outsider. Come on, guys, he will most likely be the President in 2 weeks, let's not make that a little more likely. In case you missed it, these things just do two things:

1) for a McCain supporter, a few chuckles and comment: "right on!" comment, and
2) for an undecided voter: "woah...that's WAAAY out of line...what, so they are basically racist or what?"

3) A Democrat would not even be on this site, so their PoV is not relevant

Admin...be fair and change the picture.

== I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern... ==

# (cur) (last) 15:45, 8 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (59,707 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lodovico (Talk); changed back to last version by Ampersand) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 15:42, 8 September 2008 Lodovico (Talk | contribs) m (59,972 bytes) (Corrected information of misinterpretation) (undo)

Alright, so notice that Lodovico makes an edit, and adds sufficient reasoning for his edit in the apt column. Notice then that Andrew changes it, and doesn't even look to the talk page to provide ANY reasoning.

# (cur) (last) 23:55, 6 September 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (58,039 bytes) (Reverted edits by Chippeterson (Talk); changed back to last version by AliceBG) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 23:52, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,095 bytes) (→Senate career) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:19, 6 September 2008 Chippeterson (Talk | contribs) (58,052 bytes) (I don't like Obama anymore then ayone else on Conservapedia, but come on. The two pictures should be reversed) (undo)

Here again we have a very reasonable edit, that it reverted without adequate explanation.

# (cur) (last) 14:36, 25 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (57,388 bytes) (Reverted edits by Impm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:35, 25 August 2008 Impm (Talk | contribs) (57,106 bytes) (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html He was born in Hawaii unequivocally.) (undo)

Impm makes what appears to be a reasonable edit, and Andrew changes it again.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Citation_Needed <--- Here is another example; everyone is discussing the pertinent issue, including Andrew, but then drops out of the picture and: (cur) (last) 10:09, 27 August 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (57,862 bytes) (restored material deleted by liberal censorship) (undo)

I'm just wondering, but why is it we have to discuss changes we want to make whenever an edit conflict arises, but Andrew doesn't? This makes it essentially impossible to edit any article that Andrew has become party to because you can never know which of your edits will be acceptable or not.

Then there is this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Obama#Affirmative_Action_President

Despite the lack as a citation for the statement that caused that particular talk-page topic to manifest, and the lack-of-response from Andrew, any time this statement is changed Andrew swoops in and reverts it.

Am I alone in seeing this? Do I see a ghost ruffling the leafs or is it simply just the wind?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 19:51, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:I've noticed it too, but I didn't think asking him about it would change anything. Especially on the "affirmative action president" thing. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:15, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This is inane. It's been more at least a day now and we haven't even gotten a one sentence response yet; just more reverted edits without adequate explanation. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Welcome to conservapedia. Often if you attempt to question the work of ASchlafly, he will simply ignore you. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:33, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

::Jirby, be concise in your comments. This site isn't a liberal blog where people talk, talk, talk without saying anything. Reversions do not have a place for summarizing the reason in the wiki software. Also, people who only criticize conservatives without criticizing the liberal vandals lack credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::So the best you can do... is complain that my words are too big and my sentences are too long? And here I was trying my best not to mischaracterize you. Shame on me! It is also clearly evident that revisions do not have a comment box, but how does that keep you from posting your reasons for consistently reverting factual edits here? It doesn't. My concern also isn't with liberal/conservative/anarchist vandals because they're freaking obvious and will be dealt with without my input (unless in the case of the uppity negro comment from before) they have fallen under the radar of authority and it behooves me to say something. Now stop trying to shift this in a way as if it is MY fault for trying to make you accountable as per your own rules. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jirby, your above rant illustrates my point. I'm moving on and request that you be substantive and concise in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Large repetitions!==
The "Published Criticism" section repeats, aside from a couple of sentances, almost word for word the introduction. This needs changing as it looks silly to have repetitions so I am going to leave this comment to see if there is any response and wait 48 hours and then go to work on fixing it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:17, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, but don't remove information from the introduction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll only remove the double-ups from the lower section. Thanks for the quick response! [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 21:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Marxist/redistrubution of wealth line ==

Was just trying to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=512956&oldid=512942 fix my spelling error], not trying to revert Andy. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]].

=="My Muslim Faith" quote==
I've seen the video of this quote and it is taken totally out of context. What Obama is saying is that JOhn McCain has not accused him of being a secret muslim. Does anyone really believe that this is Obama mistakenly revealing that he is a muslim? Anyone who has seen the video can't seriously believe that this is the case. This quote should be removed before people start taking it seriously. [[User:Billgates3|Billgates3]]

:Can someone explain why you think it would be such a big deal if Barack Obama were actually Muslim? (Leaving aside for the moment the lack of any evidence that he ever has been a Muslim.) I thought you guys in the USA believed in separation of religion and the state, so why does it matter what religion, if any, the President happens to follow? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: As a Democrat who will be voting for Obama, I think (and I really hope that this is the general consensus) that the main issue would be that he's lied. I'd like to think that somebody saying up front that they were a Muslim wouldn't be a reason to vote against them if they're wholly qualified otherwise, but IF it turns out that somebody can prove that he really is a Muslim (I highly doubt anything like that can turn up, since everything out there now is just gossip), then he'll be caught in a BIG lie that would kill his credibility with everything. [[User:Mk|Mk]] 15:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

== Muslim & Catholic holidays ==

Why on earth are CP people bothered about the fact that Obama had holidays for Muslim festivals when he went to school in a Muslim country? Muslim (and Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Zoroastrian) children take days off school for Christian holidays in the UK without society collapsing. Honestly, some of the stuff on this page is just weird. Why on earth don't you guys concentrate on his policies (or lack of any) instead of getting so worked up about personal matters which are complete non-issues? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 19:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:It is a matter of honesty which Obama will not address. America has never elected somebody with such a secret history as Barack hides from. Criticize CP all you want, I don't expect you to last here that long. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Err... why not, exactly? What's the problem with suggesting that politically-active people in the USA should concentrate on politics, not on minor details (or utterly trivial ones, in this case) of a candidate's personal life? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 12:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Unreliable sourcing and references ==

The section on Obama's "secrecy" cites only a blog which gives no sources. Unless there are complaints or offers to better source it, I will remove this section or shorten it.

The section on Obama's middle name is also poorly sourced. It is claimed that "most" people change their names when they undergo a religious conversion. The cite refers to two people who converted to Christianity and then changed their names. "For example" can never be used to prove "most". Unless someone offers a statistic backing up the "most" claim, I will change it to "some". Additionally, the citation given for the meaning of "Hussein" is to a names list on about.com. There is no way this can be considered authoritative, and in any case the alternate meaning ("handsome") should also be reported lest we be accused of fearmongering.

Finally, I fail to see how "there are few atheists in Kenya" could possibly be seen as an argument against Obama's father being nonreligious. There are also few admirals in the US; does this mean McCain's father wasn't an admiral? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

::Seeing no objection on the talk page or attempts to correct the faulty information during the last 24 hours or so, I've gone ahead and made the edits. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, wholesale deletion of content, some which has been discussed on the talk page, is inappropriate at your rank of contributions.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Surprise, surprise. Everything Egen deleted was either unsourced or irrelevant.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 19:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This "content" is worthless and factually inaccurate in a way that's absolutely obvious to anyone reading it. The page is already too long and having such nonsense on the page is a severe detriment to our credibility. No one even attempted to respond to my reasoning and I gave ample time to allow disagreements. If ANYONE can provide reliable evidence that "most" people change their name when they convert, that Obama's father was not an atheist, and that Hussein means "descendent of the prophet Muhammad" (a baby names site is not reliable evidence) then please do so. (The last statement is, in fact, false. In Arabic, you would never simply refer to any descendant of Muhammad as "Hussein". "Hussein" does not mean "descendant of Muhammad" any more than James means "brother of Jesus.") [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Senate career==
HelpJazz, the stat is no good. It is an attempt at obfusication, it's not 1 billion, it is only 18%, gee. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:Uh, it say right in the article "$936 million". The 18% figure only adds to the figure, it takes away nothing. Obama has a lifetime score of 18%, which is far below failing and far below the Republican average. Plus, if you really thought that the 18% figure was obsfucation (which, I'll reiterate, doesn't make any sense) then why did you take away the scale, which gives meaning to the number? If I said that Barack Obama scored a 397 on a liberalness test, you would want to know what that score means, no? And you would want to know how he compares to other liberals, right? You wouldn't say "he scored 397 on a liberalness test -- that's just under 400!" because that doesn't add anything to the article. Your "500k/day" stat ''does'' add to the article. Even though there's nothing to compare it to, it's still a nice number that hits home how big almost a billion is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:44, 22 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Sorry to keep you waiting, editing cut off early last night, and wasn't on this morning before I went to work.

==Muslim==

I know this has been talked about a lot here, but i would like for someone to prove to me byond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a muslim. Otherwise, i don't think we should have him in the 'muslims' category. so, can someone provide irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is a practicing muslim?
:Reasonable doubt is enough, or no article would have categories. [[User:Devout|Devout]] 15:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
::based on that logic i could say McCain is ineligible to be US President due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone due to the US returning it. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:08, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

My parents and pastor always taught me not to lie, so when I heard there was a website that dealt more fairly with intelligent design and creationism than most, I wanted to check it out. I was quite upset to find a site filled with such dishonesty, double-standards, and vitriol. I don't recall that part of my bible that says 'don't lie unless it's about someone of the rival political party.' [[User:Booster|Booster]] 17:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Booster, you are not looking at this issue properly. It is not a matter of party. Obama is a Muslim. The United States is, by tradition, a Christin nation. As Devout notes, there is enough reasonable doubt that no true Christian can vote for him.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 17:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But he's NOT a Muslim. Misspeaking once or twice doesn't make you a Muslim. Not wearing a flag-pin doesn't make you a Muslim. A funny name doesn't make you a Muslim. My middle name is Caesar and I don't worship Zeus. If the man was a Muslim, there would be real evidence, unless we contend that he hides under the blanket at night and reads the Koran by flashlight. I'm not going to vote for the man because I fundamentally disagree with many of his policies, not because of untruths posted about his religion. [[User:Booster|Booster]] 22:29, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You say he's a Muslim? Heck, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that's all the proof I need!--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:02, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I am proud muslim but not from united states. Obama is very good but not muslim. That is ok. Also, I read article and it say that Obama not change his name. Around me, muslims convert to jesus but do not change their names. I will change article if that is ok. [[User:SyedO|SyedO]] 18:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The issue is that the United States is a Christian Nation. We are one nation under God, not mohammad or allah. That probably offends liberals, but it's the truth. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:Not that it matters, because Obama is not a Muslim unless anyone can provide any actual evidence to suggest that he is. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 16:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The US is not a Christian nation. It clearly states in the constitution that church and state are separate. while there might be christian influences it does not mean we are a christian nation. [[User:Xapdal5|Xapdal5]] 23:14, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I have yet to see conclusive evidense that he is a muslim. i am removing him from that category.

: Perhaps we should have a category called "Suspected Muslims" or "Crypto-Muslims"? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== What does "alleged" mean ==

"Does it mean he may have been born somewhere else," or that "his live birth is contested?" "Is it supposed to mean he may have been hatched?" Then he'd be evolved, right libs? Some people on here are so dumb it frightening. [[User:LarryHapp|LarryHapp]] 15:42, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== Allegations of Homosexuality & Drug Use ==

I'm surprised that this article did not mention the compelling allegations of homosexuality and drug-abuse. One witness (a former homosexual called Larry Sinclair) confessed in great detail an event in which he consumed cocaine and performed oral-sex on Obama (this was a few years before he became a senator).

This issue has been the subject of at least two court-cases - both were dismissed on technicalities, conveniently allowing Mr. Obama to avoid tackling the substantive issue.

Despite being repeatedly asked to deny or even comment about these allegations Team-Obama has remained utterly silent. Surely (as Mr. Sinclair stated) - if somebody made an allegation which was incorrect you'd deny it or at least tell your side of the story. Obama's silence on this issue (as so many others) is worthy of suspicion. With the permission of my fellow Conservapedia users I'd like to add a summaary of these alegations to the article. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's already admitted to cocaine use in one of his books (''Dreams from my Father'', I think.)--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
::Any nutball can allege anything. Some things are below notice. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 08:34, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::That is true, however Larry Sinclair has been vetted by a great many conservative journalists. His story has yet to be disproven, and furthermore he has come under a great deal of attack by Joe Biden's people. Given that Sinclair's story is merely corroborating something that Obama has already admitted, why exclude it from what ought to be an authoritative article? Obama supporters have called Sinclar a nut (and much worse), but none of them have disproven his allegations? Ask yourself - why is it that Obama has not attempted to disprove that he had a homosexual liason and took crack-cocaine with Mr. Sinclair that night? His silence on the topic does not make any sense. --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 08:40, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

::: No, not everyone bothers to deny every allegation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I agree, not everybody bothers to deny everything, for example if I accused you of being an "alien from outer-space" or something entirely preposterous then you might be right to disregard my comments. On the other hand Sinclair has only accused Obama of things which he has partly confessed to. Regarding drug-taking, Obama confessed that he had tried drugs as a young man but had given up. Sinclair contends that he witnessed Obama using drugs relatively recently.

:: Your point would be entirely relevant to this case if the Obama people were simply ignoring Sinclair, however as anybody who has watched this story unfold can see Obama's people have done anything but ignore Sinclair. In fact, he was the victim of a very organized campaign to discredit him. Biden's people arranged for him to be arrested during one of his press conferences (you can see it on Youtube if you do not believe me).

:: This article has presented a great deal of evidence that Mr. Obama can be sneaky and deceptive. We know that America harbors a great deal of drug-users and homosexuals. Why do you believe that somebody who faked a legal document (like a Birth Certificate) might be incapable of other acts of immorality? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:21, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== A compromise for place of birth issues? ==

Rather than simply state that he was allegedly born in a state of the USA, how about we outline the various conflicting theories regarding his place of birth, the primary evidence of each of those theories and the principle backers of each of those theories. That way we can be fair and balanced with regards to this issue? --[[User:Jimmygoddard|Jimmygoddard]] 20:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Pokiston"????? ==

What's this nonsense on the News section of the Main Page about a '''Muslim''' pronounciation of Pakistan as 'Pokiston'? For one thing, there's no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation of anything - a Muslim from Glasgow sounds Scottish, a Muslim from Madras sounds South Indian. For another, the Pakistani pronounciation of Pakistan is 'Paakistaan' - long aa's (aaah). Please delete this item from the News - it just makes CP look silly. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:51, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: I don't think what you said is true. Arabic is the language of the Koran, having a Muslim pronunciations, and "Pakistan" is a word created by Muslims, having a Muslim pronunciation. There is Muslim pronunciation used by Obama and a very different English pronunciation used by most Americans.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::: The pronounciation of the word as used in India and Pakistan - by Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone else - is Paakistaan. That would also be an transliteration of the word into English. It's now also much the most common pronounciation in the UK; before about 1970 in the UK, both "a"s were pronounced as the short, semi-closed "a" as in cat, hat, fat, etc, but it's changed to become closer to the Indian/Pakistani pronounciation. I daresay the "cat/hat/fat" vowel sound might still be used "by most Americans" (to quote you) but that isn't the usage in India, Pakistan or the UK. I have no idea how Obama says Pakistan but there's no more a Muslim pronounciation of the word than there is a Hindu or Christian one. In any case, Pakistan is an Urdu word, not an Arabic one. It makes no more sense to say that 'Pakistan' is an Arabic word than to say that 'automobile' is a Greek word. And finally, why does this matter to you? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 20:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Andy- just because Arabic is the language of the Koran, that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciations." In this last statement, you've conflated religion ("Muslim pronounciation"), linguistic groups ("Arabic") and nationalities ("Pakistan" and "English pronounciation used by most Americans.") They are all different, and all complex. A French-speaking Algerian isn't going to pronounce "Pakistan" the same way as an Arabic-speaking Sudanese or an Indonesian. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, right, an American doesn't pronounce Pakistan the way that Muslims educated in Indonesia do, which underscores the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: But isn't Obama an American? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::He ''claims'' to be. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I know LOTS of Americans who use the pronounciation in question. And Brits, too. Look at it this way: if the link between the language of the Koran and the billion or so Muslims scattered across the globe means that there is such a thing as "Muslim pronounciation," does that mean that the world's Christians--Swedes, Phillipinos, Americans, Candians, Irish, Brazilians, French, Germans, all share "Christian pronounciations" that can be traced back to Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient Greek? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Quite correct, AliceBG. A Christian from South India doesn't sounds like a Christian from Scotland and a Muslim from Scotland doesn't sound like a Muslim from South India. Putting stuff like this "Pokiston" issue on CP's front page gives the impression that Aschafly and his colleagues have no serious issues with which to attack Obama and are forced to resort to personal trivia of the silliest kind. I really don't understand why Aschafly & friends don't focus on the politics. This is very peculiar to people outside the USA. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 14:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Liberals protest here too much to the observation that Obama uses the Muslim pronunciation of Pakistan rather than the virtually universal American pronunciation. But nothing in the liberal protests explains the clear difference in a satisfactory manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, many of the protests have pointed out clearly that your assertion is based on a mistaken conflation between religion and linguistic groups, have pointed to the fact that Muslims from different language groups pronounce words differently, and have pointed out that the notion of "Christian pronounciation" would obviously be an impossible phenomenon to talk about. i'd repeat myself, but I'd rather go back to improving your encyclopedia for you. Asalaam Aleikum.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschafly, why is pointing out an instance where CP is talking nonsense 'liberal'? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

This is just ridiculous. What is a "Muslim pronunciation?" Muslims everywhere pronounce words and names differently. If anything, an "Arabic pronunciation" might exist, but that is debatable. And don't give me the crap about that because Arabic is the language of the Koran, everyone who uses an Arabic pronunciation is Muslim. Arab Christians around the world speak Arabic. Plus, Arabic was being spoken way before Islam cam around. The name of the country should be pronounced the way it actually sounds, as dictated by the natives. Iraq is not "eye-rack," it is pronounced Irok. The fact that Obama pronounces Pakistan properly just shows that he is attentive to the culture and language of the country, (a key ally that we are in danger of losing, by the way), not that he is a Muslim. Even if there were some kind of valid point in the "Pokiston" argument, which there is most definitely not, it would be minuscule considering the broader scale of things. This whole section has just got to go.

: You protest too much. There is a common American pronunciation of "Pakistan", but Obama uses the different pronunciation he either learned while attending a Muslim grade school, or heard from his closest advisers over the past 20 years. It's informative to point that out, whether you think he's "correct" or not. Pronunciations can be illustrative of one's culture and beliefs. It suggests the pronunciation used by one's teachers and advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Notice that you didn't address any of the actual points I made. I say "Pokistan." I avoid saying "eye-rack." Am I a Muslim? And what is an "American" pronunciation? As far as I know, there is no "American" way of saying anything. Do you mean an English pronunciation? I am simply baffled by some of the things people say on this site.

:::I agree with what's been said above : "Pokistan" is not an exclusively "Muslim" pronunciation (if there's such a thing...). The article would be much stronger without this unnecessary point : don't we have enough evidence of Obama's faith?

== Section headings ==

This is a long article with a large variety of sub-topics. I've inserted a half-dozen section headings that improve readability and organization. While it might be a good idea to think about re-organizing the sections and moving particular facts into different sections, I really think the piece needs to be broken up like this--plus it makes it more effective, acting as a catalogue of important questions and criticisms.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

: The greatest insights are going on the first screen page, period.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Fine--why undo the section headings, then? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::I think I see the problem - when a section heading is inserted higher up, the contents block, which is rather large, takes up most of the first screen. However, if you hit the "hide" button on the contents block, it takes up very little space and the insights are on the first screen page. It seems to be a "sticky" hide also, as it continues to be hidden when I re-load the page. I hope this helps. Like [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]], I'm just attempting to improve readability by inserting section headings. I do not want to remove any insights, or hide any. I believe section headings actually make it easier for the reader to glance over the many areas of concern (in the contents block), and go quickly to their area of interest, whilst still remaining aware of the other topics presented. They will also help editors to put their information in the correct section, thus minimizing problems with redundant information and making the whole article easier to read. (Right now, some of it kind of jumps around.) I am also open to other solutions to the problems that a long article presents. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:14, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, i see the problem too. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:15, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
== HSMOM ==

A lot of the stuff under the "Islam" section heading has nothing to do with Islam, but Schlafly won't let anyone put it in a reasonable order. Good luck with that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:07, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
:Told you. He won't listen.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There should be a way to solve this. You can force the TOC to not show up and then manually add it some where else. I can't remember how to do it off the top of my head, but I'll see if I can poke around and remember how. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Ok, as dirty as I feel for putting "his muslim faith" higher up than his birth, hopefully this should solve the problem. Now the Muslim insights are on the first page, and they are sectioned off for better flow. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

I fail to see how Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" has anything to do with his religion. And I don't care that he didn't change his middle name. Maybe he does have muslim beliefs, but these things would have nothing to do with it. There has to be fewer illogical statements here to be respectable; I thought the point of this page was to get away from the bias of wikipedia. Don't make conservatives look bad. Logic, facts, and history are on the conservative's side - use them.

==Professor?==

In attempting to organize the article yesterday, I came across two different sections on Obama's job at the University of Chicago. They seem to contradict each other. Here they are:
* Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
*He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>
<references/>
To sort this out, I looked at the references provided. Here's what they said:
* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman saying he was not.
* This reference <ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> is to a chat board. It mostly lists several references, including the article above and the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.
* The next two references are repeats of the first two.
* The next is the University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> It states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
* The next reference is a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>
<references/>
All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor". UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think we should sum all this up by including something along the lines of the following:
*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
<references/>
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Great-uncle ==

Please could someone explain why it matters that Obama's great-uncle liberated Buchenwald rather than Auschwitz? [Stuff not about B.O. deleted] Really, fellow CP people, sometimes you have to stop nit-picking and get a life. Surely there are political issues you can attack the man on? Why are you fussing about precisely which Nazi concentration camp his great-uncle helped to liberate. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:25, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::It not that he was wrong about his uncle, its that he used it as a politics tool. Like how he says about 57 states. He doesnt think or research about what he says. Do we want a president that makes that many slips? [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

::: Well, I'd say he isn't the first American politician (or British one, come to that) not to be 100% careful about what he says on every single occasion. How about your ''current'' President?! [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 18:33, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: The problem is one of honesty, not harmless slips. The gaffes reveal a real Obama that is being denied by himself and his supporters. Obama's gaffes are analogous to a racist gaffe, which of course no liberal would ignore if uttered by an opponent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: My head is spinning... Thanks, anyway, for not putting that particularly unpleasant slur back on your page about B.O. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ironic that a Republican would talk about Presidents and candidates making slips: THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS...AND HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE. This is a Christian Conservative website, right? It would seem that exposing one's fallibilities and imperfections is tantamount to honoring God; the only being that can be perfect. At any rate, we all derive our understanding of how people and politicians should be in public from TV and various other forms of media...that is the root of our problem. If you've ever seen the show Boston Legal, you know exactly what I'm talking about. James Spader delivers perfect, articulate closings that highlight his opponent's downfalls whilst bolstering his own correctness. I bet even Andy Schlafly, with all due respect, stuttered over a closing here and there just the same as Barack Obama says 58 when he meant the 48 contiguous states. I seem to recall we got more gaffes than we could handle over the course of the last eight years due to the inarticulate nature of one "W". Of course, various CP administrators will sweep it under the rug and say these gaffes were taken out of context by the evil liberals who hate God and report to Lord Zargax on Planet Fallujah 9 without even considering the possibility that perhaps they take things out of context, as well.

Furthermore, Andy, I must contest your notion that all Bush "gaffes" were harmless slips. While said statement accomplishes what you're going for--a good/harmless versus evil/harmful dichotomy set up between Bush and Obama--it is anachronistic. As governor of Texas, Bush clearly stated that he was against imposing America's ideologies and political structure upon other countries, yet as a President, he incited a war that was defined in the most grey manner possible (War on Terror) in which we sought an enemy that existed in a place nobody could prove he was hiding out. Once that didn't pan out and the Bush administration realized their gaffe, the very same war underwent a little cosmetic surgery in the form of name change and became "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" or some such drivel.

This brings me to how this website stands on the premise of truth. The problem with truth is that it is not a collective entity--the truth means many things for different people. Abortion is viewed as wrong by some and right by others just the same as a 70 degree day is considered hot by a Vermonter and cold by a Floridian. You can't impose the same truth on everybody because one man's truth is another man's lie. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 12:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birth certificate edit==
The word "alleged" will stay for now, and here's why: the reference used for the certificate links to a pic of what is claimed to be Obama's, which is not the original. What is there is what could be called a "certified official copy" from the Department of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, which means that someone went to the filed originals and started typing on the copy sheet what he/she saw. Since there is a little war brewing over whether or not Obama was actualy born there, I think it's reasonable to ask for A) a copy of what a Hawaiian birth certificate looked like in 1960; and B) a Xerox copy of Obama's birth certificate as it appears in the files, and NOT as the certified copy that we are seeing now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm going to revert my stance on it. Certain federal laws state that if a person is born to an American citizen in another country, that baby is an American citizen as well (there is such a document as a State Department birth certificate). Unless it is proven that the Hawaiian birth certificate is a fake, I think this website should just say that he was born there and leave it at that. It's just not much of an issue when there are more serious ones to concentrate on (Bill Ayers, ACORN, his Marxism, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:11, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== sex ed for kindergartners? ==

Why do I keep hearing about Obama wanting sex ed for kindergartners? It is appalling to think that the next president of the united states might actually teach sex education to 5 year old's.

Answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

== Disgusted Conservative ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

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

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

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

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

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

==57 Islamic states==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Favorite black leader ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Main Picture ==

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

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

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

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

== wife opinions ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Errors and dubious claims==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello again,

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

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

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

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

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-21T01:28:39Z

ELeger: /* Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-21T01:26:26Z

ELeger: /* Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance */ new section

Skepdic

2008-05-22T18:02:32Z

ELeger: /* Contents */

'''Skepdic''' is The Skeptic's dictionary. It is a collection of "cross-referenced" skeptical essays by Robert Todd Carroll, published on his website skepdic.com and in a printed book. The skepdic.com site was launched in 1994 and the book was published in 2003 with less than 400 entries. In the last five years the website has grown to more than 500 entries.

== Robert Todd Carroll ==
Robert Todd Carrroll the author of Skepdic considers himself a militant [[atheist]] and hardened skeptic.

== Contents ==
The catagories in skepdic are alternative medicine, cryptozoology, ETs and UFOs, frauds and hoaxes, junk science, logic and perception, new age, paranormal, science and philosophy and supernatural. The website also contains articles attacking Biblical history such as [[Noah's Ark]].

==See also==
{{Nb Atheism}}

== External Links ==
*[http://www.skepdic.com Skepdic The Skeptic's Dictionary]

Talk:Dmitri Shostakovich

2008-05-18T11:23:04Z

ELeger: dissidence

This is completely imbecilic. The horrendous thing about Conservapedia is that young people are being indoctrinated with creationist nonsense.

[[User:Daffodil|Daffodil]] 20:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Great article!--[[User:HPalmer|HPalmer]] 19:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

The information in this article is woefully incorrect. A few examples
of the many errors are shown below: 
<ol>
<li>Prokoviev, not Shostakovich, wrote "The Love for Three Oranges".</li>
<li>The author correctly notes that some of Shostakovich's music was
written to protest government oppression, but unaccountably fails to
mention such well-known examples as the final movement of the 5th
Symphony ("A Soviet Artist’s Reply to Just Criticism") and the 2nd
movement of the 10th Symphony (an unflattering musical portrait of
Stalin).</li>
<li>Although Shostakovich did make a short trip to the United
States, he did not emigrate from the Soviet Union and later return as
claimed by the author of this article - rather, it was Prokoviev who
emigrated and later returned.</li>
<li>Shostakovich did not write "Mars,
the Bringer of War" - this is a movement from "The Planets" by Gustav
Holst. Neither did he write a Piano Concerto in D Minor or the "Rituals
of Springtime" - the author may be thinking of Sergei Rachmaninoff's
Piano Concerto No. 3 in D Minor, and "Rites of Spring" was written by
Igor Stravinsky.</li>
<li>Although the author claims that Shostakovich
wrote less serious music toward the end of his life, some of his most
enduring symphonies (13, 14, and 15) and string quartets (12, 13, 14,
and 15) date from the late 1960s and early 1970s. In addition,
significant vocal works such as "Six Poems by Marina Tsvetayeva", a
suite for contralto and piano, were written toward the end of his life.
This is not mentioned in the article.</li>
</ol>
If the article is an
attempted hoax, it's not funny - at any rate, it's wildly inaccurate,
and needs to be taken down and completely rewritten. A good starting point for
accurate information about Dmitri Shostakovich is Laurel Fay's 1999
book "Shostakovich: A Life", Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-513438-9. --An3206 02:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The article is indeed an attempted hoax. As I said in my previous discussion contribution, which I note has been deleted, Shostakovich did NOT write a famous prelude in C-sharp Minor Op 2 No 3 (sic) - the author must have known that it was Rachmaninov that wrote a famous prelude in C-sharp Minor Op 3 No 2 (sic). It's clearly deliberate misinformation. If kids are going to use this as a resource, the it is criminal to feed them with deliberate mis-information like this. [[User:Daffodil|Daffodil]] 17:21, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I have made a fairly major edit to the article at least to remove some of the falsehoods and trying to replace them with some reasonably accurate information. It is a long way from being up to the standard of an encyclopedia article, I'm aware - it wants citations, and could do with a lot more detail. But hopefully it's a start. I'm afraid the entire sections on emigration (he didn't) and the Tchaikovsky competition have had to be removed - I couldn't think of anything real to replace them with. Shostakovich visited America ''after'' the war, not before it. [[User:Daffodil|Daffodil]] 17:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate Daffodil's effort in rewriting the article on Dmitri Shostakovich. If I'm ever able to generate some free time, I'll provide/suggest additional material. --[[User:An3206|An3206]] 01:55, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== dissidence ==

This article really needs to mention the fact that Shostakovich inserted coded messages against the Bolsheviks in his music. And also the publishing of his memoirs, which was smuggled out to the West by Volkov and had all sorts of inside dirt on the Soviet system, especially Soviet music system, but was mocked and suppressed by Western liberals. this is probably the main reason people know of Shostakovich today. maybe I will get the Volkov book from library again and add some of the information from there. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 07:23, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip Cooney

2008-05-18T11:14:33Z

ELeger: ugh how did this bias sneak in... fixed it

'''Philip Cooney''' was chief of staff of the [[White House]] [[Council on Environmental Quality]] during the [[George W. Bush]] administration. In 2005, he left that job to work for [[Exxon Mobil]]. Previously, he had worked as a [[lobbyist]] for the [[oil industry]]. He has recently come under malicious and [[deceit]]ful attack from the [[environmentalism]] lobby for exercising executive control over government climate reports to emphasize the uncertainty in the scientific community about [[Global warming]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031901327.html] Official Defends Editing Climate Papers, Associated Press</ref>

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Political People|Cooney, Philip]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-04-15T21:33:55Z

ELeger: my proposed addition again

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand why American terrorists would want Hussein Obama to be President. How obtuse can you be not to understand he is the Al-Qaeda candidate? I will not surrender willingly to Barack Hussein Obama. [[User:GettingItRight|GettingItRight]] 22:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:Exactly, because obviously an American sounding name makes a great president. Look at George Walker Bush. [[User:Kip|Kip]] 07:26, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Sources ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Recommend ==

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

==Breaking News!!!!==

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

== Controversial ? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Goofy Article ==

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

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

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

== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Off Page Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Political Blog or an encyclopedia? ==

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

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

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

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

== GSmiley ==

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

==Gossip==

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

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

== Drug Use ==

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

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

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

== Liberal Rankings Reference ==

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

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

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

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

== Suggest Protection ==

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

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

== Affirmative action in summary ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== African american ==

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

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

== Foreign Policy Experience ==

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

Here's the relevant portions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== removed false information ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

== Introduction to article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Needs a major overhaul... ==

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

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

A few suggestions just from the very beginning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Completely incorrect information in Foreign Policy==

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

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

== Political Views section ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== This Article is Ridiculous ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Required Changes ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Law Professor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Unlock? ==

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

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

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

== Questions about This Article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From dictionary.com:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Proposed addition ==

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

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

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

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

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-03-27T13:44:02Z

ELeger: /* Can we un-lock, this artical needs to be updated */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-03-21T20:38:14Z

ELeger: /* Can we un-lock, this artical needs to be updated */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-03-21T10:05:21Z

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

Talk:Liberal Style

2008-02-24T23:38:01Z

ELeger: Israel

Point #28 should be edited to remove, "Never say it about fellow liberals", since CP's "Breaking News" quotes Hillary saying it about Obama. In fact, the Breaking News entry even refers to point #28. So either Obama is not liberal, or Point #28 should be modified.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 10:59, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: Good point, but Obama is not a ''fellow'' liberal with respect to Hillary. He is an "adversary" to Hillary. Any suggestions to make more precise, while keeping it concise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:: Instead of using "Never", perhaps use the word "rarely". --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::: Good suggestion. "Rarely" is weaker than I'd like, but let's use it as the best suggestion so far. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Israel ==

"referring to Israel as "occupied territories""

Hello, I notice the article (which is very funny and good by the way) gets it right about "occupied" "palestinian" territories, but conservapedia article for Israel doesnt'! If you look at the map it shows east-jerusalem and ALL judea-samaria, golan hights, as not Israel, even parts that are definely Jewish. maybe some of the "Palestinian" cities, like area "A" in Oslo treaties, should not be mapped in Israel. But absolutely east-jerusalem must be, since it is annexed to Israel since 1980s, and not even liberals expect Israel to give it up to the terrorists. same for golan. i would remove the map myself but, the artical is "locked" from vandalisms.

Étienne Léger

Mao Zedong

2008-02-21T02:31:56Z

ELeger: the figures are all wrong here, read RJ rummle!

[[Image:Ncvjgfu.jpg|right|thumb|Mao Zedong]]
'''Mao Zedong''' (an alternative transliteration (using the [[Wade-Giles]] system is "Mao Tse-tung", although most Sinologists use the pinyin transliteration system, giving: "Mao Zedong") lived from December 26, 1893, to September 9, 1976. He was a [[Marxism|Marxist]] [[Atheism|atheist]] and an early member of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] in 1921. In 1935, Mao was elected to the Executive Committee of the [[Comintern]] in Moscow and remained on this committee until it was publicly disbanded in 1943.<ref>''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pgs. 21 - 22] pdf.</ref>

Mao was the author of ''[[Quotations from Chairman Mao]],'' published in 1966, informally known as "the little red book." During his lifetime, almost everyone in the [[People's Republic of China]] was expected to have a copy. One of his most well known statements was that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".

[[Image:Little red book.jpg|left|200px|thumb|''Quotations from Chairman Mao'' or popularly known as "the little red book" is required for every Chinese citizen to own, read, and carry it at all times under the latter half of Mao's rule.]]

[[Edgar Snow]] introduced Mao and [[Zhou Enlai]] to American readers in 1937 in his book, ''Red Star Over China'', shortly after the [[Chinese Red Army]]’s rout by [[Chiang Kai-shek]] in 1934 and their year long retreat to [[Yenan]] known as the [[Long March]]. Snow wrote, "The political ideology, tactical line and theoretical leadership of the Chinese Communists have been under the close guidance, if not positive detailed direction, of the Communist International, which during the last decade has become virtually a bureau of the Russian Communist Party." And he further declared that the CCP had to subordinate itself to the "strategic requirements of [[Soviet Russia]], under the leadership of [[Stalin]]."<ref>Red Star Over China by Edgar Snow, New York, 1937.</ref>

With the aid of [[Comintern]] operatives in the U.S. Government subverting [[President Roosevelt]]'s vision of a post-War [[United Nations]] enforcing peace by "the four policemen",<ref>Townsend Hooper and Douglas Brinkley, [http://www.ninehundred.net/~jveon/fdrbook.html ''FDR and the Creation of the U.N.''] (New Haven, 2000).</ref><ref>[http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/17604.htm U.S. State Department], Office of the Historian, Timeline of U.S. Diplomatic History 1937-1945, United Nations.</ref> Mao defeated [[Chiang Kai-shek]]'s Nationalists, taking control of the Chinese mainland and establishing the People's Republic of China. As the leader of China, Mao initiated the [[Great Leap Forward]], an economic plan intended to rapidly industrialize China's then largely rural economy. In the end it proved a ruinous failure, preventing the peasants from producing needed food and causing massive famines; up to 38 million starved to death or were killed for opposing against the economic plan. In 1966, Mao instigated the [[Cultural Revolution]], in which those disloyal to the Chairman were killed or humiliated in order to solidify Mao's control. [[Richard Nixon]] was the first United States president to meet with Mao, and thus the first to acknowledge the existence of the People's Republic of China, as opposed to [[Taiwan]]'s Republic of China.

Overall historians believe that around 43 million persons were murdered due to Mao. This is 7 times the common figure given for the Holocaust but it is much less known.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Zedong, Mao}}
[[Category:China]]
[[Category:Heads of state]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Mass murderers]]

Talk:Israel

2008-02-20T03:25:25Z

ELeger: /* The map */

{{Protected|TK}}

== POSTS WITHOUT TIME STAMPS OR SIGNATURES WILL BE REMOVED. ==

I was trying to fine tune this entry but I think I ruined it

The entry on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict seems very one sided...

I see that you are guilty of doing exactly what you complain about on Wikipedia.

I edited this entry adding factual and easily verifiable information and someone came along and deleted the entire thing, claiming that my edits were not true.

I would like to know what was not true about the facts I listed. Every single thing I wrote is easily verified.

:The article is just a long list of war-related grievances. None of it has a source, and most of it is false. If you want to write an article on the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, then it would have to have verifiable info. This is an article on Israel, and should describe Israel.
: Almost everything is false. The deleted portion starts with "In 1948, it once again became a sovereign nation largely due to terrorist tactics". Not true. Israel became a sovereign nation as a result of a UN action. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: ... but would almost certainly not have been handed over to the UN if groups such as Haganah, the Stern gang, and Irgun had not carried out terrorist attacks against the British; the King David hotel bombing, which was the most obvious example, killed 91 people - I would call that terrorist tactics. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::: Israelis say that the King David hotel was a military target in a war of independence. If so, it was not terrorist. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Be mindful of your train of logic. If I blew up a children's hospital, then turned around and said "it was a military target," then by your reasoning no one should ever claim that I did a horrible and evil thing such as, well, blowing up a children's hospital... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:20, 22 June 2007 (EDT)*

:::: But almost all bombers say that they are attacking complicit targets in wars of independence. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::::: No, terrorist bombers target civilians, such as random people on a public bus. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: But they say that the civilians are complicit. Anyway, of the 91 people killed, only 28 were British: 41 were Arabs, 17 were Jews, and 5 haven't been identified. They would seem like civilians. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*There we go with another [[deceit]], written as if it is fact. The land was never, not ever, their home, so it cannot be a "war of independence", but more truthfully called a "war of theft", simply terrorism. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:29, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== The map ==

The map is not accurate, since it shows the Jewish parts of East-Jerusalem and the West-Bank are not in Israel. It also shows not the Golan Heights. Some of the territory are disputed, but not Golan Heights or East-Jerusalem, these are annexed many years ago to Israel. I dont know should the map show Oslo "Area B" or "Area C" which are run now by "Palestinian" authority, but probably it should show Area "A", and aboslutely show East-Jerusalem and Golan in Israel.

Étienne Léger

Talk:Israel

2008-02-20T03:22:14Z

ELeger: The map

{{Protected|TK}}

== POSTS WITHOUT TIME STAMPS OR SIGNATURES WILL BE REMOVED. ==

I was trying to fine tune this entry but I think I ruined it

The entry on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict seems very one sided...

I see that you are guilty of doing exactly what you complain about on Wikipedia.

I edited this entry adding factual and easily verifiable information and someone came along and deleted the entire thing, claiming that my edits were not true.

I would like to know what was not true about the facts I listed. Every single thing I wrote is easily verified.

:The article is just a long list of war-related grievances. None of it has a source, and most of it is false. If you want to write an article on the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, then it would have to have verifiable info. This is an article on Israel, and should describe Israel.
: Almost everything is false. The deleted portion starts with "In 1948, it once again became a sovereign nation largely due to terrorist tactics". Not true. Israel became a sovereign nation as a result of a UN action. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: ... but would almost certainly not have been handed over to the UN if groups such as Haganah, the Stern gang, and Irgun had not carried out terrorist attacks against the British; the King David hotel bombing, which was the most obvious example, killed 91 people - I would call that terrorist tactics. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::: Israelis say that the King David hotel was a military target in a war of independence. If so, it was not terrorist. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Be mindful of your train of logic. If I blew up a children's hospital, then turned around and said "it was a military target," then by your reasoning no one should ever claim that I did a horrible and evil thing such as, well, blowing up a children's hospital... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:20, 22 June 2007 (EDT)*

:::: But almost all bombers say that they are attacking complicit targets in wars of independence. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::::: No, terrorist bombers target civilians, such as random people on a public bus. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: But they say that the civilians are complicit. Anyway, of the 91 people killed, only 28 were British: 41 were Arabs, 17 were Jews, and 5 haven't been identified. They would seem like civilians. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*There we go with another [[deceit]], written as if it is fact. The land was never, not ever, their home, so it cannot be a "war of independence", but more truthfully called a "war of theft", simply terrorism. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:29, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== The map ==

The map is not accurate, since it shows the Jewish parts of East-Jerusalem and the Ouest-Bank are not in Israel. It also shows not the Golan Heights. Some of the territory are disputed, but not Golan Heights or East-Jerusalem, these are annexed many years ago to Israel. I dont know should the map show Oslo "Area B" or "Area C" which are run now by "Palestinian" authority, but probably it should show Area "A", and aboslutely show East-Jerusalem and Golan in Israel.

Mao Zedong

2008-02-20T03:12:50Z

ELeger: added mao's atheism

[[Image:Ncvjgfu.jpg|right|thumb|Mao Zedong]]
'''Mao Zedong''' (an alternative transliteration (using the [[Wade-Giles]] system is "Mao Tse-tung", although most Sinologists use the pinyin transliteration system, giving: "Mao Zedong") lived from December 26, 1893, to September 9, 1976. He was a [[Marxism|Marxist]] [[Atheism|atheist]] and an early member of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] in 1921. In 1935, Mao was elected to the Executive Committee of the [[Comintern]] in Moscow and remained on this committee until it was publicly disbanded in 1943.<ref>''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pgs. 21 - 22] pdf.</ref>

Mao was the author of ''[[Quotations from Chairman Mao]],'' published in 1966, informally known as "the little red book." During his lifetime, almost everyone in the [[People's Republic of China]] was expected to have a copy. One of his most well known statements was that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".

[[Image:Little red book.jpg|left|200px|thumb|''Quotations from Chairman Mao'' or popularly known as "the little red book" is required for every Chinese citizen to own, read, and carry it at all times under the latter half of Mao's rule.]]

[[Edgar Snow]] introduced Mao and [[Zhou Enlai]] to American readers in 1937 in his book, ''Red Star Over China'', shortly after the [[Chinese Red Army]]’s rout by [[Chiang Kai-shek]] in 1934 and their year long retreat to [[Yenan]] known as the [[Long March]]. Snow wrote, "The political ideology, tactical line and theoretical leadership of the Chinese Communists have been under the close guidance, if not positive detailed direction, of the Communist International, which during the last decade has become virtually a bureau of the Russian Communist Party." And he further declared that the CCP had to subordinate itself to the "strategic requirements of [[Soviet Russia]], under the leadership of [[Stalin]]."<ref>Red Star Over China by Edgar Snow, New York, 1937.</ref>

With the aid of [[Comintern]] operatives in the U.S. Government subverting [[President Roosevelt]]'s vision of a post-War [[United Nations]] enforcing peace by "the four policemen",<ref>Townsend Hooper and Douglas Brinkley, [http://www.ninehundred.net/~jveon/fdrbook.html ''FDR and the Creation of the U.N.''] (New Haven, 2000).</ref><ref>[http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/17604.htm U.S. State Department], Office of the Historian, Timeline of U.S. Diplomatic History 1937-1945, United Nations.</ref> Mao defeated [[Chiang Kai-shek]]'s Nationalists, taking control of the Chinese mainland and establishing the People's Republic of China. As the leader of China, Mao initiated the [[Great Leap Forward]], an economic plan intended to rapidly industrialize China's then largely rural economy. In the end it proved a failure, preventing the peasants from producing needed food and causing massive famines; over 20 million people starved to death. Later, Mao instigated the [[Cultural Revolution]], in which those disloyal to the party were killed or humiliated in order to solidify Mao's control. [[Richard Nixon]] was the first United States president to meet with Mao, and thus the first to acknowledge the existence of the People's Republic of China, as opposed to [[Taiwan]]'s Republic of China.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Zedong, Mao}}
[[Category:China]]
[[Category:Heads of state]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Mass murderers]]

Communism

2008-02-20T03:07:14Z

ELeger: i changed it to not anymore imply that communism could truly exist. the communists always say that URSS cant be blamed, because it wasnt "real communism", i explain why this is not valid

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.]]'''Communism''' is [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" by means of eliminating [[private property]]. However, no communist society has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. According to some sources, in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Today, it continues to oppress one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref> Communist ideals were internally contradicted, so no government ever met the official definition of "communist". So, apologists for communism like to say that the atrocities of communism were not really because of communism. Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist.
__TOC__
 
==Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|180px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stand for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]
Communism is based upon a [[socialist]] economy in which the public, whether the state or other group, owns the "[[means of production]]" and in which the wealth of the nation is rationed among the Party's beneficiaries. In many cases, members of the ruling party have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]].

Marxist dictum theorizes no form of government is needed. The Marxist theory of no government lacks some basic provisions for the protection of [[women's rights]], for example, without courts of law to enforce [[divorce]] [[property]] settlements women would have no legal recourse.

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "Religion is the Opiate of the people". Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

The atheism in communistic regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime cannot must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Demise of Communism==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.

President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include:
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]

==See also==

*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Nazism]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Communism]]

Talk:CE

2008-02-20T03:00:16Z

ELeger: ISO 8601

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

==Comments==
Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity. However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads "While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods." In fact, although it is not accepted by the "common culture" of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech. They count the days or months instead of naming them. For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day. In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers. Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something. For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.

In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc. It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj. By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc. The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR

Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity. For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, on checking, I find that "common era" can be
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in "the common era of the Jews."
*a term used to distinguish the "ordinary" BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. "puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&id=qLfiIApQVDkC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22common+era%22&as_brr=1]

And the phrase has been in use for well over a century.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" (where B. C. here means "before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&pg=RA12-PA207&lpg=RA12-PA207&as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA4&lpg=RA2-PA4&&as_brr=1 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"]

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&id=kZLbGv92SjUC&pg=RA16-PA495&lpg=RA16-PA495&as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].

So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that "Christian era" means "the system used by Christians," whereas calling the AD/BC system the "common era" means "this system used by everyone" and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.

The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:That's fascinating material. Thanks. Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin. It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!! In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people. My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source. In Rabbi Raphall's "Post Biblical History of the Jews", he uses BCE, and you start seeing "BCE" and either "ACE" or "CE" from 1890 on.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

888888888888888888888888888
What do you mean "It's not in the 1972 dictionary"? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era

"The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of (Our) Lord") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness."

This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless "professor of European history" as quoted here:

"Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)"

We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.

Some brief points:

1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms.

2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential.

3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself.

4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess.

5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues?
88888888888888888888888888888888

:One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling? "Organize" vs. "Organise." I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies. Bigotry, maybe. You're a moron. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase "to fill the bill" rather suddenly get replaced with "to fit the bill" circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase "to go missing" or "went missing," which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. [[User:Scienceisstupid|Scienceisstupid]] 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)

== Original Research ==

Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the "western" powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the "Lord" is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.

:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word "Lord" from the vocabulary of the general public. I absolutely love Liberal Logic! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term "AD" is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: If the general public doesn't want the the word "LORD" in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Common Sense, ppl ==

I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of "wikipedia's bias" signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:

We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year].

So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. "Its just a reference date." That felt good, huh?

Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Rabbi Dialogue ==

This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever? What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means? Furthermore the "reference" doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was. It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person. It doesn't sound encyclopaedic. [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the "Common Error" doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).

==Christian Era==
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?

The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?

I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge....
An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord" aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)

Perhaps a good compromise between the ambiguous "Common Era" and the patronizing "Year of our Lord" would be something along the lines of AJ for "Year of Jesus." It doesn't ignore the original meaning of the term, but it also doesn't imply, as many feel "AD" does, that the user personally accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his "Lord." --[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== References ==

There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means.

== Lack of dictionary definition ==

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for "Common Era", linking it to "Christian Era", which is defined as "the period dating from the birth of Christ". Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.

== hahahahahahahahaha ==

are you freakin kidding me??? PLEASE tell me this is a joke...

== Unfortunate Truth ==

Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call "Conservatism" is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'.
The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- "No Liberalist Bias" and state the example of "terrorists" as "calling a spade a spade" so to speak and not attempting to hide their "true nature". But isn't the "terrorist" label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things.
I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they?
Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.

Conservatives ARE the Devil.

:Last time I checked, [[Global warming]] was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== Article Locked? ==

Why has this article been locked? Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia? Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views '''for and against''' the topic in question - this article does not do this. --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality. It's not. It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== I've always heard something different ==

I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning "Christian Era" and "Before the Christian Era."--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you hear that from some Christians? Anyway, you heard wrong. --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Rabbi dialogue revisited ==

The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron. What exactly does this prove? Also, the term is "Common Era" not (chuckle) "Christian Era." The people who made the calendars were Christian. Now, in a global climate that has ''progressed'' to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone. So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes ''one'' of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive. What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do? --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ? If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ. Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia's bias regarding this term ==

This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Jesus]. (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" are used there.) Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find "BCE/CE" used: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates Socrates], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Tutankhamun], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia Persia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire the Roman Empire], etc. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but [[CE]] is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Common_Era].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same "starting point" as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::And this matters because...? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

== more common ==

"Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today."

The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== The word "erase" ==

Two of the more egregious sentences on this page, of which there are many, are the following:

*The term "Common Era" is an attempt to '''erase''' the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world.

The idea that the use of different dating nomenclature is an attempt to somehow rewrite history is absurd. The concept of inter-faith dialogue has been discussed here at length, and I will not discuss it any further. Moving along:

*Numerous texts, '''particularly schoolbooks''', have replaced "B.C./A.D." with "Common Era" symbols over the past decade.

This claim is completely uncited. As an academic, I find it insulting. --[[User:Telephuse|Telephuse]] 20:45, 18 November 2007 (EST)

== British date format becoming more common in America! ==

If you think the fall of AD is a problem, that's only part of the story on dates. In my sister's world history book this morning, published in Boston, it shows every date written in the British style! (the day before the month and no comma before the year.) Will September 11 become the 11 September attacks? I'm sure this problem may emerge in the future! A suggest as an amendment to the AD/CE commandment is to make sure all dates have the month before the day as well. It's creeping into many American websites as well!
:The format you indicated (i.e. 11 September 2001) is also refered to as the military date format, and is used by the United States armed forces. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:27, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== ISO 8601 ==

This mentions ISO standard # 8601 as if it is contrary to "BCE" dating, but ISO 8601 it actually does not make any way for BC dates, it only starts at year "0000" which actually is 1 BC. In the software, one sees sometimes years -YYYY, but this is confusing because year "-100" is actually 101 BC, etcetera. ISO is anyway a globalist body, maybe thats why they dont give any way to represent Bible dates.

Étienne Léger