Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Farley Mowat

2009-11-26T22:19:46Z

EMorrissey:

'''Farley Mowat''' (b. 1921) is a Canadian author and naturalist who achieved fame with books such as ''Never Cry Wolf'' and ''Lost in The Barrens.'' He has sold more than 14 million books and his works have been translated into more than 50 languages.

His book ''Never Cry Wolf'' details his [[arctic]] expedition, in which he discovered that "a good many scientifically established beliefs about wolves" were contradicted by his own observations. (NCW, page 85)
Aided by two Eskimos named Mike and Ootek, he discovered that [[wolves]] were not responsible for the decimation of the Keewatin [[caribou]] herd.
Human hunters shoot the big, healthy caribou, but wolves "eat the sick and the weak and the small caribou". (Page 85)

Rather than following the caribou in nomadic fashion, wolves remain within a marked-off territory. The female remains by the den with the [[cub]]s, while the male goes off at night to hunt. When caribou are not available, wolves can live on mice, ground squirrels and fish (such as jackfish or Northern pike).

*When a wolf decides to go after them he jumps into one of the larger channels and wades upstream, splashing mightily as he goes, and driving the pike ahead of him into progressively narrower and shallower channels. Eventually the fish realizes its danger and turns to make a dash for open water; but the wolf stands in its way and one quick chop of those great jaws is enough to break the back of even the largest pike. (Page 83)

In his book, Mowat reported that his scientific superior had replaced another man who had been forced into retirement after explaining "his contention that there were fewer deer because the hunters had increased to the point where they outnumbered the deer about five to one." (Page 9)

{{DEFAULTSORT: Mowat, Farley}}
[[Category:Biologists]]

Sympathy vote

2009-11-26T22:15:40Z

EMorrissey:

A '''sympathy vote''' is a [[vote]] given out of pity. A [[candidate]] may receive a sympathy vote because of underdog status, disability or some other shortcoming.
[[Category:Election Terms]]

Country Music

2009-11-26T20:18:34Z

EMorrissey: Fixed spelling error

'''Country music''' is a [[genre]] of music which originated in the rural Southern and Western [[United States]]. It is typified by the heavy use of [[guitar]]s, [[steel guitar]]s, and [[fiddle]]s, and, like its root style [[blues]], an accented 2nd and 4th beat in the drums.

==History==
Modern country music (in the later half of the 20th century and beyond) evolved from "hillbilly music," or [[bluegrass]] (which itself has roots in the folk music of the [[Appalachia]]n hills), as well as early blues from the [[deep south]].

==Artists==
Some famous country musicians include:
*[[Hank Williams]]
*[[Toby Keith]]
*[[Johnny Cash]]
*[[Garth Brooks]]
*[[Willie Nelson]]
*[[Tim McGraw]]
*[[Eddy Arnold]]
*[[Carrie Underwood]]

Several organizations present awards to outstanding country performers including the [[Academy of Country Music]].

[[Category:musical Genres]]

Toronto Raptors

2009-11-26T20:17:26Z

EMorrissey: /* Notable former players */

The '''Toronto Raptors''' are a professional [[basketball]] team based in [[Toronto]], [[Ontario]], [[Canada]]. The Raptors were founded in 1995, when the [[NBA]] expanded to Canada, with another team formed in [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]]; The Grizzlies. The Grizzlies moved to [[Memphis]], [[Tennessee]] in 2001, leaving the Raptors as the only Canadian NBA Team. The Raptors have enjoyed more economic success than the Grizzlies, building a reputation for sellout crowds, but have not won a championship or conference title, only advancing to the playoffs four times, and only winning the first round once, in 2000-01.

The Raptors play in the Atlantic Division of the Eastern Conference at the [[Air Canada Centre]], also the home of the [[Toronto Maple Leafs]].

==Roster==
===Guards===

*0 Marco Belinelli
*8 [[Jose Calderon]]
*1 Jarrett Jack
*3 Marcus Banks

===Forwards===
*4 [[Chris Bosh]]
*15 Amir Johnson
*26 Hedo Türkoğlu
*30 Reggie Evans

===Centers===
*7 Andrea Bargnani
*26 Patrick O'Bryant
*77 Jake Voskuhl

==Notable former players==
*1 Tracy McGrady
*15 [[Vince Carter]]
*20 Damon Stoudamire

==See also==
*[[Canadian sports]]

==Official Team Website==
*[http://www.nba.com/raptors/ Official Site of the Toronto Raptors]
{{NBA}}
[[Category:National Basketball Association]]
[[Category:Canadian Sports Teams]]

Talk:Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T20:15:45Z

EMorrissey: /* "Uniquely American" */

== No religion in Thanksgiving ==

Thanksgiving as a harvest festival has nothing to do with religion <ref>http://hnn.us/articles/406.html</ref>, so I think we should get rid of the words "to the Lord" in the first sentence.--[[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 15:16, 18 November 2007 (EST)

:And likewise we should also edit out the Pilgrims' references to "Almighty God", as well as similar statements made by the Berkely Plantation, and George Washington? Should we delete this confirmed history just to satisfy some idiotic politically correct whim? Guess what...the answer is '''NO'''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:32, 22 November 2007 (EST)

:I guess it depends on what you mean by "religion". I'm not a Yank (I hope that's not offensive) and not an expert on Thanksgiving, but if they were not "giving thanks" to God, who or what ''were'' they giving thanks to?
:Your link says "if Thanksgiving had been about religion, the Pilgrims never would have invited the Indians to join them." Sorry, but that's a non-sequitur, at least depending on the definition of "religion". Why would people giving thanks to God not invite others to take part?
:The link also says, "Indeed, what we think of as Thanksgiving was really a harvest festival." So? When I was growing up (here in Oz), we had something like annual harvest festivals ''in church''. They were definitely "religious events".

== "Uniquely American" ==

I've just edited the opening paragraph, which stated that Thanksgiving is a "uniquely American" holiday, like Independence Day. Thanksgiving is also celebrated in Canada, making this statement incorrect. [[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 10:06, 26 November 2009 (EST)

The sentence was re-worded to "a uniquely American and Canadian holiday," which is a terrible compromise. "Unique" means "existing as the '''only one''' or as the '''sole example''', or '''having no like or equal.'''" Please don't rewrite this just to find a way to insert the word "American."[[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 10:40, 26 November 2009 (EST)

: "American and Canadian" (as a block) fits for '''sole example''' or '''having no like or equal.'''. North America includes Mexico. --[[User:JMR10|Joaquín Martínez]] 14:20, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:: I know, but according to Conservapedia, "[[American]]" means "pertaining to the United States." So, Thanksgiving cannot be uniquely American and Canadian. This sentence is still nonsensical. I plan to revert your edit soon unless there's a good reason why not. [[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 15:15, 26 November 2009 (EST)

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T15:40:32Z

EMorrissey: /* "Uniquely American */

Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T15:38:30Z

EMorrissey: Re-edited "uniquely american" - pls see talk page before reverting

[[Image:Vc006494.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Congressional Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, set by Congress, December 18, 1777]]
'''Thanksgiving Day''' is a national [[holiday]] in the [[United States]] that is celebrated on the fourth Thursday in November. It is traditionally a day set aside to give thanks to the [[God|Lord]] for His blessings. Thanksgiving is a uniquely North American holiday, and is rooted deeply in religious faith.

In 1789 President George Washington proclaimed Thanksgiving Day as the last Thursday in November. In 1941, the United States [[Congress]] passed a resolution decreeing that Thanksgiving should fall on the fourth Thursday of November. Thanksgiving Day proclamations have traditionally been given by the Presidents of the United States of America <ref> http://www.thanksgivingworld.com/thanksgiving-proclamations/index.html</ref>

==Colonial==
The earliest Thanksgivings were celebrated by Americans who were keenly aware that their blessings -- like their rights -- came from God. In times of hardship unimaginable to us today, they took time to give thanks to their Creator. The event is commemorated by a national holiday in November with its origins in [[Virginia]] at Berkeley Plantation on December 4, 1619. The first Thanksgiving was a religious celebration -- an occasion to thank [[God]] -- that featured only a modest meal. It wasn't until two years later, in 1621, that Thanksgiving was expanded to include a banquet by the [[Pilgrims]] in [[Massachusetts]]. Thanksgiving was the first uniquely American holiday.

==Washington==
In September 1789, Congress asked President [[George Washington]] to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.” Washington complied. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40032 President Washington Proclaims America’s Duty to ‘Obey’ God and ‘Be Grateful for His Benefits’] CNSNews, November 27, 2008</ref>

{{cquote|''Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best. Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.'' <ref>http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html Library of Congress - George Washington Papers</ref>}}.

==Lincoln==
During the very heart of the [[American Civil War]], in October 1863, President [[Abraham Lincoln]] built on President Washington's initiative and created an annual day of Thanksgiving.

Like Washington, Lincoln was determined to draw a direct tie between America and the Heavenly Creator from whom Americans draw their rights.

Lincoln acknowledged that the nation was "in the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity." But he focused instead on the nation's blessings, urging his fellow Americans to remember that: {{cquote|'''No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. ''Let Us Be Thankful For a Land That Will For Such Religion Stand.''''' <ref>http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/malhome.html Library of Congress - Abraham Lincoln Papers</ref>}}

Throughout early American history, when they suffered from drought, famine or war, Americans paused, not to seek vengeance or to question their faith, but to give thanks to God for the blessings they still had. Not only have many Americans forgotten or never learned the historic origins of our Thanksgiving -- to pause and give thanks to God for our abundance -- but radical [[secularists]] are intent on removing God and [[faith]] from our national life altogether. Many of the entertainment and political elite seem to be threatened by religious faith.

==History==

Thanksgiving in the United States is possibly the premier U.S. family celebration, typically celebrated at home and marked with a substantial feast. As the anchor of what is for many a four-day holiday weekend, Thanksgiving provides an occasion for family reunions, marks the beginning of the “holiday season” that continues through [[Christmas]] and New Year’s Day and, as its name suggests, affords Americans a shared opportunity to express their gratitude for plentiful food and general abundance.

Many cultures traditionally have marked a plentiful harvest with a celebration of thanks. Long before the first English settlers reached [[North America]], Western [[Europe]]ans observed “Harvest Home” festivals and the British an August 1 Lammas ("Loaf Mass") Day, celebrating the wheat harvest.

However the American Thanksgiving holiday, a ''National Day of Thanksgiving'', is unique in all the world. It was first celebrated in Virginia at Berkeley Plantation, where English colonists first held a Thanksgiving celebration on December 4, 1619, one year and 17 days prior to the landing of the Pilgrims in Massachusetts. This first Thanksgiving occurred when Captain John Woodlief led the newly arrived English colonists to a grassy slope along the James River and instructed them to drop to their knees and pray in thanks to God for a safe arrival to the New World. On this day, Dec. 4, 1619, these 38 men from Berkeley Parish in England were given the instructions:

:''"Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrivall at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually keept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God."'' [http://www.virginia.org/site/features.asp?FeatureID=50]
[[Image:Thanksgiving.jpg|left|275px]]
The [[Pilgrims]] had arrived in 1620, crossing the [[Atlantic Ocean]] to separate themselves from the official [[Church of England]] and practice freely their form of Puritanism. Arriving at Plymouth Colony—part of today’s Massachusetts—too late to grow many crops, and lacking fresh food, the Pilgrims suffered terribly during the winter of 1620–1621. Half the colony died from disease. The following spring, local Wampanoag Indians taught the colonists how to grow corn (maize) and other local crops unfamiliar to the Pilgrims, and also helped the newcomers master hunting and fishing.

Because they harvested bountiful crops of corn, barley, beans and pumpkins, the colonists had much to be thankful for in the fall of 1621. English Puritans had traditionally designated special days of thanksgiving to express gratitude for God’s blessings. In the autumn of 1621, the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony held their first Thanksgiving. They invited their Wampanoag benefactors who arrived with deer to roast with the turkeys and other wild game offered by the colonists. The colonists had learned how to cook cranberries and different kinds of corn and squash dishes from the Indians.

Many of the original colonists continued to celebrate days of thanksgiving for a bountiful autumn harvest and the blessings of freedom God had bestowed on them. President George Washington proclaimed a Day of National Thanksgiving in 1789, to celebrate the ratification of the United States Constitution. Gradually, a number of states began to celebrate an annual Thanksgiving. In 1863,during the long and bloody civil war, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed the last Thursday in November an annual National Day of Thanksgiving, to give thanks to God for the blessings God had bestowed upon the [[United States]].

[[Image:Thanksgiving grace - 1942.jpg|right|300px]]
Thanksgiving is a time for prayer, tradition and sharing. Even if they live far away, family members often gather for family reunions. As a result, Thanksgiving marks the busiest domestic air travel period of the year. Many Americans enjoy a local Thanksgiving parade, or the annual Macy’s department store parade, televised live from New York City. Others watch televised American football, while all give thanks together to God for their food, shelter and other good things. Many volunteer their time to help civic groups, churches, and charitable organizations offer traditional meals to those in need.

Although the fourth Thursday of November falls on a different date every year, the president is expected to proclaim that date as the official celebration.

The Pilgrims’ triumph over starvation and disease at [[Plymouth Colony]] can be traced to something more than the charitable gestures of a few local Indians. Rather, it was their faith in Divine Providence and the blessings of God. It also involves their courageous decision to replace a failed, socialistic agricultural system with one formed by the free-market principle of private ownership of property -- a century and a half before [[Adam Smith]] wrote The Wealth of Nations.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23453 The Reality of Thanksgiving], by Mike Franc, ''Human Events'', 11/16/2007.</ref>

==Symbols of Thanksgiving==
[[Image:FreedomFromWant.JPG|right|thumb|250px|''Freedom From Want'', aka ''The Thanksgiving Dinner'', by Norman Rockwell]]

*[[Turkey (bird)|Turkey]], [[corn]] (maize), pumpkins, sweet potatoes and cranberry sauce are symbols that represent the first Thanksgiving. These symbols often are depicted on holiday decorations and greeting cards. Corn in particular is held to represent the survival of the Pilgrim colonies. Used as a table or door decoration, corn or maize represents the harvest and the fall season.

*Sweet-sour cranberry sauce, or cranberry jelly, was on the first Thanksgiving table and is still served today. The cranberry is a small, sour berry. It grows in bogs, or muddy areas, in Massachusetts and other New England states. It is indigenous to [[North America]]. The Indians used the fruit to treat infections and the juice to dye their rugs and blankets. They taught the colonists how to cook the berries with sweetener and water to make a sauce. The Indians called it "ibimi," which means "bitter berry." The Pilgrims preferred "crane-berry" because the flowers of the berry bent the stalk over, reminding them of the long-necked crane. The berries are still grown in [[New England]].

*In 1988, a Thanksgiving night ceremony of a different kind took place at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in [[New York City]]. Among the more than four thousand people gathered there were Native Americans representing tribes from all over the country and descendants of the later immigrants. The ceremony acknowledged publicly the [[Native Americans]]' role in the first American Thanksgiving, a feast held to thank the Indians for sharing the knowledge and skills without which the first Pilgrims would not have survived.

==Canada==
[[Canadian]] Thanksgiving is celebrated on the second Monday in October.

==See also==

*[[George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation]]
*[[Abraham Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation]]

==References==
<references/>

== External links ==
*[http://www.virginia.org/site/features.asp?featureid=50]
*[http://www.epicurious.com/articlesguides/holidays/thanksgiving/thanksgiving_entertaining The Complete Thanksgiving Guide]
*[http://www.history.com/minisites/thanksgiving/ The History of Thanksgiving]
*[http://www.bright.net/~1wayonly/reflection.html Reflection, Prayer & Thanksgiving] Kimberly B. Southall.

[[Category:Holidays]]
[[Category: United States]]

Talk:Deceit

2009-11-26T15:12:35Z

EMorrissey: /* Examples */

'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]


==Examples==

Do we really need this many examples of deciet? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. Deceit is pretty easy to understand. The example of Eve in the Garden of Eden might serve as a good example, but it's clear that this list exists more to bash Liberals than provide examples. It's gratuitous and patronizing. I'd support removing it as well. [[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 10:12, 26 November 2009 (EST)

==10 Commandments==
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== contradiction in the definition ==

I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:

* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.

However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.

Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Politicization ==
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.
Am I the only one who notices this? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.

: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".

: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.

:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!

:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Archiving ==

Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Democratic Party==

[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)

*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]

Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:Did Murtha say we cannot win militarily in Iraq, or did he say that we cannot win in Iraq with a 100% military approach? There is a moderate difference.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 21:48, 31 December 2008 (EST)

==American Public Schools==

"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
http://www.goodcharacter.com/

*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.

:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm afraid I have to correct you. In many public school systems, because of pressure from Conservative lobbies, parents' groups, and churches, students are not permitted to learn anything BUT absolute "right and wrong" morality. State textbook guidelines in some of the largest markets (Texas and California) mandate that stories in primary school readers are not permitted to portray children "in conflict with adults"<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375414824</ref>, facing "complicated moral problems", or issues "without a clear right or wrong answer". Liberal pressure groups insist that these lessons are presented secularly; the result (Diane Ravitch argues in the book that this post references) is a bland, Bowdlerized reading curriculum that young people find unrealistic and boring, but politically correct to suit both Liberal and Conservative censorists.

==Clinton==

Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).

Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"

I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-
 
 a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".
 b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]
 c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.
 
It seems to me you're being very selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.

:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.

:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.

:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Another Example ==

Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Catalog or informative article? ==

Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Public Schools==

I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?

:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]
::::::::::or
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.

: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.

: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.

: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?

::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].

After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Delete==
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]

*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.

Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Heading edit==

Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads:

"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."

I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.

::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== How we differ from Wikipedia ==

{{cquote|We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.}}

The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".

This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."

Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.

I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.

Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007
(EDT)

We don't need your liberal bias here, and in any case you are compering apples with oranges. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 08:18, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==Read My Lips==

How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)

As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==

It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894
:William Garstang, 1922
:Gavin de Beer, 1958
:William Ballard, 1976
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977
:Richard Elinson, 1987
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
:Michael Richardson, 1995
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]

So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Broken source link==
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)

==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==

As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

ModCath seems to be a poorly executed caricature. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pathetic Rubbish ==

There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:

{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}

It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.

:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Andy,

My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==Liberals and Deceit==

The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)

(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Piltdown Man ==

Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows: 

The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man was declared to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> given a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> Yet this fraud maintained currency for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> as well as in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>

: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)

What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)

: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)

But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Enron... Nixon... ==

I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.

Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::So by your own definition ("The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.") Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al are guilty of deceit, given the way they fervently embraced (and haven't repented for) the deceit surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction? It's a bit disingenuous to tweak the definition every time a name crops up that you wouldn't like to see in the list. Likewise, I can't see how Reagan's deceit surrounding Iran-Contra can be classed as run-of-the-mill political lies. That also seems to imply that you're willing to accept a politician who lies to you, in a run of the mill way?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::: Perhaps you also think it was [[deceit]] for Bush to claim to have won the 2000 election?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: Why would I think that? True, it did get messy before the final result was announced, but that was as much Gore's fault as anything. At the end of the day the candidate with the most votes won, fair and square. Now, snide remarks aside, shall we get back on topic?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::: Uh oh, you'd better watch yourself, or you won't have any [[liberal friendship|liberal friends]] any more. ''Gore won the most votes, not Bush!''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)

<-- Steering back on track, we have two examples that need to be considered:
* Nixon stating "I am not a crook" and then defending this statement
* Bush stating there were WMD's without evidence, and continuing this belief

I know nothing about the first, and not as much as others about the second. As for Bush winning the 2000 election, this has nothing to do with deceit, and instead with the American election system. Bush did not win because he lied about the outcome. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: Bush still claims he won in 2000. Some liberals would say this deceit has been going on for nearly 8 years. Do you think we should include that also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::Of course not. He won. No deceit involved. Whereas Nixon clearly exemplifies "embraced deceit". I now understand why Enron has been deleted, given that it was a case of simple deceit in the form of theft, not an attempt to influence people's political opinions etc. But surely Nixon... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::Bush ''did'' win in 2000, even though he still got less votes the way the American political system is structured allowed him to claim victory. While some extreme leftists may view this as deceit, others view it as a reason to change rather than an example of a blatant lie. I don't think anyone here is actually claiming Bush winning the election was an example of deceit, perhaps we could concentrate on the two issues others have raised. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:22, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: OK, then why the obsession with Nixon? Clinton lied and was impeached. We haven't included him, why do you think there was [[embraced deceit]] by Nixon that is so much stronger than Clinton's?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::(speaking just for myself, obviously) - I am not obsessed with Nixon, but he was once mentioned on the site and was deleted, and I queried the reason for that deletion. As far as I am aware (I haven't checked all the page history) Clinton has never made an appearance here. I am arguing against the removal of Nixon, not against the addition of Clinton. Adding Clinton might indeed be appropriate, for sure. And no doubt many other politicians of all political hues and persuasions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Any standard used on Nixon would create a horde of politicians who could be included as well. The key is to find behavior that is out of the ordinary so as to set the actions of the individual apart from his peers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

You all seem to be forgetting something. The list says deceit, therfore any1 can be put on it including nixon. If you want it to only be an article on liberals have the guts to call it liberal deceit. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:I seem to recall it used to be called [[Liberal deceit]], but they changed it because some vandals and malcontents kept saying there should be an article for [[Conservative deceit]]. They failed to understand that [[Real Conservatives]] never lie. It's just that occasionally their true statements are non-operative in the reality-based community world at this point in time fnord.
:I've taken the liberty of adding [[Scooter Libby]] to the list. If a conviction for perjury doesn't qualify as Deceit, I'm curious what does. (oh, yeah--ANYTHING a Liberal says.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Not all convictions are necessarily just, and this one was particularly controversial. You are right however that perjury qualifies as deciet. However, I think it is best to stick to more widely accepted examples. I'm moving the scooter libby example to the talk page for further discussion. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Admittedly there are several other controversial examples on te page. I'll see what I can do about them. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

on second thought, the current examples are pretty good. However you may feel free to suggest any examples that you think are appropriate. Personaly I have nothing against exposing non-liberal deciet. I don't approve of deciet in general. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Umm, right ==

This article is stupid. Instead of actually giving information about deceit it just lists heaps of people who are apparently evil liberal liars. Why not actually provide information (like encyclopedias should) rather than listing "examples".

If the admins of this place want it to replace Wikipedia as the Internets main source of info, a good way to start would be to actually provide information. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fred, try opening your mind a bit and recognize the well-documented cases of [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I would like to insult you for your supposedly "open minded" idea of deceit, but I won't.
I'm just saying, rather than listing supposed cases of deciet, shoulden't an encyclopedia describe what deciet is and explain why and how it is used rather than just saying "all these things are eebul liberal lies!!11!" Examples are good, but they should not be the main part of an article on an encyclopedia. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

As no one's replying, can I assume its ok for me to start drafting a replacement article with more emphasis on explaining dicete rather than exposing "eebul liberal lies!!11!" [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 23:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scooter Libby==

This example has been suggested. please discuss.

# [[Scooter Libby]], convicted in court of Obstruction of Justice, Making a False Statement, and [Perjury]], for intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.

::Yes, that's deceit all right! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Sounds good to ME, but I'm the one who posted it, so I'm biased. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: There is no end to the list if we start posting political figures. There were many convictions among Clinton cronies also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Examples of deceit==

I realize that this page contains many true and valid example's of deciet, however i don't see how such a list is what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. I think this list has only proved itself a can of worms. I say we only include a description of what deciet is and perhaps one or to more classical examples of deciet such as ananias and saphira. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. Large laundry lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Encyclopedia's and all reference works, can teach not only by defining a term, but showing it as well. There is an old rhyme about how a person would rather see a sermon, than hear one. By not only defining the term, but providing examples and comparisons, the job this ''conservative encyclopedia'' does is greatly improved, IMO. I do realize that to many in today's world, it seems "out of step" in a society where teaching "right" and "wrong" is held to be archaic. Remember fine counsel is often confused, but examples are always clear! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::So you agree with Ben (and I) then? I think a few in-depth, well known examples would be much more beneficial to ''any encyclopedia'' that what we have now. Deceit is a pretty simple concept, why explain it with 15 examples? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We disfavor deleting information unless a [[rule]] violation is identified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, I was saying just the opposite of what you (apparently) were saying. That good examples, which actually demonstrate, are a far better learning aid than just a litany of "facts". I would note that it appears many are overly concerned, ''albeit perhaps a well intentioned concern'', with truncating articles in CP that are "uncomfortable" to some in their uncompromising examples of [[liberal deceit]]. We see that in many places today, a few seeking to redefine, blur or minimize anything that points out uncomfortable facts about the left, and liberals in particular. Why even a factual statement about liberal thinking is branded by some now as ''ad hominem arguments'', which seems to be a new phrase introduced to truncate any and all discussion or disagreement with liberals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't say anything about being uncomfortable, liberal deceit, minimizing criticism of the left, or ad hominem arguments, so I'll just address the relevant portion of your post.
:We are obviously both in agreement (along with Ben, who started this thread) that examples can help explain a concept. I love examples, and try to add them to new articles I create. But don't you agree that a couple of good, solid examples are better than a list of every example we can find? I think this is a more concise and more informative way to make an encyclopedia entry.
:Deceit is a simple concept; at some point all these examples stop being about deceit and start being about denegrating those who are being used as examples (both liberals AND conservatives, as can be seen in the suggestion in the section below). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think I have dealt with the latest twist in liberals trying to shut down discussion by claiming "ad hominem arguments" elsewhere. That argument (liberal fact) is rejected by conservatives outright, and as this is a conservative wiki, has no place here. If you need the link, I think I can find it.

::As for the idea of using fewer examples, I think Andy Schlafly succinctly answered that no, removal of examples showing liberal deceit/bias is not favored. No caveats were provided, correct? I do however think such articles could stand formatting and stylistic improvement, making them easier to read, and highlighting salient points in an improved way. I stand ready to assist anyone wanting to improve Conservapedia's articles, by offering suggestions/examples/ideas as to what is acceptable to conservatives and what is not. Ed Poor, Karajou, Crocotite, Conservative, TerryH and Andy himself are a few others I know who are qualified to provide that information. If someone feels unfairly excluded, please forgive an older person a lapse in memory or familiarity with their work. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

=="The War in Iraq Is Going Well"==
Isn't that a form of embraced deceit? It's clearly ''not'' going well, and yet the Bush administration refuses to backtrack from its original position, that the war would be and essentially was won in a matter of days. We all know that's false now. Why do they not come out and say it?-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: Politics is filled with issues like that. There are just as many -- if not more -- examples on the Democratic side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::True. It's no secret that politics is dirty on all sides. But if your goal with this article is to prove that no conservatives ever embrace deceit, then, I think this example should be included. Feel free to stack in as many other examples of Democrats doing the same thing as you want.-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::So what? We don't let Charles Manson out of jail just because Pol Pot killed more people, and misdeeds by Democrats '''DO NOT EXCUSE misdeeds by Republicans'''. If you seriously want people to believe that Conservatives have higher moral standards than Liberals, then giving "your" "side" a free pass when they've verifiably done something egregious does not help your case. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:01, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::"Going well" as compared to what? The Iraq situation, as compared to the more rampant random violence of months ago, is going better. The "surge", whatever one wants to call it, has improved security, and has been admitted so doing by even former Generals and the like who opposed the war. So clearly saying that isn't a deceit, as measured by military experts, not civilians. Let's not intertwine arguments for or against the American police actions in going into Iraq, or the failings of the democratically elected government of Iraq, with the much narrower discussion about the "surge". And, I think someone needs to reaffirm what Andy just posted above: Someone citing what they believe to be a deceit, doesn't negate or disprove another. Therefore, the entire purpose of the post above, has no basis in logic, and appears to be yet another argumentative ''Red Herring'', something thrown out for just the sake of argument, when that is something more appropriate for a ''Discussion Group or Board'', but does nothing to add content to an encyclopedia project. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::there is a very large diffrence between going well, and going better. your argument is like saying that since someone in a hospital is dying slower, they are doing well. and the refrence point should be... compared to just after we won the actual war (with the army) in iraq-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Let's see, we enter a country that had no connection to the 9/11 attacks and yet claim they did. That's not the liberals talking, that's the CIA. We are met with hostility and yet claim that they love us. We abuse them, and yet cry when one of our guys is killed. It is never going to be well for the States in Iraq, ever.--[[User:LordKira|LordKira]] 21:32, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." ==

I beg your pardon? Is there any evidence for this outrageous statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:The [[burden of proof]] is on you, and it should be a light one if you have an example in mind already. "I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::Er, that's not true. The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the statement, in this case [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]].

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's what I just said: H made the claim that the statement is outrageous and so the burden of proof is upon him. Do I have to make it a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::The burden of proof is on the person who posts the statement in the article, not on the one who queries it on a talk page. I refer you to Commandments #1 and #5 - the article should ''not be personal opinion'', and it should ''be verifiable''. So it's not me that needs the writing assignment. I agree that the word "outrageous" was an expression of my personal opinion, but that is expressly allowed on a talk page (Commandment #5). If it helps, though, I'll happily withdraw it: "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." Is there any evidence for this <s>outrageous</s> statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:16, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::: BenjaminS claims it to be fact, AND since everything here must be VERIFIED, it is upon Benny to prove that his broad accusation has merit. As far as disproving it, I ask all public-school educated people to remember the time their first grade teacher taught them that lying is bad.
:::PBS (PUBLIC broadcasting) does teach this with the help of the good monsters of Sesame Street (I remember it back when it used to be a good neighborhood). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Frankly, I prefer Ed's guideline. Not requiring proof of a factual assertion, and instead putting the burden on any naysayers to disprove a fact, will make writing articles much easier.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Is that a joke? Seriously, that's the worst methodology I've ever heard of. I'm going to go start an entry about the real-life Mighty Morphin Power Rangers which live on another planet at the other end of the galaxy. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Aschafly, you've reverted Lib1089's deletion of the sentence without adding any additional information. This is made worse because he expressly cited Conservapedia's first commandment in his edit summary: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". You've run roughshod over that. Please reconsider your edit and either revert it or add information that substantiates the claim. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Still awaiting a citation, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:46, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

This strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps my public school system was more conservative than most, but we most certainly were taught that deceit was wrong. In an academic setting, that of course took the form of bans on plagiarism and cheating, which were expressly forbidden, as I imagine they are at most any public school. I would also think that some public schools have honor codes, much like the liberal elite universities all do, that stress honesty and integrity. Finally, there is no evidence that public schools specifically condone deceit, is there? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I just removed that statement. I'm a bit new here but I'm assuming that a statement of that magnitude, not backed up with any references, is an act of vandalism. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Boris Johnson==
Aschlalfy, you have twice reverted factual, sourced, material about Boris Johnson. Why? I didnt state he was conservative so you cant say I was trying to smear conservatives. You will notice his mistress had an abortion to rid themselves of a potentially embarrasing love child. How is this not deceit?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Al Gore ==
Took this one out because there was no evidence of deceit, just factual inaccuracy. Gore botched more than a few facts in that film, but there's no reason to chalk that up to anything more than his incompetence. Although, if you can prove an intent to deceive, then by all means, please revert. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Richard Nixon==
Added a rather obvious example. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==M Scott Peck==
I removed his book from the further reading list because it is not about deceit as such, but about psycopathy (Evil, in common parlance). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==

What specifically about those named above and their actions qualifies them as not being deceitful? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: One-sided and opinionated examples of alleged deceit by a president or corporation do not have sufficient quality to be included in this high-quality entry, which typically consisted of significant, prolonged, embraced and admitted or proven deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think Nixon's deceit was significant and prolonged. Libby was significant simply for being a high-profile person, and his deceit was prolonged. And Enron's deceit was very significant, costing hundreds of people their savings. All three had their deceit proven in one way or another. It's pretty deceitful to claim otherwise. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:...is it because they're not liberal...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:I was about to post here yesterday, but I had just added the entires in question back and [[User:Bugler]] blocked me for it. The answer is that yes, of course, you will find as you continue to edit this 'encyclopedia' that examples of conservative deceit are not allowed. What I recommend is browing the edit list of [[User:Aschlafly]]. He's the owner and founder and essentially disagreeing with him is a sin. If you like that idea feel free to stick around.
:Of course, it's a blatant disregarding of the principles of Conservapedia (see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]) but hey, he's in charge. What are you going to do? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Could the Bush administrations false statements be counted as deceit? [[User:Ekeegan]]

==Public school deceit==
It's not a required course, but in "Journalism" students were taught about the evils of slander, deceit, and malice. your apathetic neighborhood public schooler [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 16:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Inherit the Wind==

LearnTogether, unless you have a reference showing where Inherit the Wind is shown in public school science classes, my removal of that entry should stand. I studied it in ''Drama'' in high school, and even in that context it was never presented as "science" or the reality of the Scopes trial. In fact, the teacher used that play as an example of drama based on (then) recent events to attract interest, much as the ''Law & Order'' episodes that are "Torn from the headlines" do today. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:My high school showed it in science class. In discussions in college with cross sections of students from across the United States, their experiences had been the same. Recent discussions on debate boards left current high school students amazed when I pointed out to them just how far apart the movie was from the reality of the event, a film they had just seen in their science classes. I am glad your school was more enlightened. Many are not. It stays. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:51, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::Wow, that's sad that your school and others did that (and ironic, because mine was in "Liberal" NYC). I'm not going to challenge your anecdotal evidence, but maybe a reference could be added to state that "This occurred in XYZ H.S. in NameOfState during the 19xx's, and in several other public high schools based on discussions with college students at ABC University in the 19xx's".

::Also, I'd ask that you change the following, "Both completely lied about the facts in order to harm Christianity, misleading students who read or enact the play and everyone who saw the movie.", to something like "The changes in dramatizing the story altered significant facts, misleading students who relied on the film or play as their sole reference for what happened in the actual Scopes trial." Unless you have a valid source that shows the intent of the dramatic changes was to purposefully harm Christianity, then that's just an opinion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:35, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==John Edwards==

Should lying about his affair go here? On the one hand, he's certainly a liberal, and it's certainly deceit; on the other hand, a lot of people would likely argue that it's part of a larger pattern of dishonesty among politicians in general ("Never admit to wrongdoing unless you have no choice.")--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:44, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Changes ==

Alright so I did some editing for the sake of clarification (morally wrong has much stronger connotations than simply wrong, which can be argued as to having varying degrees of severity).

Also you ought add more historical information, Plato comes to mind as they dealt with the art of sophistry fairly regularly.

I removed the comment about public schools, not necessarily because I disagree with it, but more because it was out of place and lacked any context. Indeed, secular institutions don't teach morality (a non-secular entity) unless you take a class on the subject, but even then it is conducted more in an informative matter than anything else (students are nto expected to take a stance on the issue).

Some of the examples (such as Al Gore) aren't wrong really, Gore believes some dumb things, yet deceit carries with it the connotation of WILLFULLY professing untrue things. Indeed, striking as it is, people do not have a habit of professing things they do not actually believe. Other examples could use some sources, such as the ending sentence about liberal endorsement of lying: people /were/ angry about his behavior, but they also got over it. This is not the same thing as being ok with lying.

I won't touch the scopes monkey trial example, though I will say you need some pretty concrete sources for those assertions: just because something is made to look bad doesn't mean that was intentional, sometimes the facts are arranged and interpreted incorrectly due to error and misunderstanding, not because someone is out to get you.

Otherwise this article needs some work: I suggest expanding the example section to include more historical examples of deceit, a section dedicated to analyzing the moral implications of deceit, and perhaps more about deceit from a Biblical perspective. That's all I can think of now, but I am sure there is more we can add. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 17:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

- Ah yes! Almost forgot: about my modification of the Evolution reference, it is within their sincere belief that $_experiment verifies the theory of evolution to varying degrees, so to claim that they are being deceitful is rather baseless unless you can cite a source of all evolutionary scientists willfully deceiving the entire world by professing something that is not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:12, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

-- I would also prefer you'd /say something/ instead of randomly reverting peoples edits, founder of Conservapedia or not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:34, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bible ==

I added some insightful references from the Good Book. Is that a good decision? I'm new here.
--American78

== Jacob example ==

Is there any reason for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=next&oldid=512709 this revert] in particular? I don't see why the example of Jacob isn't a reasonable example of how deceit can land you in trouble. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]]

==Huckabee and Wayne DuMond==

Doesn't this classify as deceit? He vehemently denied any involvement in DuMond's release, but tantamount evidence shows otherwise, and he still denies it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 10:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Examples ==

When possible, we want prominent examples of deceit where it is evident the individual knew what they were doing without question. So Huckabee would not be a good example, as it is unclear that he directly talked with the women or had reviewed their paperwork. Subordinates often handle much of that work and how things are presented to the governor. If a person is directly responsible, then that is different. Bill Clinton wagging his finger on TV while he talked about Monica Lewinsky is direct involvement where he obviously knew what he was doing. (In this case it was decided at an earlier time not to include that example in this article, so I am using it for display purposes only.) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:You might be right, but there's really no evidence to support that he didn't know anything about it. At a minimum, he was dishonest about disclosing the records:
::"Huckabee has refused to release his gubernatorial administration's records on the matter, saying that he was concerned for the privacy of Dumond's victims and that the records contain sensitive law enforcement information.
::...But most of the women assaulted by Dumond and interviewed for this story say that Huckabee could have made information public while guarding their privacy. Law enforcement authorities also scoffed at the idea that anything in the records would have harmed an ongoing investigation since Dumond is no longer alive ."
:And this seems to suggest two-way correspondence from Huckabee himself:
::"The records revealed in this story -- including correspondence between Dumond's victims and Huckabee, as well as the governor's own file regarding Dumond -- were provided to me in the fall of 2002 by a Republican staffer to then-Gov. Huckabee."
:I don't think we can' write this off so easily, especially when there are really weak cases, like the Michael Moore example. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:33, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::Huckabee knew what he was doing - he took the parole board into a private meeting and pushed for DuMond's release. Victims sent letters, and he ignored them. He still denies having no involvement in DuMond's release, however, which is deceit. If you'd like, I'll search for multiple sources. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 14:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I haven't followed this article closely and I can see it has changed over time. Our general philosophy was to note strong examples with an understanding that too many examples would water down the article itself. A choice was also made to be careful with politicians, as a case can be made for almost anyone that they were deceitful, except in the case of undeniable evidence of purposeful deceit. So questions I would have with Huckabee would be in the why arena. Are we saying the man purposely wanted to get a rapist out of prison with the knowledge he was likely to rape again? And that somehow the parole board agreed? I would imagine that based on the information presented that it appeared to be the proper thing to do at the time or else he - and the board - would not have made that decision. You'll also see that I removed reference to deceit for another politician, as I believe the reference failed to merit inclusion based upon the same standard. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:09, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree with you in principal. I think I've said before (and if not said, I've at least thought it very hard) that there shouldn't be a list at all for a multitude of reasons. But since we have one, I think this might be a good one to go on it. I reread the article and discovered that apparently the reason that Huckabee wanted the prisoner released was that it was a major issue with his conservative voterbase, who thought that the charges were trumped up and that the victim was related to Bill Clinton (a distant cousin). According to [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/former-aide-contradicts-h_n_75519.html this] article that I just found, Huckabee himself did actually ask the parole board to release the prisoner. Or his aide could be lying, but there's no evididence for that either.

:So do whatever you think is right, Learn together. It sounds like I'm committed on keeping this example in, but really I just want to make sure it gets a fair read, lest it look like we are censoring conservative examples of deceit (and I completely doubt that's what you are trying to do here!!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Public schools ==

[[Public schools]] do not teach that deceit is wrong. Don't censor that fact from this entry, and watch how public school students and graduates behave here to see illustrations of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:00, 1 January 2009 (EST)

== Michael Moore and Cafferty Examples ==

The last two examples are clearly not deceit. Detestable and low-class, yes, but not at all deceitful. Michael Moore's is a great example of [[hypocrisy]], not deceit. The Cafferty example may be an case of bias or stacking the deck, but again where's the deceit?

Seeing as any mention of Jack Abramoff or Nixon or Scooter Libby gets deleted because it doesn't meet the admins' strict definition for deceit, the list should be free of any weaker examples like Moore and Cafferty. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:15, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

*In your own, not very humble, liberal opinion, eh? Try reading more, with an open mind, the truth. It will set you free. Abramoff was a crook, giving bribes to Democrats and Republicans. Nixon's "great deceit" was a single lie, protecting underlings, when you boil it all down. Libby? Claiming he was guilty of deceit is a stretch beyond fairness. I better go look and see if Nancy Pelosi is on the list! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:25, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

::Thanks for replying. Do you want to answer the question about Michael Moore and Cafferty examples? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:27, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

::*Maybe. I'm still trying to figure out why this is such an issue to a student in Austria, as well as the 2010 Census, unless they are merely trolling. Moore is a propagandist, a socialist one, who uses lies to distort other's opinions, or the quality of Cuban health care. that makes him deceitful. Cafferty, did you look at the links and do your own research? Or did you just visit the Daily Kos? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:47, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

:::I read all of the links in the article. Did you read the beginning of my post? I'm completely in agreement that Michael Moore uses deceit and poor logic in his filmmaking. But by definition, the example in this article is of hypocrisy, not deceit.

:::As for the Cafferty, how is reading only mail critical of Limbaugh an example of deceit? Like I said in the original post, it's definitely [[liberal bias]], [[liberal style]], and general nasty behavior, but doesn't match the other examples.

[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 19:20, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Perhaps the best solution, then, is to suggest some better examples of deceit by Moore and Cafferty. If they do a better job of illustrating how dishonest they are, I'm sure nobody will object to adding them to the article. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:12, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Yes, Ben, that is indeed what I am used to, rather than a picky debate over what constitutes a better reference, if an editor has a problem, find a better one! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:20, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T15:06:11Z

EMorrissey: "Uniquely American" edit

Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T15:04:30Z

EMorrissey: Removed "uniquely American" reference - see talk page

[[Image:Vc006494.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Congressional Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, set by Congress, December 18, 1777]]
'''Thanksgiving Day''' is a national [[holiday]] in the [[United States]] that is celebrated on the fourth Thursday in November. It is traditionally a day set aside to give thanks to the [[God|Lord]] for His blessings. Thanksgiving -- like our nation -- in our faith in [[God]].

In 1789 President George Washington proclaimed Thanksgiving Day as the last Thursday in November. In 1941, the United States [[Congress]] passed a resolution decreeing that Thanksgiving should fall on the fourth Thursday of November. Thanksgiving Day proclamations have traditionally been given by the Presidents of the United States of America <ref> http://www.thanksgivingworld.com/thanksgiving-proclamations/index.html</ref>

==Colonial==
The earliest Thanksgivings were celebrated by Americans who were keenly aware that their blessings -- like their rights -- came from God. In times of hardship unimaginable to us today, they took time to give thanks to their Creator. The event is commemorated by a national holiday in November with its origins in [[Virginia]] at Berkeley Plantation on December 4, 1619. The first Thanksgiving was a religious celebration -- an occasion to thank [[God]] -- that featured only a modest meal. It wasn't until two years later, in 1621, that Thanksgiving was expanded to include a banquet by the [[Pilgrims]] in [[Massachusetts]]. Thanksgiving was the first uniquely American holiday.

==Washington==
In September 1789, Congress asked President [[George Washington]] to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.” Washington complied. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40032 President Washington Proclaims America’s Duty to ‘Obey’ God and ‘Be Grateful for His Benefits’] CNSNews, November 27, 2008</ref>

{{cquote|''Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best. Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.'' <ref>http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html Library of Congress - George Washington Papers</ref>}}.

==Lincoln==
During the very heart of the [[American Civil War]], in October 1863, President [[Abraham Lincoln]] built on President Washington's initiative and created an annual day of Thanksgiving.

Like Washington, Lincoln was determined to draw a direct tie between America and the Heavenly Creator from whom Americans draw their rights.

Lincoln acknowledged that the nation was "in the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity." But he focused instead on the nation's blessings, urging his fellow Americans to remember that: {{cquote|'''No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. ''Let Us Be Thankful For a Land That Will For Such Religion Stand.''''' <ref>http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/malhome.html Library of Congress - Abraham Lincoln Papers</ref>}}

Throughout early American history, when they suffered from drought, famine or war, Americans paused, not to seek vengeance or to question their faith, but to give thanks to God for the blessings they still had. Not only have many Americans forgotten or never learned the historic origins of our Thanksgiving -- to pause and give thanks to God for our abundance -- but radical [[secularists]] are intent on removing God and [[faith]] from our national life altogether. Many of the entertainment and political elite seem to be threatened by religious faith.

==History==

Thanksgiving in the United States is possibly the premier U.S. family celebration, typically celebrated at home and marked with a substantial feast. As the anchor of what is for many a four-day holiday weekend, Thanksgiving provides an occasion for family reunions, marks the beginning of the “holiday season” that continues through [[Christmas]] and New Year’s Day and, as its name suggests, affords Americans a shared opportunity to express their gratitude for plentiful food and general abundance.

Many cultures traditionally have marked a plentiful harvest with a celebration of thanks. Long before the first English settlers reached [[North America]], Western [[Europe]]ans observed “Harvest Home” festivals and the British an August 1 Lammas ("Loaf Mass") Day, celebrating the wheat harvest.

However the American Thanksgiving holiday, a ''National Day of Thanksgiving'', is unique in all the world. It was first celebrated in Virginia at Berkeley Plantation, where English colonists first held a Thanksgiving celebration on December 4, 1619, one year and 17 days prior to the landing of the Pilgrims in Massachusetts. This first Thanksgiving occurred when Captain John Woodlief led the newly arrived English colonists to a grassy slope along the James River and instructed them to drop to their knees and pray in thanks to God for a safe arrival to the New World. On this day, Dec. 4, 1619, these 38 men from Berkeley Parish in England were given the instructions:

:''"Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrivall at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually keept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God."'' [http://www.virginia.org/site/features.asp?FeatureID=50]
[[Image:Thanksgiving.jpg|left|275px]]
The [[Pilgrims]] had arrived in 1620, crossing the [[Atlantic Ocean]] to separate themselves from the official [[Church of England]] and practice freely their form of Puritanism. Arriving at Plymouth Colony—part of today’s Massachusetts—too late to grow many crops, and lacking fresh food, the Pilgrims suffered terribly during the winter of 1620–1621. Half the colony died from disease. The following spring, local Wampanoag Indians taught the colonists how to grow corn (maize) and other local crops unfamiliar to the Pilgrims, and also helped the newcomers master hunting and fishing.

Because they harvested bountiful crops of corn, barley, beans and pumpkins, the colonists had much to be thankful for in the fall of 1621. English Puritans had traditionally designated special days of thanksgiving to express gratitude for God’s blessings. In the autumn of 1621, the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony held their first Thanksgiving. They invited their Wampanoag benefactors who arrived with deer to roast with the turkeys and other wild game offered by the colonists. The colonists had learned how to cook cranberries and different kinds of corn and squash dishes from the Indians.

Many of the original colonists continued to celebrate days of thanksgiving for a bountiful autumn harvest and the blessings of freedom God had bestowed on them. President George Washington proclaimed a Day of National Thanksgiving in 1789, to celebrate the ratification of the United States Constitution. Gradually, a number of states began to celebrate an annual Thanksgiving. In 1863,during the long and bloody civil war, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed the last Thursday in November an annual National Day of Thanksgiving, to give thanks to God for the blessings God had bestowed upon the [[United States]].

[[Image:Thanksgiving grace - 1942.jpg|right|300px]]
Thanksgiving is a time for prayer, tradition and sharing. Even if they live far away, family members often gather for family reunions. As a result, Thanksgiving marks the busiest domestic air travel period of the year. Many Americans enjoy a local Thanksgiving parade, or the annual Macy’s department store parade, televised live from New York City. Others watch televised American football, while all give thanks together to God for their food, shelter and other good things. Many volunteer their time to help civic groups, churches, and charitable organizations offer traditional meals to those in need.

Although the fourth Thursday of November falls on a different date every year, the president is expected to proclaim that date as the official celebration.

The Pilgrims’ triumph over starvation and disease at [[Plymouth Colony]] can be traced to something more than the charitable gestures of a few local Indians. Rather, it was their faith in Divine Providence and the blessings of God. It also involves their courageous decision to replace a failed, socialistic agricultural system with one formed by the free-market principle of private ownership of property -- a century and a half before [[Adam Smith]] wrote The Wealth of Nations.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23453 The Reality of Thanksgiving], by Mike Franc, ''Human Events'', 11/16/2007.</ref>

==Symbols of Thanksgiving==
[[Image:FreedomFromWant.JPG|right|thumb|250px|''Freedom From Want'', aka ''The Thanksgiving Dinner'', by Norman Rockwell]]

*[[Turkey (bird)|Turkey]], [[corn]] (maize), pumpkins, sweet potatoes and cranberry sauce are symbols that represent the first Thanksgiving. These symbols often are depicted on holiday decorations and greeting cards. Corn in particular is held to represent the survival of the Pilgrim colonies. Used as a table or door decoration, corn or maize represents the harvest and the fall season.

*Sweet-sour cranberry sauce, or cranberry jelly, was on the first Thanksgiving table and is still served today. The cranberry is a small, sour berry. It grows in bogs, or muddy areas, in Massachusetts and other New England states. It is indigenous to [[North America]]. The Indians used the fruit to treat infections and the juice to dye their rugs and blankets. They taught the colonists how to cook the berries with sweetener and water to make a sauce. The Indians called it "ibimi," which means "bitter berry." The Pilgrims preferred "crane-berry" because the flowers of the berry bent the stalk over, reminding them of the long-necked crane. The berries are still grown in [[New England]].

*In 1988, a Thanksgiving night ceremony of a different kind took place at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in [[New York City]]. Among the more than four thousand people gathered there were Native Americans representing tribes from all over the country and descendants of the later immigrants. The ceremony acknowledged publicly the [[Native Americans]]' role in the first American Thanksgiving, a feast held to thank the Indians for sharing the knowledge and skills without which the first Pilgrims would not have survived.

==Canada==
[[Canadian]] Thanksgiving is celebrated on the second Monday in October.

==See also==

*[[George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation]]
*[[Abraham Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation]]

==References==
<references/>

== External links ==
*[http://www.virginia.org/site/features.asp?featureid=50]
*[http://www.epicurious.com/articlesguides/holidays/thanksgiving/thanksgiving_entertaining The Complete Thanksgiving Guide]
*[http://www.history.com/minisites/thanksgiving/ The History of Thanksgiving]
*[http://www.bright.net/~1wayonly/reflection.html Reflection, Prayer & Thanksgiving] Kimberly B. Southall.

[[Category:Holidays]]
[[Category: United States]]

Talk:Roman Polanski

2009-11-25T21:22:02Z

EMorrissey: Created page with '== Swiss arrest rewrite == I've rewritten the awful paragraph found below: In 2009, while visiting Switzerland, he was seized by Swiss authorities, who, unlike the French, ...'

== Swiss arrest rewrite ==

I've rewritten the awful paragraph found below:

In 2009, while visiting [[Switzerland]], he was seized by Swiss authorities, who, unlike the French, were unwilling to protect a [[pedophile]] just to stick it to the United States. He will soon be returned to the US to pay for his despicable actions.

I believe the reasons should be self-evident, but if anyone wants explanation, I'll be glad to discuss. [[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 16:22, 25 November 2009 (EST)

Roman Polanski

2009-11-25T21:20:37Z

EMorrissey: Added information, rewrote a terrible paragraph

'''Roman Polanski''' is a Jewish [[Polish]]-born movie [[director]] and [[actor]].

Polanski and his Jewish father are [[Holocaust]] survivors. His Roman Catholic mother was murdered in [[Auschwitz]].<ref>IMDb: Biography for Roman Polanski[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000591/bio]</ref>

He acquired fame in the 1960's and 70s after directing numerous acclaimed films, including ''Repulsion'' and ''Chinatown''. His films frequently deal with dark themes, including [[Satanism]] (as seen in [[Rosemary's baby]]), adultery and murder. His films frequently included sexual perversions, including extended scenes of [[transvestism]] in ''The Tenant''.

In 1969, while Polanski was on a business trip to London, his 8-months pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, and their unborn baby were brutally murdered by members of the Manson Family cult.<ref>IMDb: Biography for Roman Polanski[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000591/bio]</ref>

In 1978 he pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a thirteen-year-old girl. He fled the country immediately afterwards and prior to sentencing to avoid imprisonment. For almost thirty years he lived comfortably in [[France]], which refused to extradite him to the United States, where he remained free from legal consequences.

Polanski has escaped from being extradited several times: May 1978 in London, December 1986 in Canada, 1988 in Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Brazil. In June 1994, a request for arrest was made to France. In October 2005, while Polanski were in Thailand, a folder is passed to Interpol; no effect. In 2007, the filmmaker traveled in Israel; the Hebrew State requested more information to the Los Angeles Attorney, when the documents arrived, the filmmaker had gone. <ref> [http://www.lemonde.fr/cinema/article/2009/09/29/pour-les-etats-unis-polanski-c-est-trente-ans-de-cavale_1246741_3476.html#ens_id=1245879 Le Monde (In French)] </ref>

In 2002, Polanski released ''The Pianist,'' an acclaimed film about Polish-born pianist Władysław Szpilman and his experiences during the Holocaust. The film won the 2003 ''[[Palme d'Or]]'' at the Cannes Film Festival and both the [[BAFTA]] and [[Academy Award]] for Best Directing.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253474/awards</ref> Polanski did not attend the ceremony, due to the charges against him, so actor Harrison Ford accepted the Oscar on Polanski's behalf.

In 2009, while in [[Switzerland]], he was arrested by Swiss authorities and held pending extradition to the United States to face the charges stemming from his 1977 arrest.

Polanski is a prime example of [[Hollywood values]] and more than 100 film industry figures have signed a petition calling for the release of Polanski. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/30/hollywoodans-support-polanski-push-his-release Hollywoodans Support Polanski, Push For His Release, NewsBusters.org, September 30, 2009]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Polanski, Roman}}
[[Category:Directors]][[Category:Polish People]] [[Category:Crimes]]

Calvin and Hobbes

2009-11-25T21:00:08Z

EMorrissey: /* Characters */

'''Calvin and Hobbes''' was a newspaper [[comic strip]] written by Bill Watterson, which ran for just over ten years, from November 18, 1985, through December 31, 1995. The comic, which benefited from a very literary author in [[Bill Watterson]] (b. 1958), drew on common themes of childhood and innocence, as well as more philosophical topics, ranging from the meaning of life to attempts to deal with the complexity of modern life. Newspapers continue to reprint the popular strips, but no new one has appeared since 1995.

== Characters ==
'''Calvin''', a six-year old boy, was the star of the comic. Perpetually looking for and causing trouble, Calvin's destructive tendencies nonetheless stemmed less from a true "mean streak," and more from being too intelligent for his own age, as evinced by his large vocabulary in the comic. Calvin enjoyed an active imagination, setting a backdrop for the strip's frequently fanciful settings, in Calvin's own imagination.

'''Hobbes:''' Calvin's stuffed tiger and best friend. He was introduced in the first strip when Calvin caught him in a trap baited with a tuna sandwich.<ref>http://www.s-anand.net/calvinandhobbes.html#19851118</ref> In the ''Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book,'' Watterson admitted he once thought it was important to explain how Calvin and Hobbes first met, but later regretted the decision. Later strips also contradict that origin story: in some instances, Hobbes recalls what Calvin was like as an infant,<ref>http://www.s-anand.net/calvinandhobbes.html#19940809</ref> which is at odds with the story that Calvin caught him at age six.

To Calvin, Hobbes was a real, live tiger, domesticated and friendly, who was his lifelong companion and best (and possibly only) friend. When portrayed from an adult's perspective, Hobbes was always a stuffed animal; from Calvin's, a real tiger. However, the strip is deliberately ambiguous about Hobbes's true nature - readers have debated over whether Hobbes is only "real" in Calvin's imagination, or if he is a changes from a real tiger to a stuffed one whenever anyone else is present.<ref>http://www.shelfari.com/groups/10643/discussions/2446/Hobbes-Stuffed-Animal-or-Real-Tiger-</ref>. Further complicating the issue is that Hobbes's movements have a tangible physical impact; every day, Hobbes lies in wait for Calvin and pounces on him when he returns from school, and Calvin receives cuts and bruises from these attacks. The two also have snowball fights and play sports together (resulting in further injuries to Calvin),<ref>http://www.s-anand.net/calvinandhobbes.html#19931206</ref> which raises further question over whether Hobbes is real.

'''Calvin's''' parents: never named, Calvin's parents frequently serve as Calvin's disciplinarians, although their roles expanded as the strip went on.

'''Susie Derkins:''' Calvin's neighbor, principal enemy and possible love interest. Calvin teases and torments Susie. Calvin's club GROSS ('''G'''et '''R'''id '''O'''f '''S'''limy girl'''S''') creates elaborate plots whose sole purpose is "to bug " Susie.<ref>http://www.s-anand.net/calvinandhobbes.html#19900821</ref> Calvin and Hobbes, the club's sole two members, frequently hatch plans to soak her with water balloons and attack her with snowballs, among other plots. Susie often outsmarts Calvin and turns his plans against him. Hobbes frequently accuses Calvin of being in love with Susie, an accusation that Calvin vehemently denies.<ref>http://www.s-anand.net/calvinandhobbes.html#19920209</ref>

'''Miss Wormwood:''' Calvin's schoolteacher. Calvin is a very poor student, typically failing tests and creating mischief. Miss Wormwood is forced to punish Calvin frequently.

'''Moe:''' a bully at Calvin's school, who frequently beats Calvin up, extorts his money and steals his toys.

== Calvin's Personae ==
Scenes from Calvin and Hobbes only took place in the "real world" about half of the time. The other half of the strips took place in Calvin's imagination, where he would become, in his mind, one of many characters. Frequent return character-personae were:
*A dinosaur (any breed) terrorizing a city or his schoolyard.
*Spaceman Spiff, a science-fiction hero in the [[Flash Gordon]] sense of the word.
*Stupendous Man, a superhero who wears his underwear over his pants.
*Tracer Bullet, a [[film noir]] [[detective]] hero in the tradition of ''[[The Maltese Falcon]]'' and [[Humphrey Bogart]].

== Strip Themes ==
Aside from standard childhood reminiscing that defined Bill Watterson's style, Calvin's perspective compassed more adult topics, such as the nature of good and evil, [[environmentalism]] (often explored from Hobbes' perspective, as a wild animal, missing the forest), coping with increasing complexity and [[technology]], the importance of [[creativity]] and the stifling effects of [[popular culture]] and [[television]], and the necessity for a rugged [[individualism]].

== See Also ==
*A site listing the [http://www.s-anand.net/calvin_93.html full text] of every Calvin and Hobbes comic, ever.
*A daily Calvin and Hobbes strip, provided by GoComics, [http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/ here].

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Comic Strips]]

Calvin and Hobbes

2009-11-25T20:57:14Z

EMorrissey:

'''Calvin and Hobbes''' was a newspaper [[comic strip]] written by Bill Watterson, which ran for just over ten years, from November 18, 1985, through December 31, 1995. The comic, which benefited from a very literary author in [[Bill Watterson]] (b. 1958), drew on common themes of childhood and innocence, as well as more philosophical topics, ranging from the meaning of life to attempts to deal with the complexity of modern life. Newspapers continue to reprint the popular strips, but no new one has appeared since 1995.

== Characters ==
'''Calvin''', a six-year old boy, was the star of the comic. Perpetually looking for and causing trouble, Calvin's destructive tendencies nonetheless stemmed less from a true "mean streak," and more from being too intelligent for his own age, as evinced by his large vocabulary in the comic. Calvin enjoyed an active imagination, setting a backdrop for the strip's frequently fanciful settings, in Calvin's own imagination.

'''Hobbes:''' Calvin's stuffed tiger and best friend. He was introduced in the first strip when Calvin caught him in a trap baited with a tuna sandwich. In the ''Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book,'' Watterson admitted he once thought it was important to explain how Calvin and Hobbes first met, but later regretted the decision. Later strips also contradict that origin story: in some instances, Hobbes recalls what Calvin was like as an infant,<ref>http://www.s-anand.net/calvinandhobbes.html#19940809</ref> which is at odds with the story that Calvin caught him at age six.

To Calvin, Hobbes was a real, live tiger, domesticated and friendly, who was his lifelong companion and best (and possibly only) friend. When portrayed from an adult's perspective, Hobbes was always a stuffed animal; from Calvin's, a real tiger. However, the strip is deliberately ambiguous about Hobbes's true nature - readers have debated over whether Hobbes is only "real" in Calvin's imagination, or if he is a changes from a real tiger to a stuffed one whenever anyone else is present.<ref>http://www.shelfari.com/groups/10643/discussions/2446/Hobbes-Stuffed-Animal-or-Real-Tiger-</ref>. Further complicating the issue is that Hobbes's movements have a tangible physical impact; every day, Hobbes lies in wait for Calvin and pounces on him when he returns from school, and Calvin receives cuts and bruises from these attacks. The two also have snowball fights and play sports together (resulting in further injuries to Calvin),<ref>http://www.s-anand.net/calvinandhobbes.html#19931206</ref> which raises further question over whether Hobbes is real.

'''Calvin's''' parents: never named, Calvin's parents frequently serve as Calvin's disciplinarians, although their roles expanded as the strip went on.

'''Susie Derkins:''' Calvin's neighbor, principal enemy and possible love interest. Calvin teases and torments Susie. Calvin's club GROSS ('''G'''et '''R'''id '''O'''f '''S'''limy girl'''S''') was created specifically "to bug " Susie and Calvin and Hobbes, the club's sole two members, frequently hatch plans to soak her with water balloons and attack her with snowballs, among other plots. Susie often outsmarts Calvin and turns his plans against him. Hobbes frequently accuses Calvin of being in love with Susie, an accusation that Calvin vehemently denies.

'''Miss Wormwood:''' Calvin's schoolteacher. Calvin is a very poor student, typically failing tests and creating mischief. Miss Wormwood is forced to punish Calvin frequently.

'''Moe:''' a bully at Calvin's school, who frequently beats Calvin up, extorts his money and steals his toys.

== Calvin's Personae ==
Scenes from Calvin and Hobbes only took place in the "real world" about half of the time. The other half of the strips took place in Calvin's imagination, where he would become, in his mind, one of many characters. Frequent return character-personae were:
*A dinosaur (any breed) terrorizing a city or his schoolyard.
*Spaceman Spiff, a science-fiction hero in the [[Flash Gordon]] sense of the word.
*Stupendous Man, a superhero who wears his underwear over his pants.
*Tracer Bullet, a [[film noir]] [[detective]] hero in the tradition of ''[[The Maltese Falcon]]'' and [[Humphrey Bogart]].

== Strip Themes ==
Aside from standard childhood reminiscing that defined Bill Watterson's style, Calvin's perspective compassed more adult topics, such as the nature of good and evil, [[environmentalism]] (often explored from Hobbes' perspective, as a wild animal, missing the forest), coping with increasing complexity and [[technology]], the importance of [[creativity]] and the stifling effects of [[popular culture]] and [[television]], and the necessity for a rugged [[individualism]].

== See Also ==
*A site listing the [http://www.s-anand.net/calvin_93.html full text] of every Calvin and Hobbes comic, ever.
*A daily Calvin and Hobbes strip, provided by GoComics, [http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/ here].

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Comic Strips]]

Calvin and Hobbes

2009-11-25T20:55:31Z

EMorrissey:

'''Calvin and Hobbes''' was a newspaper [[comic strip]] written by Bill Watterson, which ran for just over ten years, from November 18, 1985, through December 31, 1995. The comic, which benefited from a very literary author in [[Bill Watterson]] (b. 1958), drew on common themes of childhood and innocence, as well as more philosophical topics, ranging from the meaning of life to attempts to deal with the complexity of modern life. Newspapers continue to reprint the popular strips, but no new one has appeared since 1995.

== Characters ==
'''Calvin''', a six-year old boy, was the star of the comic. Perpetually looking for and causing trouble, Calvin's destructive tendencies nonetheless stemmed less from a true "mean streak," and more from being too intelligent for his own age, as evinced by his large vocabulary in the comic. Calvin enjoyed an active imagination, setting a backdrop for the strip's frequently fanciful settings, in Calvin's own imagination.

'''Hobbes:''' Calvin's stuffed tiger and best friend. He was introduced in the first strip when Calvin caught him in a trap baited with a tuna sandwich. In the ''Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book,'' Watterson admitted he once thought it was important to explain how Calvin and Hobbes first met, but later regretted the decision. Later strips also contradict that origin story: in some instances, Hobbes recalls what Calvin was like as an infant,<ref>http://www.s-anand.net/calvinandhobbes.html#19940809</ref> which is at odds with the story that Calvin caught him at age six.

To Calvin, Hobbes was a real, live tiger, domesticated and friendly, who was his lifelong companion and best (and possibly only) friend. When portrayed from an adult's perspective, Hobbes was always a stuffed animal; from Calvin's, a real tiger. However, the strip is deliberately ambiguous about Hobbes's true nature - readers have debated over whether Hobbes is only "real" in Calvin's imagination, or if he is a changes from a real tiger to a stuffed one whenever anyone else is present.<ref>http://www.shelfari.com/groups/10643/discussions/2446/Hobbes-Stuffed-Animal-or-Real-Tiger-</ref>. Further complicating the issue is that Hobbes's movements have a tangible physical impact; every day, Hobbes lies in wait for Calvin and pounces on him when he returns from school, and Calvin receives cuts and bruises from these attacks. The two also have snowball fights and play sports together, which raises further question over whether Hobbes is real.

'''Calvin's''' parents: never named, Calvin's parents frequently serve as Calvin's disciplinarians, although their roles expanded as the strip went on.

'''Susie Derkins:''' Calvin's neighbor, principal enemy and possible love interest. Calvin teases and torments Susie. Calvin's club GROSS ('''G'''et '''R'''id '''O'''f '''S'''limy girl'''S''') was created specifically "to bug " Susie and Calvin and Hobbes, the club's sole two members, frequently hatch plans to soak her with water balloons and attack her with snowballs, among other plots. Susie often outsmarts Calvin and turns his plans against him. Hobbes frequently accuses Calvin of being in love with Susie, an accusation that Calvin vehemently denies.

'''Miss Wormwood:''' Calvin's schoolteacher. Calvin is a very poor student, typically failing tests and creating mischief. Miss Wormwood is forced to punish Calvin frequently.

'''Moe:''' a bully at Calvin's school, who frequently beats Calvin up, extorts his money and steals his toys.

== Calvin's Personae ==
Scenes from Calvin and Hobbes only took place in the "real world" about half of the time. The other half of the strips took place in Calvin's imagination, where he would become, in his mind, one of many characters. Frequent return character-personae were:
*A dinosaur (any breed) terrorizing a city or his schoolyard.
*Spaceman Spiff, a science-fiction hero in the [[Flash Gordon]] sense of the word.
*Stupendous Man, a superhero who wears his underwear over his pants.
*Tracer Bullet, a [[film noir]] [[detective]] hero in the tradition of ''[[The Maltese Falcon]]'' and [[Humphrey Bogart]].

== Strip Themes ==
Aside from standard childhood reminiscing that defined Bill Watterson's style, Calvin's perspective compassed more adult topics, such as the nature of good and evil, [[environmentalism]] (often explored from Hobbes' perspective, as a wild animal, missing the forest), coping with increasing complexity and [[technology]], the importance of [[creativity]] and the stifling effects of [[popular culture]] and [[television]], and the necessity for a rugged [[individualism]].

== See Also ==
*A site listing the [http://www.s-anand.net/calvin_93.html full text] of every Calvin and Hobbes comic, ever.
*A daily Calvin and Hobbes strip, provided by GoComics, [http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/ here].

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Comic Strips]]

Calvin and Hobbes

2009-11-25T20:49:47Z

EMorrissey: Added characters and elaborated

'''Calvin and Hobbes''' was a newspaper [[comic strip]] written by Bill Watterson, which ran for just over ten years, from November 18, 1985, through December 31, 1995. The comic, which benefited from a very literary author in [[Bill Watterson]], drew on common themes of childhood and innocence, as well as more philosophical topics, ranging from the meaning of life to attempts to deal with the complexity of modern life.

== Characters ==
'''Calvin''', a six-year old boy, was the star of the comic. Perpetually looking for and causing trouble, Calvin's destructive tendencies nonetheless stemmed less from a true "mean streak," and more from being too intelligent for his own age, as evinced by his large vocabulary in the comic. Calvin enjoyed an active imagination, setting a backdrop for the strip's frequently fanciful settings, in Calvin's own imagination.

'''Hobbes:''' Calvin's stuffed tiger and best friend. He was introduced in the first strip when Calvin caught him in a trap baited with a tuna sandwich. In the ''Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book,'' Watterson admitted he once thought it was important to explain how Calvin and Hobbes first met, but later regretted the decision. Later strips also contradict that origin story: in some instances, Hobbes recalls what Calvin was like as an infant, which is at odds with the story that Calvin caught him at age six.

To Calvin, Hobbes was a real, live tiger, domesticated and friendly, who was his lifelong companion and best (and possibly only) friend. When portrayed from an adult's perspective, Hobbes was always a stuffed animal; from Calvin's, a real tiger. However, the strip is deliberately ambiguous about Hobbes's true nature - readers have debated over whether Hobbes is only "real" in Calvin's imagination, or if he is a changes from a real tiger to a stuffed one whenever anyone else is present.<ref>http://www.shelfari.com/groups/10643/discussions/2446/Hobbes-Stuffed-Animal-or-Real-Tiger-</ref>. Further complicating the issue is that Hobbes's movements have a tangible physical impact; every day, Hobbes lies in wait for Calvin and pounces on him when he returns from school, and Calvin receives cuts and bruises from these attacks. The two also have snowball fights and play sports together, which raises further question over whether Hobbes is real.

'''Calvin's''' parents: never named, Calvin's parents frequently serve as Calvin's disciplinarians, although their roles expanded as the strip went on.

'''Susie Derkins:''' Calvin's neighbor, principal enemy and possible love interest. Calvin teases and torments Susie. Calvin's club GROSS ('''G'''et '''R'''id '''O'''f '''S'''limy girl'''S''') was created specifically "to bug " Susie and Calvin and Hobbes, the club's sole two members, frequently hatch plans to soak her with water balloons and attack her with snowballs, among other plots. Susie often outsmarts Calvin and turns his plans against him. Hobbes frequently accuses Calvin of being in love with Susie, an accusation that Calvin vehemently denies.

'''Miss Wormwood:''' Calvin's schoolteacher. Calvin is a very poor student, typically failing tests and creating mischief. Miss Wormwood is forced to punish Calvin frequently.

'''Moe:''' a bully at Calvin's school, who frequently beats Calvin up, extorts his money and steals his toys.

== Calvin's Personae ==
Scenes from Calvin and Hobbes only took place in the "real world" about half of the time. The other half of the strips took place in Calvin's imagination, where he would become, in his mind, one of many characters. Frequent return character-personae were:
*A dinosaur (any breed) terrorizing a city or his schoolyard.
*Spaceman Spiff, a science-fiction hero in the [[Flash Gordon]] sense of the word.
*Stupendous Man, a superhero who wears his underwear over his pants.
*Tracer Bullet, a [[film noir]] [[detective]] hero in the tradition of ''[[The Maltese Falcon]]'' and [[Humphrey Bogart]].

== Strip Themes ==
Aside from standard childhood reminiscing that defined Bill Watterson's style, Calvin's perspective compassed more adult topics, such as the nature of good and evil, [[environmentalism]] (often explored from Hobbes' perspective, as a wild animal, missing the forest), coping with increasing complexity and [[technology]], the importance of [[creativity]] and the stifling effects of [[popular culture]] and [[television]], and the necessity for a rugged [[individualism]].

== See Also ==
*A site listing the [http://www.s-anand.net/calvin_93.html full text] of every Calvin and Hobbes comic, ever.
*A daily Calvin and Hobbes strip, provided by GoComics, [http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/ here].

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Comic Strips]]

Killing Fields

2009-11-16T22:13:57Z

EMorrissey:

The Killing Fields is a collective name for several mass execution sites used by the [[Khmer Rouge]] regime in [[Cambodia]] between 1975-1979.

=== Historical Background ===

On April 17, 1975, after five years of civil war, the totalitarian [[communist]] party known as the [[Khmer Rouge]] (French: Red Khmers) invaded the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh and took over government of the country. Three days after taking the city, the Khmer Rouge ordered the evacuation of the city on the pretext that American bombers would attack the city once it had fallen to the Communists. Within hours, the city was largely emptied of its nearly 2 million inhabitants.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945394,00.html</ref>

In the ensuing months, the majority of Cambodian civilians were herded onto collective farms and forced to work under brutal conditions, under which between 1.5 and 3 million Cambodians died due to starvation, illness, forced labor and execution.<ref>http://www.killingfieldsmuseum.com/genocide/genocide.html</ref>

The Khmer Rouge regime worked fervently to root out its perceived enemies, targeting politicians and soldiers of the former government. Believing that peasant class were "untainted" by capitalist sentiment, the government worked to eliminate all others to ensure a pure Maoist ideology. In pursuit of this goal, the Khmer Rouge sought out anyone fitting its broad definition of "intellectuals," including those who spoke a foreign languages or wore glasses or a wristwatch.<ref>http://www.cambodia.org/khmer_rouge/</ref>

=== Torture, interrogation and execution ===

Those accused of disloyalty to Angkar (the supreme ruling body of the country, a mysterious organization to which all Cambodians were forced to pledge allegiance) were subjected to a brutal process of "re-education," which typically meant vicious interrogations where they were often beaten and forced to confess to their crimes against the state. Re-education was typically done at Khmer Rouge detention centres, such as s-21 (also known as Tuol Sleng) prison in Phnom Penh. Few survived the re-education process: between 1975-1979, some 20,000 prisoners were brought to s-21 and six are known to have survived.<ref>http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/khmeryears/s21.html</ref>

While many prisoners died during the brutal interrogation sessions at the Khmer Rouge prisons, the majority of condemned civilians were taken to "killing fields" in rural areas, where they were forced to kneel at the edge of a mass grave before executioners killed them with blows to the head or neck. To save on ammunition, the executioners used improvised weapons like bamboo poles, axe handles and other blunt objects.<ref>http://www.cekillingfield.com/killingprocess.htm</ref> At the Choeung Ek killing field outside of Phnom Penh, executioners often killed small children by holding them by their feet and swinging their heads against a large Chankiri tree.

=== Legacy ===

Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979, ending the short but deadly rule of the Khmer Rouge. Vietnamese troops discovered several killing fields as they poured into the country, climaxing in the discovery of s-21, where they found they found many prisoners freshly beaten to death, chained to iron bedframes.

Since 1979, there have efforts and preservation and commemoration of the atrocities and victims of the Khmer Rouge. S-21 has since become the [[Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum]]. Many of the mass graves at were dug up and the site is now a tourist attraction graced by a large Buddhist [[stupa]] containing 5,000 skulls of those executed there.

The precise death toll of the Khmer Rouge has never been recorded. The remains of 8,895 victims were found at Choeung Ek, although some of the mass graves there were left undisturbed. <ref>http://www.shihaitravels.com/default.asp?shihai_id=19</ref>

Many of those complicit in the executions were never brought to justice, although efforts have continued well into the 21st century. Kang Kek Iew (Comrade Duch), the overseer of s-21, was charged with crimes against humanity in 2007.

The term "killing fields" was coined by Dith Pran, a Cambodian journalist who lived under the Khmer Rouge regime for over four years before escaping to the United States.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23867336</ref>

Killing Fields

2009-11-16T22:02:34Z

EMorrissey:

Killing Fields

2009-11-16T20:09:49Z

EMorrissey:

The Killing Fields is a collective name for several mass execution sites used by the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia between 1975-1979.

=== Historical Background ===

On April 17, 1975, after five years of civil war, the totalitarian communist party known as the Khmer Rouge (French: Red Khmers) invaded the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh and took over government of the country. Three days after taking the city, the Khmer Rouge ordered the evacuation of the city on the pretext that American bombers would attack the city once it had fallen to the Communists. Within hours, the city was largely emptied of its nearly 2 million inhabitants.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945394,00.html</ref>

In the ensuing months, the majority of Cambodian civilians were herded onto collective farms and forced to work under brutal conditions, under which an estimated 1.6 million Cambodians died due to starvation, illness, forced labor and execution.

The Khmer Rouge regime worked fervently to root out its perceived enemies, targeting politicians and soldiers of the former government. Believing that peasant class were "untainted" by capitalist sentiment, the government worked to eliminate all others to ensure a pure Maoist ideology. In pursuit of this goal, the Khmer Rouge sought out anyone fitting its broad definition of "intellectuals," including those who spoke a foreign languages or wore glasses or a wristwatch.<ref>http://www.cambodia.org/khmer_rouge/</ref>

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945394,00.html

Killing Fields

2009-11-16T20:02:03Z

EMorrissey: /* Historical Background */

The Killing Fields is a collective name for several mass execution sites used by the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia between 1975-1979.

=== Historical Background ===

On April 17, 1975, after five years of civil war, the totalitarian communist party known as the Khmer Rouge (French: Red Khmers) invaded the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh and took over government of the country. Three days after taking the city, the Khmer Rouge ordered the evacuation of the city on the pretext that American bombers would attack the city once it had fallen to the Communists. Within hours, the city was largely emptied of its nearly 2 million inhabitants.

In the ensuing months, the majority of Cambodian civilians were herded onto collective farms and forced to work under brutal conditions, under which an estimated 1.6 million Cambodians died due to starvation, illness, forced labor and execution.

The Khmer Rouge regime worked fervently to root out its perceived enemies, targeting politicians and soldiers of the former government. Believing that peasant class were "untainted" by capitalist sentiment, the government worked to eliminate all others to ensure a pure Maoist ideology. In pursuit of this goal, the Khmer Rouge sought out anyone fitting its broad definition of "intellectuals," including those who spoke a foreign languages or wore glasses or a wristwatch.<ref>http://www.cambodia.org/khmer_rouge/</ref>

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945394,00.html

Killing Fields

2009-11-16T20:01:45Z

EMorrissey: Started creating page

The Killing Fields is a collective name for several mass execution sites used by the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia between 1975-1979.

== Historical Background ==

On April 17, 1975, after five years of civil war, the totalitarian communist party known as the Khmer Rouge (French: Red Khmers) invaded the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh and took over government of the country. Three days after taking the city, the Khmer Rouge ordered the evacuation of the city on the pretext that American bombers would attack the city once it had fallen to the Communists. Within hours, the city was largely emptied of its nearly 2 million inhabitants.

In the ensuing months, the majority of Cambodian civilians were herded onto collective farms and forced to work under brutal conditions, under which an estimated 1.6 million Cambodians died due to starvation, illness, forced labor and execution.

The Khmer Rouge regime worked fervently to root out its perceived enemies, targeting politicians and soldiers of the former government. Believing that peasant class were "untainted" by capitalist sentiment, the government worked to eliminate all others to ensure a pure Maoist ideology. In pursuit of this goal, the Khmer Rouge sought out anyone fitting its broad definition of "intellectuals," including those who spoke a foreign languages or wore glasses or a wristwatch.<ref>http://www.cambodia.org/khmer_rouge/</ref>

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945394,00.html

Talk:Out of sight out of mind

2009-11-13T22:13:55Z

EMorrissey: /* Liberal-bashing */

== Liberal-bashing ==

I've just edited this page, partly to remove some silly and gratuitous liberal-bashing.

For the record, it read as such:

"For example, many [[liberal]]s tout [[solar energy]] as extremely [[clean]], but do not realize that the manufacture of the panels creates many [[toxic chemical]]s that are placed in the [[environment]]. Since they do not see this, they assume that solar panels are perfect."

The "do not realize" and "assume that solar panels are perfect" are simplistic assumptions. Furthermore:

"Another [[liberal]] example is [[terrorism]]: during 9/11, many liberals supported [[George W. Bush]] because terrorists had recently attacked. However, as the terrorist attacks on [[America]] stopped, they began to resent Bush and his actions to defend their safety and freedom."

For many reasons, this makes almost no sense. I won't enumerate the reasons unless anyone genuinely has an issue and wants to debate this.

Overall, it seems silly to provide "liberal examples" of this. Examples are fine, but ideologically branding them is silly.[[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 17:13, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Mona Lisa

2009-11-13T22:13:19Z

EMorrissey: Started a larger overall edit. Will continue another time.

[[Image:Mona Lisa (La Gioconda).jpg|thumb|300px|The ''Mona Lisa'']]
The '''"Mona Lisa"''' (also known as La Giaconda) is a 16th-century portrait by Italian [[Renaissance]] artist Leonardo da Vinci, and is one of the best-known artworks of all time.

The painting's fame increased after its theft from the Louvre on August 21st, 1911.<ref>25 Crimes of the Century: Stealing the Mona Lisa, 1911, Time magazine http://www.time.com/time/2007/crimes/2.html</ref> Additionally the expression of the figure sitting for the portrait is often described as enigmatic, leading to a great deal of speculation.

== See also ==

*[[Painting Masterpieces]]
*[[Last Supper]]
[[Category:Painting]]

{{ref}}

Talk:Out of sight out of mind

2009-11-13T22:06:21Z

EMorrissey: Created page with '== Liberal-bashing == I've just edited this page, partly to remove some silly and gratuitous liberal-bashing. For the record, it read as such: "For example, many liberal...'

Out of sight out of mind

2009-11-13T22:00:14Z

EMorrissey: Added historical context, removed irrelevant liberal-bashing

'''Out of sight out of mind''' is a fallacy of thought, meaning that something which is not plainyl evident is either ignored or forgotten.

The saying finds its origins from the 13th-century terms "in mind" (remembered) and "out of mind" (forgotten), essentially meaning that something that is not in view is not remembered.

[[category:Logic]]

Get Smart (TV series)

2009-11-13T21:50:33Z

EMorrissey:

'''Get Smart''' was an American television comedy series made in the 1960s. Running from 1965 to 1970, the show was intended as a spoof of popular spy films and television shows, such as The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and the James Bond film series.

The show is named for central character Maxwell Smart (Don Adams), a bumbling but heroic secret agent for the an organization called CONTROL. His chief nemesis is Ludwig von Siegfried of the evil organization KAOS. Smart's wife, known exclusively as Agent 99 (Barbara Feldon), frequently saves Smart, who invariably finds himself in difficult situations, often owing to his own clumsiness.

A film based on the show as made in 2008, starring [[Steve Carell]], [[Anne Hathaway]], [[Dwayne Johnson]], and [[Alan Arkin]].

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Television Shows]]

Gallipoli Campaign

2009-11-13T19:59:13Z

EMorrissey:

'''Gallipoli Campaign'''

The Gallipoli campaign was a seven-month conflict that took place on the Gallipoli peninsula in Turkey between April and January 1915 as part of World War I.

The plan was first proposed as the first step to opening another Allied front against the [[Triple Alliance]] during the [[First World War]]. The campaign was meant to capture Constantinople, effectively removing the Ottoman Empire from the war, as well as opening supply routes to Russia.

In 1915, [[Winston Churchill]], then First Lord of the Admiralty, proposed a plan to force British ships through the [[Dardanelles]], a narrow strait at leading from the Aegean Sea into the Sea of Marmara.

A preliminary attack was launched in February of 1915, bombarding the artillery of the Ottoman Empire. On March 18, Allied ships attempted to navigate the strait. Allied ships engaged Turkish artillery battleships on the shore while Allied minesweepers attempted to clear a pathway into the strait. However, the minesweepers pulled back under intense Turkish fire, leaving the Allied battleships vulnerable to mines, which sunk two ships and left several others badly damaged.

The unsucessful naval operation convinced Allied strategists that a complementary land campaign was necessary and, on April 25, 1915, thousands of British, Indian and [[ANZAC]] troops went ashore. Poor intelligence and ship-to-shore communication hindered Allied advances and the landing troops gained little more than a foothold on six beaches on the eastern side of the peninsula.

Between April and August 1915, numerous inconclusive battles occurred, resulting in thousands of casualties on both sides, but little gain in territory or overall impact on the Allied war effort. After a particularly chaotic and disastrous Allied offensive in August, British politicians began discussing the evacuation of Allied troops from the peninsula, a daring operation carried out under extreme secrecy in the early weeks of December 1915.

<Between April 1915 and January 1916, approximately 480,000 allied troops participated in the Gallipoli campaign. of those, over 250,000 became casualties, including over 50,000 killed. Turkish casualty figures are unknown, but estimated at approximately the same as the Allied forces (250,000 casualties, with 65,000 killed)<ref>Moorehead, Alan, ''Gallipoli''</ref>

[[Category:World War I]]

Styx

2009-11-13T19:17:24Z

EMorrissey:

[[Image:Ferdinand_Victor_Delacroix_006.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Dante and Virgil are ferried across the River [[Styx]] ([[Inferno]], Canto VIII) (Illustration by [[Eugene Delacroix]]).]]
'''Styx''' (from the Greek verb signifying “to abhor”) in [[Greek mythology]] was one of the principal [[river]]s of the [[underworld]], where it flowed sluggishly round seven times; and is properly the river of death, which all must cross to enter the unseen world, and of which, in the [[Greek mythology]], [[Charon (mythology)]] was the [[ferryman]] (although in some accounts, it is the river [[Acheron]] which must be crossed to enter [[Hades]]). In their solemn engagements it was by this [[river]] the gods took their oaths to signify that they would forego their godhood if they swore falsely. The Styx was a branch of the Great Ocean which girds the universe.<ref>{{Nuttall|Styx}}</ref>

In [[Dante's Inferno]], the Styx is a marsh which forms the fifth circle of [[Hell]], where the [[sin]] of [[anger]] is punished. [[Dante]] answers the question of which river must be crossed to enter Hell by using both Styx and Acheron: [[Charon]] ferries souls across Acheron to reach Hell, while the [[Greek]] king Phlegyas ferries Dante and [[Virgil]] across Styx to reach lower Hell.

The largely obsolete custom of placing coins over a dead person's eyes or in their mouth was done to provide the deceased with money to pay Charon for his services.

According to Greek myth, Thetis dipped her son [[Achilles]] into the river Styx soon after his birth, an act which rendered him invulnerable to injury, save for a small spot on his heel, covered by Thetis's thumb and forefinger when she held his hand to dip him into the river.

Styx is also the name of a prominent U.S. rock band, which produced hits such as ''Come Sail Away'' and Mr. ''Roboto.''
==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Mythical Rivers]]
[[Category:Greek Mythology]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-11-13T19:07:05Z

EMorrissey: /* Nobel Prize */

{{PermProtected|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Obama clueless about American history==
In introducing Sotomayor, he flubs the constitution being the paper written over 200 years ago, mistakenly says 20 centuries ago. Maybe Totus was thinking the other paper written 20 centuries ago, the Bible! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiRhHqlzaG4 Video Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago]
::A much as I hate to say this, I think taht was simply a slip of the tongue nothing more, also sign your comments please--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:02, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

::This really says more about you than about Obama, you're willing to think that a person with a Harvard education is below the line of mental retardation when it comes to History - US history in particular. It was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. If everytime Obama made a slip of the tongue you overreacted like this then you wouldn't be able to see the actual substance and be unable critisize his legislation or his political way. Really, grow up and stop looking for mistakes like that as it makes conservatives and you in particular look stupid and petty.

== Unlock article? ==

Can this article be unlocked? [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:22, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Specifically I want to delete this

"# Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. "

This doesn't offer any evidence of Obama being a Muslim. [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

:Actually, it does. For example, if this practice didn't exist, somebody might say, "Obama can't be a practicing muslim because a practicing muslim wouldn't deny Islam." The existence of this practice makes all of Obama's claims to Christianity irrelevant, because it proves he would make those assertions regardless of his actual religion. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 00:05, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::Actually, ConservativeCanuck has a point, it makes the facts sound like conspiracy theory when they're mixed up with terms like that thrown around. Taqiyya is solely a shi'ia muslim doctrine. Indonesia is Sunni muslim (actually the people the doctrine was created to hide from) and its not part of their teachings. He doesn't need a magical doctrine to just lie outright. -[[User:JMaker|JMaker]] 11:58, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Are you Christian? If you say yes, then that means you aren't Christian! I'm not (not) NOT Christian, which means absolutely nothing! [[User:boyiloveboys|boyiloveboys]] 15:08, Yesterday (BDSM)

==Obama Received Aid as Foreign Student?==

I've seen this reported in several places. Apparently, Obama (under the name "Barry Soetoro") received financial aid as "a foreign student from Indonesia." The mainstream media seems to have basically ignored this; does anyone know more about it? This would lend quite a bit of credence to those who question his American citizenship. <ref>http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/obama-receives-foreign-student-tuition-aid-smoking-gun-finally-found/#more-6734</ref> <ref>http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1995743.aspx</ref>

==The Muslim Section==
The call to prayer is very beautiful, one need not be a muslim to appreciate it.

"Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them" Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension could see that he was referring to having muslim in his family (he does) and lliving in a Muslim-majority country (he did) Neither of these prove him to be a muslim.

"He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." That proves him to be a muslim? So if you don't muslims have to either convert or live in the stone age, you're must be a muslim yourself?

"Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President" I believe there's some requirement for using your middle name in the oath.

"Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." Did he use a Koran, where is anything Islamic found there. Perhaps he's just not a very devout christian, is that a problem?

"On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[34] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view" Yes, Fareed Zakaria is a muslim, if one day, I turn on CNN and watch his show am I now a muslim? All of these prove not that Obama is a muslim, but that he simply isn't a anti-muslim fanatic and is open to all beliefs.

"Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior" It's absurd to think he was using the conventional use?

"Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth."
Malcolm X has inspired millions for his activity in the civil rights movement. The Nation of Islam was a radical group, but I can understand radicalism in the face of what had been done to african-americans at the time. Malcolm X left the group because he disagreed with their radical views. I fail to see how seeing him as an inspiration makes someone a muslim. I'm jewish, I'm inspired by Martin Luther King, that makes me a christian?

I could go on on and on, but I won't. Aside from all of this, what if he is muslim? Are muslims not allowed to be president? Can a muslim child not dream to one day be president just like every other kid? --[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well, it is an open question, IMO, or should be. The open question about his place of birth is another. The Koran actually calls for the use of deceit and violence against those who do not accept it 100%. That, in and of itself gives one pause. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:13, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

::I will add that since Israelis were prominent in U.S. politics circa '70's, from that time forward Muslim American's began to be heavily invested thanks to Middle East states such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait. Their ultimate goal was to get Muslims into U.S. politics. Today are the fruits from that investment, Illinois's Barack Obama and Keith Ellis. Chicago has over 400 Mosques, some capacity over 1,000. Home to Muslim Farrakhan, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood ties, big Saudi charities, Fundraising for dead Palestine suicide bombers. Obama bows out of great thanks and respect for the King.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:24, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Keith Ellis is from Minnesota not Illinois. Neither Keith Ellis or Barack Obama received donations from Middle Eastern countries.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: Then why is he keeping his campaign donations secret? Answer: they are coming from compromised foreign Muslim sources.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:15, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

I fail to see how it is relevant that President Obama may or may not be of the muslum faith. If he came out and said that he was muslum, then you could put that as his faith, but it is not important enough to have an entire section about

== Article in disrepair ==

Please, we need to either unlock the article or the moderators need to be responsive to the talk page. The frequency of updates is embarrassing for such a high value article. Several sections need to be cleaned up, which is too tedious for just a handful of administrators. This man is destroying our country and we are not keeping up. If we do this right, we can become one of the best repositories of Obama scandals and transgressions, but we have to be at least current.

Now as far as specific content, I'd like to expand on the Ayres ghost writing ''Dreams From My Father''. Jack Cashill updated his argument two days ago (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html), and frankly, I think is proven well enough to warrant sufficient detail in the article. I'd propose a paragraph here on the talk page, but I feel it may be ignored like my last suggestion. [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: Here is the other proposal I had. I suggest the following paragraph be added to the end of the section "Obama and Elitism":
<blockquote>
:Obama clearly exhibited his elitism on his May 5, 2009 limousine trip to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.<re.f>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE</ref> Intended to showcase a connection to the ways of common Americans, Obama instead struggled to compose his order, finally settling on a cheeseburger with fancy Grey Poupon french mustard. This combination is rare among those who frequent burger joints in the United States, demonstrating Obama's lack of familiarity with U. S. culture and lack of American upbringing. Naturally, the liberal media abetted Obama by covering this up during their doting coverage <r.ef>http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html</ref>, in which he purchased burgers for liberal reporters.<r.ef>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/05/barack-and-joe-go-to-white-castle-%E2%80%A6-i-mean-ray%E2%80%99s-hell-burger/</ref>
</blockquote>

:(I broke the ref tags so it would be easier to copy and paste.) There are a lot of ways to attack him, but roughly since the election, little is making its way into the article. The time for mourning is over; now we catalog! [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:*''Fancy French mustard?'' Are you being serious? I have been to a place in Madison, Wisconsin that has a "Dijon Burger". And the area is known for its sausages, Brats, and most places routinely offer that kind of mustard. Granted Madison is a bastion of fuzzy liberal thinking, but still... And your statement about their being "lots of ways to attack him" is totally out of place here. We are an encyclopedia, and therefore do not "attack". If you, or anyone, want to think adding facts is the same as attacking, that is just clap-trap. Your Grey Poupon suggestion smacks of disingenuous mischief. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:35, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: The best criticism of Obama you can think of, is he isn't familiar with American burger joints? I personally find the average burger joint greasy and disgusting (and usually trayf), that doesn't mean I'm un-American.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:06, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

First, thanks for following up with me. The reason my proposal is not "disingenuous mischief" is that it is not my creation. As I linked, the criticism comes from reputable sources like Sean Hannity, as well as Ingraham, Limbaugh and many others I forget. Also, and very importantly, it is not merely about mustard but about the media fawning over him (see the legal insurrection link). It is popular conservative discussion. Thus, if we are to have a section on elitism, and given the solid sources, it merits discussion. If it then does not make it in, or we decide that the Elitism section for some reason is not justified (I would object), then I will accept. Another point I was to argue is about the attack. Conservapedia does not have to be the attacker, but it should help the reader to formulate an attack. The best niche for our 'pedia is to be where conservatives go to help develop an attack on a liberal or anti-American position. If someone wants to show Obama is an elitist, he can come to the Elitism section, follow the links and choose which arguments to make. And if he wants to prove Obama's a Muslim, he can ignore Elitism completely. On the other hand, if we just want to be a synopsis facts without direction, we are competing with Google and Wikipedia. It thus helps to include as many attacks as possible as long as they are vetted. Maybe I'm wrong or in the minority. And BTW, River Falls.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:07, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

== Table of Contents ==

Seeing as so many people find the position to be a problem, and more importantly that moving the ToC up would bury important information on Obamas muslim faith, could we include the ToC into the muslim "faith" section, as a side colum perhaps? Just a suggestion --[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:47, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:I like that. How about the following: Make "Religion: Described in the article" link to the relevant section(s), shorten the intro and integrate many of the details into the body or into new sections, then bring up the ToC. That way, the ToC is early, but the Muslim section is not push very far down. (Note that one of my criticisms tacitly in mind above is that the intro section rambles and the TOC is not first.) [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:12, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:: The article in general is ordered in a completely bizarre fashion. Regardless of how important the list of facts linking Obama to Islam is, it's way to long to preempt the table of contents, which is stuck around the end of page two as it is. Is isn't that the question of Obama's faith isn't an important one, because it is; it's just that the list of facts - many of which even I would admit are pretty tangential - don't constitute an important portion of Obama's brief bio, which is what normally goes above the TOC. Toss a reference to the controversy over his faith into the intro, then bury the list of facts (I might be biased against them because they're sort of ugly) somewhere in the article, parallel to where faith is talked about in the articles about other famous people. Perhaps, due to its contentious nature, spin it off into its own article, where it can grow into a more encyclopedic format. There's also a bunch of random criticisms and negative observations which, while appropriate for the article, are scattered sort of hodgepodge. The second most important biographical fact about Obama is not that his aunt is living in the United States illegally. Note that I'm -not- saying that it's not an important fact, it's just not a basic fact about Obama. Regardless of what he gets from the MSM, he doesn't deserve any sort of special treatment from CP. His article should be formatted in the same order as anybody else's, with random controversies and criticisms going into a controversies and criticisms section, in their own articles, or woven into sections of the biography where they are -directly- relevant. Given the number of sort of disconnected criticisms (like the "statements" section, which is great to read, but sort of unsituated), I really think a separate page for miscellaneous controversies and criticisms is warranted.[[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 16:16, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== Pakistani pronounciation ==

"Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one." I don't see this as relevant evidence of anything, you gonna call World War II veterans french because they correctly pronounce Bastogne?

:Typical of liberal deflection, moral equivalence. Open your mind. It will indeed set you free. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:30, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

::Set me free? Sounds more like it will make me angry and make me start hating everybody that doesn't think the same thing as me.

:::Seems to me you already are, posting anonymously, not owning what you post. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:05, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

I agree with the anonymous poster, using the correct pronunciation of a word is not evidence of someone's religion. Are foreign (non-Christian) leaders that know how to pronounce America like a native born American accused of being Christian? These kind of obviously biased statements were what Conservapedia was created to get rid of, isn't it?

==Updating a link==
Earlier tonight, somebody mentioned the reference link was broken, and suggested we remove that content. I snapped at him, for suggesting to remove that content, but it turns out the link actually is broken. I did a simple google search for the quote, and found hundreds of sources. Here's a few of the working links:

http://middleeast.about.com/b/2009/04/06/obama-in-turkey-at-the-gates-of-islam.htm
http://www.freep.com/article/20090604/NEWS05/906040435/
http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=6235.4664.0.0

Can we replace the current reference 22 with this reference? [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:21, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:I've unlocked it for you to update the link. Please edit in a constructive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::I would like to point out that the user who pointed out the broken link was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABush20082012&year=&month=-1 blocked] infinitely for pointing it out. [[User:InnocenceIntent|InnocenceIntent]] 11:19, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:::The reason provided for the block does not support your comment, and the user name chosen by the blocked user was ridiculous. But you want to spend your time as an advocate for that blocked user who has not made a single substantive edit, then please take it up with TK. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:23, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: I hate to disagree, and if the block was based on his name I am, but the only edits he made were to this page, about the broken link. [[User:InnocenceIntent|InnocenceIntent]] 11:25, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Godspeed to you. I see you were previously blocked, or at least I intended to, because I deleted your user page:
<blockquote>
22:41, 12 April 2009 TK deleted "User:InnocenceIntent" ‎ (Troublemaker/Troll)
</blockquote>
Obviously I judged your intent not too innocent before, and your past edits show obvious trolling, including reverting an Admin:
<blockquote>
# 22:25, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (Undo revision 652421 by Jpatt (Talk) My original revision was undone by patt due to a personal bias by the user.)
# 22:18, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (adding information about how the ACLU has fought for Christians.)
</blockquote>
And I can now see why, again, since you didn't do what Aschlafly said to, and posted here again, rather than contacting me. Such actions (the reason(s) for so doing) are immediately obvious to those of us who have been around here for a while. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:34, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Andy, thank you for unlocking the page - I fixed the broken link, so if you'd like to re-lock, it should be fine now. I'm going to go ahead and check all the other links on the page, and if they're not working, find replacements. If I find anything, I'll post here. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Many Broken Links==
OK, this deserves its own section. There are many broken reference links, which I'm trying to find replacements for.

5, first link, doesn't seem to be working for me, but it might just be me. This link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104131/posts would provide a reference for the same statement.

9 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6051268.ece would provide a reference for the same statement.

12 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=9fab8324-a1a1-4ad6-840f-76b04a405a65&CATEGORYNAME=INTER would provie a reference for the same statement.

19 has the same link listed twice. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems kind of sloppy to me.

Reference (23) is broken, the page no longer exists. This is my fault, since I just added it, but (22) is just fine as a single reference. So we can eliminate this broken link without replacement, especially for a statement that returns as many google hits as this one does.

Reference (26) is broken. This is a toughie - most online references are copy-paste of the Wikipedia article, which itself sites these books:
:A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. 2004.
:l-Qarashi, Baqir Shareef (2007). The life of Imam Husain. Qum: Ansariyan Publications.
I don't have these books, and I haven't read them, so I don't know if they back up the reference.

Reference (28) links to a video which, by the decription provided by the uploader, attempts to discredit the quote being referenced. A shorter video which arrives at the quote in question faster is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

Reference (49) redirects to the blog's main page, and blog does not have a search feature. Regardless of whether link is broken or not, we should replace with http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html which is more to the point.

References (56) and (57) are the same link, we can delete one for neatness.

Reference (61) isn't even a reference. Suggest instead using http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26101

References (72), (73), and (75) are all broken. Suggest replacing all three with http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

Reference (89) is broken, but we can just link to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]].

Reference (91) is broken, suggest replacement with http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/01/obama_campaign_to_return_aunts.html

References (97), (98), and (100) are broken. These were the same as (72), (73), (75), so we should have a single reference http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html and have all 6 of these citations be to this one article.

Reference (115) is broken, replace with http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Reference (128) is broken, suggest replacement with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/obamas-in-control-no-more_n_105407.html and rewrite of sentence which cites this reference.

References (129) and (130) are identical, suggest we delete one for neatness.

Reference (132) is broken, but will be difficult to replace. Citation is a direct reference to the reference and the authors of the reference. I'll work on this.

Reference (140) is broken, replace with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/john-lewis-warns-mccain-y_n_133903.html

(150) is broken, replace with http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

(152-154, 158) each have two identical links, delete one each for neatness.

(163) isn't a reference, but maybe Andy has the review procedures lying around so we can cite them?

(171) Access denied - we shouldn't cite references that require subscriptions. Suggest http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753197/posts for same content, by Limbaugh.

(182) is broken, replace with http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28189

(184) is broken, replace with http://vodpod.com/watch/956078-obama-we-already-have-economic-disaster-from-john-mccains-president-george-w-bush

Suggest rewrite of last two paragraphs of "Politcal Views" section, to reflect his election and change "current president" to "George W. Bush"

(187-189) are broken, I'm still working on replacements.

(190) is broken, replace with http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts

(191) has two identical links, delete one for neatness

(201) is broken, replace with http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html

(203) is broken, replace with http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370529,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r1:c0.487981:b25437592:z0

(209) is broken, replace with http://www.politicalbase.com/forums/topic/obama-rebukes-mccain-camp-on-terrorism-criticism/3781/

(215) and (217) are broken, replace both with http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

[[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

That should be everything, though I might have missed something. Since it appears I can still edit the Obama page, I'm gonna go ahead and start this. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:We should lock this article again, it's being vandalized already. I'll just copy the source into a word document, make the necessary changes, and alert a sysop when it's ready to go up. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:51, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for identifying the broken links, but why not simply fix it directly? The entry is unprotected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Great work! I wonder why you deleted this, however: "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."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: The source for that was missing, and I found a new link which supported the relevant statement in the article, but not that addendum in the references. The new reference I found does not make that statement verbatim, although, it's basically implied - I'll continue to look for a reference for that sentence. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 21:59, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: I have been looking, and I can't find a source for this statement. I've re-added it with a citation needed. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 23:12, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Can someone insert this?==
My browser can't handle editing the page, can someone insert this under 'Election': In the weeks leading up to the election, Obama's staff worked to delay investigations by the [[Justice Department]] into allegations of voter fraud committed by [[ACORN]], Obama's former employer. In this way, hundreds of thousands, if not many more, votes may have been overcounted. [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=297446] --[[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:28, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:The link checks out, content's relevant, I added this material to the election section, but maybe it might be better placed in presidential campaign? Dunno. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 21:35, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks, Mr. JDBowen! It may be better there; but I think that, since more people look at this page, it may be okay here, too. Whatever you decide, I'm just happy it's out here! --[[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:45, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

==liberal vandalism: mulatto==
While an accurate statement, it may be a derogatory slang (mule-like). User remains blocked for disobeying sysop, lying. Remove--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:34, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
:Um... yeah, it's extremely derogatory and it's still up. We might as well call him.. well, n******. I see you have the last edit, so I won't remove it - but is that an accident that it's still up? Can we please take that down? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 09:40, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::It's obvious liberal vandalism, JacobB, and you could have fixed it directly yourself. Please do fix vandalism directly in the future as that is more efficient. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

:: how is that ''liberal'' vandalism? obama's a democrat!

==Animal rights==

In an article entitled "Does President-Elect Obama Bring Hope for Animals?" [[PETA]] quotes Obama as saying,
:"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." [http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/11/does_president-.php]
Interesting. Wikipedia reports in its Animal Rights article,
:"On November 24, 1933, the ...animal protection law, was introduced, with [[Adolf Hitler]] announcing an end to animal cruelty: ..."In the new Reich, no more animal cruelty will be allowed." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#1933:_Tierschutzgesetz]
[[Himmler]] likewise is famous for preaching kindness to animals [http://www.manasjournal.org/pdf_library/VolumeXIII_1960/XIII-11.pdf p.2]

Perhpas this area needs more study. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:17, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

::Great find! This is absolutely chilling. May God help us.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:48, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

while this is chilling and ironic....... it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== Kenya ==
Now that he have absolute proof that Obama was born in Kenya, can we change his place of birth ot Kenya? An image of the REAL Kenyan certificate was posted on the mainpage! Thanks!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 13:42, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

*No. A news report, of such a certificate submitted to the U.S. District Court, is just that, a report, not a fact. Some of the other information, in the Main Page News section, about Obama's failure to disclose other information, if not already there, will be added. If and when the purported birth certificate is authenticated, we certainly will add that in! As for now, the article reads, ''as it always has, factually...his actual place of birth is open to question.'' --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:00, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

== George Obama article for upcoming content of CP Obama article ==

George Obama article for upcoming content of CP Obama article: http://www.zimbio.com/George+Hussein+Onyango+Obama/articles/3/George+Obama+Barack+Obama+Brother+Fights+Life [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:42, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

:Excellent work. And long overdue. Much of this material is available, it just need to consolidate in one place. ty [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

== Praise! ==
I applaud the men and women who have edited this article since the start of August! I cannot believe how much this evil man has done and tried to do in less than a month! Great job on revealing the lies and evil that surround this crook!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 09:32, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

==Soetoro citation flaws==

The reference in the article's introduction to Obama's former/current(?) name of "Barry Soetoro" is sourced only to a short article on Pravda (RU). The first issue I take with this is the fact that the article itself does not concern Obama's/"Soetoro"'s true name, and doesn't seem to draw on any evidence regarding such, either. While, yes, the articles title is "Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama vs World Leaders", the only mention within the article is that "no one knows his real name" - yet the article's title seems to assert that Pravda (possibly as part of a larger movement) does, in fact, know just that.

Secondly, the article's overall professionalism and coherence is in doubt. Note the claim that America is "a Nation under the control of mob rule." (Be aware of the false capitalization, also - a classic sign of non-intellect, mind you). Now, Conservapedia defines [[Mobocracy|mob rule]] as "the rule by a group of people unrestrained by any meaningful principles". Now, this seems an odd thing for Conservapedia to grant audience to, as this Obama article makes it quite clear that Obama/"Soetoro" ''has'' principles, immoral and anti-American has they may be, they remain principles (much as one may say atrocious actions make the perpetrator inhuman, but this allegation does not affect their biological status as a human).

So the point must be made that either Obama/"Soetoro" is a dictator (the homepage often makes that viewpoint quite clear) or America is under the rule of the people. It can not be both, without delving into figurative speaking.

So I ask, given all these flaws in logic, argument, sentiment, and general intelligence on the subject, why is this article given what amounts to top-billing on this prominent Conservative site, when it does little, if anything, to back-up the point? I imagine other editors out there have brought this up before, and I'm curious what consensus or reasoning, if any, was reached on the issue. Thank you for your time. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 07:29, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
:Not only does ''Pravda'' state no one knows his real name, it also states no one knows where he's from. Then it raises the issue, if he is indeed barred from holding office of president, do foreign agreements and treaties he signs have the force of law? While this issue is being discussed elsewhere in the world, it hasn't been considered in the United States at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

::Perhaps I wasn't very clear there. I'm aware of the related cover-up regarding Obama/Soetoro's origin, but the problem lies with the citation itself (however, if you wish to improve the page by elaborating on the "origin" controversy as well, be my guest). I found it odd that such a scatter-shot, incoherent source article (from ''Pravda'') was used to make this point.

::'''Basically, if the ''Pravda'' article states that ''no one knows his real name'', why is it used as a citation for the name of "Barry Soetoro"? Surely there is a source out there which details the methods by which the "Barry Soetoro" name was discovered in the first place. The only mention of it within the ''Pravda'' article is in the title.'''

[[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 23:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Interesting point. Can you suggest any other sources?

:::Oh, and this recalls the old Soviet era joke about censorship in the two soviet communist official daily publications, "there is no ''Pravda'' in ''Izvestia'' and no ''Izvestia'' in ''Pravda''" (there is no ''Truth'' in the ''News'' and no ''News'' in the ''Truth''). But that was when both were openly commie rags. Let's give Glasnost a chance. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:18, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Well, that's the problem. The only sources I can find are blogs - but even the '''most''' detailed ones only go so far as to say (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Barry Soetoro was Barack Obama's name in Indonesia", but again, these don't provide any documentation/interviews/quotes whatsoever. I'm afraid I tend to focus more on the man's policy than the controversies surrounding him - and I am, for the most part, willing to accept whatever good or bad comes along with such tunnel vision. So it's quite appalling that debates so rancorous turn out to be so hollow (perhaps the noise is product of the echo). Besides, if this "Soetoro" thing is true, I'd like to think that their was more discourse about how and why to include it in a biographical encyclopedia entry on BHO than someone doing a Google search and picking the first article with "Soetoro" in the title. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 11:00, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::''Pravda'' is not a blog, in fact, ''Pravda'' has quite a long history and reputation as a mouth piece abnd critic of the United States. We are simply reporting what traditional critics of U.S. political system, society, and culture are saying. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:24, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::I wasn't referring to ''Pravda'' when I mentioned blogs. I was referring to the sources I was able to find which ''did'' deal with the Soetoro name in the actual text of the article, which, as I said, even then were merely mentions of it rather than proof. If you can provide a source which '''''proves''''' the name, rather than mentioning it, you will have made a happy editor out of me. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 08:56, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, I see your reasoning now. If you can cite a source that ''proves'' George W. Bush lied about WMD rather than just mentioning it, you'd make a happy camper of me. too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:27, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Oh, come on. I'm not trying to disprove the claim, and I know you're smart enough to have figured that out. I just want CP readers to have direct, streamlined access to the facts. And I wouldn't claim that Bush lied, anyway. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 21:39, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

==His Excellency the President of the United States and Her Majesty the Queen==

I will propose that you revist this statement: "At the G20 summit in April 2009, Obama bowed deeply to Saudi King Abdullah, a Muslim who is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.[135] Never before in the history of the U.S. has a president displayed such shocking deference to a foreign official and Obama has not bowed to any other royal leaders. Obama later stated, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect."[136] Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah."[137] However, in video of the incident, Obama's left hand can clearly be seen staying at his side until after he had finished his bow.[138] Additionally, Obama also met with Queen Elizabeth, who is much shorter than King Abdullah, but he did not bow when he shook her hand and neither he nor the queen appeared to have any difficulty." and view this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71N34K9EVLU. Here, you will see that His Excellency the Honourable Barack Obama bow twice to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom, and once to His Royal Highness the Prince Phillip.

== Funds from undisclosed sources? ==

Near the very beginning of the article, it states that Obama's campaign spent $700 million dollars, most of which was came from undisclosed donors. This information is cited. The source that this information came from actually shows that most of his funds ''did'' come from disclosed donors. I corrected this error, but it was reverted, and the reverter says the edit and sources should be discussed. Can we agree that the source (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638) shows that over half of his money came from disclosed donors so that this bit of misinformation can be corrected? [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 00:47, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

:Your cite does not support your claim. If you have a cite that provides disclosure for the identity of most of Obama's contributions, then post a link to it. You haven't done that, so the entry stays as is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

::Check the above link again. My citation (which I got from the article, so it is Conservapedia's citation as well) very clearly shows that most of Obama's funds came from disclosed sources. Scroll down to where it says "How complete are this candidate's campaign finance reports?" to see that he gave full disclosure on $378,216,383 of funds, which amounts to 90.2% of funds from sources on which data is collected -- those that contribute $200 or more. Again, I got this source from Obama's article here on Conservapedia. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 16:17, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

:::I checked your cite again, and my conclusion remains the same. "Full disclosure" presumably means all that the law requires, which often is not the identity of the donor. The opinion that you rely on is unsupported. Conservapedia did not cite that source for the point you raise.

:::Nevertheless, in response to your point, I've improved the statement in the entry and added a quotation and citation to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Description of full disclosure from the website: "FULL DISCLOSURE: Includes full name and occupation / employer." This would be a statistic that is objective, observable, recordable, making it a fact. If the source is valid for some facts but not others that seems like some pretty strict cherry picking. Even in the source you provide there isn't even evidence that "much" of the funds came from undisclosed or fraudulent sources: the few examples provided would constitute an incredibly small portion of Obama's funds. I would guess most presidential candidates, with or without knowing it, have recieved money from sources that gave false names or addresses. While the statement in the article now still doesn't seem appropriately relevant or supported, it is an improvement over the blatant falsehood previously used. Others should investigate this to bring this article up to trustworthy standards. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 21:05, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

== Liberals and Uncharitableness, Liberal Politicians and Uncharitableness sections ==

There are two sections in the Obama's article about Liberals and Uncharitableness and Liberal Politicians and Uncharitableness. While this information is worth reading, these two sections are not really about Obama at all, and don't seem appropriate to include in the article in this manner. Both of these sections are summaries of articles on the given topics here on Conservapedia, and link to those articles. The sections themselves do not refer to Obama at all (only liberals -- or liberal politicians -- in general), and shouldn't be included in Obama's article unless we plan on adding the same sections to every page about liberals. It seems the best way to include this would be as links to those articles at the end of the section about Obama's uncharitableness -- as in "See also: Liberals and Uncharitableness, Liberal Politicians and Uncharitableness" sentence at the end of the descriptions of Obama's uncharitableness. [[User:Chris3145|Chris3145]] 14:13, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize ==
Maybe Obama being one of the few presidents to win the Nobel Peace Prize should be noted in the introduction of the article.--[[User:AFM|AFM]] 18:25, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

There is an existing category 'Nobel laureates in Peace', to which Obama should be added. [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 14:27, 3 November 2009 (EST)

== Minor fix ==

Under the section "Obama is likely the first Muslim President," there is a wikilink to "Barack Obama," which redirects back to "Barack Hussein Obama."
There is another wikilink to "Barack Obama" under the section "Primary election (2004)." These should both be delinked. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 13:25, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

== really guys? ==

as much as i can't stand the man and thank he's a communist traitor to our country....... this article is a freaking hack job! its embarrassing. We're conservatives, we can do better than this! [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:25, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
:Have you read Wikiality's [http://wikiality.wikia.com/United_Socialist_States_of_America United Socialist States of America]? Looks inspirational. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:56, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

its called satire. let me ask you. are we an encyclopedia? or a political site? [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:05, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Your own contributions have not been particularly substantive or enlightening. How about doing some edits of value, as in something related to the [[Bible]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:04, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Your point is? Because you've made more edits your somehow more enlightened and worthy enough to discount my opinions? I'm a conservative like all of you. I, like you, can't stand the man and is scared to death by what he could do to our great country... but unlike you, I have a desire to accurately and fairly represent the man. The truth, will be so much more damaging to Obama than any hack job out there. They'res a lot of truth here...... but also a lot of crap. Theres no need to attack each other here. By the way, I have done some rather constructive work on here. I've just been so busy lately I can't get on here much. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 21:44, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Saksjn, your edits have been pathetic here. Talk, talk, talk, and you occasionally sprinkle in an edit about ... an obscure rock band. You say you like Wikipedia and it's easy to see why. That's why we're not trying to imitate Wikipedia. Try something of substance, if you're up to it: the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:12, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::Andy, must you really attack me as a person. I haven't edited the Bible's article because its a well written article that I haven't found places where I can add to it. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 19:43, 2 November 2009 (EST)
:::Saskjn, that's how he rolls. Accept it or go somewhere else. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 19:47, 2 November 2009 (EST)

:::Saskjn, I didn't attack you "as a person"; I evaluated your edits. Surely you don't think that should be off-limits. Do you think every student should get an "A", that every politician should be reelected, that every business should be bailed out? Of course not; we should evaluate edits on a wiki, and be candid about their quality.

:::As to your other point, please take no offense (I'm being as gingerly as possible), how does one know if the Bible is well written if he doesn't read it regularly??? Food for thought for an open-minded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 2 November 2009 (EST)

::::On a side note—not addressing the argument at hand—the [[Bible]] article here ''is'' extremely well written and well cited. One of the best references on the internet, in my opinion. I think that's what Saskjn was referring to. --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:20, 2 November 2009 (EST)

If your implying that I don't read the Bible on a regular basis you'd be wrong. And yes, I agree that my edits are not off limits. Realize I haven't edited the wikis in a good while and am just getting back on so you won't find much recent work. I have enough on my hands at wikipedia trying to defend conservative values there to get on here a lot. And just for the record, while my work on the [[Switchfoot]] is not substantial at all, (only one edit I believe) the band is a major band and isn't just some obscure rock band. Go to your church and ask any teenager or 20 year old who they are and they'll know. Ask anyone one 30 and up and they'll probably know. Ask anyone young person on the street thats unchurched and they'll probably know who they are too. But that's beyond the point, were here to write good articles right? (I know that last sentence was bad grammar) So lets discuss and write good articles. I spend a lot of time on talk pages because that's where most of the work really gets done. Major edits should never be made without discussion unless the article is a new article or is being expanded. I, as a conservative, want an accurate portrayal of this traitor. I feel that an accurate portrayal will be far more damaging to the man than the one we currently have on here right now. We're on the same team Andy. Jefferey's right, the reason I don't see anywhere to add to the Bible article is because it is already a well written article. Now if I was a Bible scholar I'm sure I'd find something to edit, but as it is I'm only a young missionary kid (18) that is currently going through his own missionary training school. While my knowledge of the Bible is definitely higher than most church goers, I'm not a scholar, so I won't act like one. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 21:39, 2 November 2009 (EST)

:Wow, a lot of words there, Saksjn. How about this: let's do some substantive edits on a variety of entries, and go from there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:09, 2 November 2009 (EST)

::Your really not here to discuss anything are you? Glad to know you feel your a part of the elite aristocracy that only certain editors such as yourself can be apart of. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 13:40, 3 November 2009 (EST)

== Uncharitableness ==

The stuff about charity in the "Barack Obama and Liberal Elitism" section on this page is exactly same as the entire contents of [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]] which is linked to from the section. Can I suggest either deleting the separate article, or removing the stuff on charity from this article (or perhaps summarising it only) and providing a link to the more specific article? [[User:EJHall|EJHall]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

== Slightly over the top perhaps? ==

I cannot help that feel that the content of this article is just a little over the top with the level of content devoted to criticizing President Obama, both personally and politically. Now I realise that, given the nature of this site there is of course going to be quite a large amount of criticizm towards Barack Obama, but the sheer bulk of this article being devoted to trashing him, undermining his policies and generally not being very nice to the man just makes it all seem rather petty.

Is it possible that the article, or at least parts of it, could be rewritten so that less of it is devoted to giving entirely negative information? I believe doing so would make the article more respectable and academic in nature. --[[User:RyanMcLaughlin|Ryan McLaughlin]] 15:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:This site strives to be factual, forthright, and free of liberal bias. Do you have a specific issue in mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:A good example of a section which could be rewritten to provide a more NPOV is the information given on Barack Obama's presidency. The entirety of the content in this section is perhaps slightly ''too'' bias. I understand the need to provide accurate and honest information on the flaws of the Obama Administration, but reading this part of the article it just seems like disorganised critisizm. Only one part of this section is directly relevant to Obama's presidency, and that is information on the health care reform disinformation scandal.

This section could be devoted to far more important information than whether or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, or what enemies he has gained since becoming President. These could be included in other articles, or even elsewhere in the article, but surely changes to domestic and foreign policy, and how President Obama is managing the economic crisis should be present in this section, as they are directly relevant to his actions since coming to power.

Thoughts? --[[User:RyanMcLaughlin|Ryan McLaughlin]] 16:03, 8 November 2009 (EST)

== Middle name usage ==

There's an edit I'd like to make, but I suspect it will be quickly reverted, so I'm initiating a discussion first.

My issue is with putting Barack HUSSEIN Obama in the blue banner atop the article. It seems clear that this is done because of unsavoury associations with that name. I say this because the bulk of other articles on presidents (and the index -
http://conservapedia.com/Category:Presidents_of_the_United_States) do not put their middle name in the top banner unless it was how they were generally known (William Henry Harrison, for example). I suggest that the Hussein be removed from the top banner, or every president's middle name should be displayed.

I imagine this debate has occurred before though. Is there any editorial rationale for including Obama's middle name in the banner, but not other presidents? [[User:Montecristo|Montecristo]] 11:34, 9 November 2009 (EST)

== Nobel Prize ==

Why is there no mention of his Nobel Prize here? It's a major news story and a divisive issue. [[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 13:48, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:It says more about the Nobel Prize than about Obama, so you can find info about it in [[Nobel Prize]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:53, 13 November 2009 (EST)

:: That's really just editorializing though. It's still relevant to the article. If you feel the prize was undeserved, you can cite sources who say so (there are plenty). But leaving it out altogether does take away from CP's "trustworthiness" - it makes CP editors appear behind the times and if information is left out, people will go to other sources for their information.[[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 14:07, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Toronto Raptors

2009-11-13T19:02:12Z

EMorrissey: /* Forwards */

The '''Toronto Raptors''' are a professional [[basketball]] team based in [[Toronto]], [[Ontario]], [[Canada]]. The Raptors were founded in 1995, when the [[NBA]] expanded to Canada, with another team formed in [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]]; The Grizzlies. The Grizzlies moved to [[Memphis]], [[Tennessee]] in 2001, leaving the Raptors as the only Canadian NBA Team. The Raptors have enjoyed more economic success than the Grizzlies, building a reputation for sellout crowds, but have not won a championship or conference title, only advancing to the playoffs four times, and only winning the first round once, in 2000-01.

The Raptors play in the Atlantic Division of the Eastern Conference at the [[Air Canada Centre]], also the home of the [[Toronto Maple Leafs]].

==Roster==
===Guards===

*0 Marco Belinelli
*8 [[Jose Calderon]]
*1 Jarrett Jack
*3 Marcus Banks

===Forwards===
*4 [[Chris Bosh]]
*15 Amir Johnson
*26 Hedo Türkoğlu
*30 Reggie Evans

===Centers===
*7 Andrea Bargnani
*26 Patrick O'Bryant
*77 Jake Voskuhl

==Notable former players==
*15 [[Vince Carter]]

==See also==
*[[Canadian sports]]

==Official Team Website==
*[http://www.nba.com/raptors/ Official Site of the Toronto Raptors]
{{NBA}}
[[Category:National Basketball Association]]
[[Category:Canadian Sports Teams]]

Toronto Raptors

2009-11-13T19:00:45Z

EMorrissey: /* Guards */

The '''Toronto Raptors''' are a professional [[basketball]] team based in [[Toronto]], [[Ontario]], [[Canada]]. The Raptors were founded in 1995, when the [[NBA]] expanded to Canada, with another team formed in [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]]; The Grizzlies. The Grizzlies moved to [[Memphis]], [[Tennessee]] in 2001, leaving the Raptors as the only Canadian NBA Team. The Raptors have enjoyed more economic success than the Grizzlies, building a reputation for sellout crowds, but have not won a championship or conference title, only advancing to the playoffs four times, and only winning the first round once, in 2000-01.

The Raptors play in the Atlantic Division of the Eastern Conference at the [[Air Canada Centre]], also the home of the [[Toronto Maple Leafs]].

==Roster==
===Guards===

*0 Marco Belinelli
*8 [[Jose Calderon]]
*1 Jarrett Jack
*3 Marcus Banks

===Forwards===
*4 [[Chris Bosh]]
*14 Joey Graham
*43 Kris Humphries
*21 Nathan Jawai
*7 [[Shawn Marion]]

===Centers===
*7 Andrea Bargnani
*26 Patrick O'Bryant
*77 Jake Voskuhl

==Notable former players==
*15 [[Vince Carter]]

==See also==
*[[Canadian sports]]

==Official Team Website==
*[http://www.nba.com/raptors/ Official Site of the Toronto Raptors]
{{NBA}}
[[Category:National Basketball Association]]
[[Category:Canadian Sports Teams]]

Toronto Blue Jays

2009-11-13T18:55:01Z

EMorrissey: /* Outfielders */

{{MLBTeam
|name=Toronto Blue Jays
|logo=
|text=#039
|background=#c9d8e5
|location=Toronto, Ontario
|year=1977
|colors=Blue, white, black
|mascot=Ace
|champs=2
|website=http://bluejays.mlb.com/
}}
[[Image:RogersCentre.jpg|240px|right]]
The '''Toronto Blue Jays''' are a [[Major League Baseball]] team located in [[Toronto]], [[Ontario]], [[Canada]]. In 1992 and 1993 the Blue Jays won the [[World Series]] marking the first time a non-American Team won the championship. The Blue Jays were founded in 1976 and became the only Non-American MLB Team after the [[Montreal Expos]] moved to [[Washington_DC|Washington, DC]] and became the [[Washington Nationals]] in 2004. The Blue Jays play in the American League, East Division and have their home games at the Skydome which is now known as the Rogers Centre.
==Roster==
<nowiki>*Not on active roster</nowiki> 
<nowiki>**Not on 40 man roster</nowiki>
===Pitchers===
*49 - Jeremy Accardo
*26 - Bryan Bullington
*57 - Shawn Camp
*39 - Jesse Carlton
*52 - Fabio Castro
*37 - Scott Downs
*54 - Jason Frasor
*32 - [[Roy Halladay]]
*57 - Dirk Hayhurst
*44 - Casey Janssen
*22 - Brandon League
*51 - Jesse Litsch
*28 - Shawn Marcum
*29 - Dustin McGowan
*42 - Bill Murphy
*25 - David Purcey
*48 - Scott Richmond
*50 - Davis Romero
*52 - [[B. J. Ryan]]
*56 - Bryan Tallet
*40 - Brian Wolfe

===Catchers===
*20 - Rod Barajas
* - Michael Barrett
*7 - Curtis Thigpen

===Infielders===
*8 - Russ Adams
*23 - Jose Bautista
*2 - Aaron Hill
*1 - Joe Inglett
*6 - John McDonald
*17 - Lyle Overbay
*38 - Angel Sanchez
*19 - Marco Scutaro

===Outfielders===
*21 - Buck Coats
*26 - Adam Lind
*45 - Travis Snider
*10 - [[Vernon Wells]]

===Designated Hitters===
none

==Minor League Affiliates==
The minor league affiliates of the Blue Jays are:
*AAA - Syracuse Chiefs
*AA - New Hampshire Fisher Cats
*A Adv. - Dunedin Blue Jays
*A - Lansing Lugnuts
*SS - Auburn Doubledays

==See also==
*[[Canadian sports]]
*[[Texas Rangers (baseball team)|Texas Rangers]]
*[[Tampa Bay Devil Rays]]

{{Nb_sl_mlb_american}}
[[Category:Canadian Sports Teams]]

Toronto Blue Jays

2009-11-13T18:54:51Z

EMorrissey: /* Infielders */

{{MLBTeam
|name=Toronto Blue Jays
|logo=
|text=#039
|background=#c9d8e5
|location=Toronto, Ontario
|year=1977
|colors=Blue, white, black
|mascot=Ace
|champs=2
|website=http://bluejays.mlb.com/
}}
[[Image:RogersCentre.jpg|240px|right]]
The '''Toronto Blue Jays''' are a [[Major League Baseball]] team located in [[Toronto]], [[Ontario]], [[Canada]]. In 1992 and 1993 the Blue Jays won the [[World Series]] marking the first time a non-American Team won the championship. The Blue Jays were founded in 1976 and became the only Non-American MLB Team after the [[Montreal Expos]] moved to [[Washington_DC|Washington, DC]] and became the [[Washington Nationals]] in 2004. The Blue Jays play in the American League, East Division and have their home games at the Skydome which is now known as the Rogers Centre.
==Roster==
<nowiki>*Not on active roster</nowiki> 
<nowiki>**Not on 40 man roster</nowiki>
===Pitchers===
*49 - Jeremy Accardo
*26 - Bryan Bullington
*57 - Shawn Camp
*39 - Jesse Carlton
*52 - Fabio Castro
*37 - Scott Downs
*54 - Jason Frasor
*32 - [[Roy Halladay]]
*57 - Dirk Hayhurst
*44 - Casey Janssen
*22 - Brandon League
*51 - Jesse Litsch
*28 - Shawn Marcum
*29 - Dustin McGowan
*42 - Bill Murphy
*25 - David Purcey
*48 - Scott Richmond
*50 - Davis Romero
*52 - [[B. J. Ryan]]
*56 - Bryan Tallet
*40 - Brian Wolfe

===Catchers===
*20 - Rod Barajas
* - Michael Barrett
*7 - Curtis Thigpen

===Infielders===
*8 - Russ Adams
*23 - Jose Bautista
*2 - Aaron Hill
*1 - Joe Inglett
*6 - John McDonald
*17 - Lyle Overbay
*38 - Angel Sanchez
*19 - Marco Scutaro

===Outfielders===
*21 - Buck Coats
*26 - Adam Lind
*15 - [[Alex Rios]]
*45 - Travis Snider
*10 - [[Vernon Wells]]

===Designated Hitters===
none

==Minor League Affiliates==
The minor league affiliates of the Blue Jays are:
*AAA - Syracuse Chiefs
*AA - New Hampshire Fisher Cats
*A Adv. - Dunedin Blue Jays
*A - Lansing Lugnuts
*SS - Auburn Doubledays

==See also==
*[[Canadian sports]]
*[[Texas Rangers (baseball team)|Texas Rangers]]
*[[Tampa Bay Devil Rays]]

{{Nb_sl_mlb_american}}
[[Category:Canadian Sports Teams]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-11-13T18:48:21Z

EMorrissey: