Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bulimia nervosa

2007-08-09T06:36:20Z

Elamdri: New page: '''Bulimia nervosa''' is a disorder where the individual fears becoming fat, and therefore eats large quantities of food, and then proceeds to force themselves to vomit the food back up.

'''Bulimia nervosa''' is a disorder where the individual fears becoming fat, and therefore eats large quantities of food, and then proceeds to force themselves to vomit the food back up.

Anorexia nervosa

2007-08-09T06:34:23Z

Elamdri:

'''Anorexia nervosa''' is a disorder in which the individual has an intense fear of becoming fat and therefore eats far too little to sustain normal body functions. It usually manifests itself in an extremely unhealthy body image. If left untreated, it can lead to serious physiology injury or death. It is almost exclusively a female disorder.

==See Also==

[[Bulimia nervosa]]

== Sources ==

Abnormal Psychology, Rosenhan & Seligman, 1984

[[Category: Psychology]]

Anorexia nervosa

2007-08-09T06:34:07Z

Elamdri:

'''Anorexia nervosa''' is a disorder in which the individual has an intense fear of becoming fat and therefore eats far too little to sustain normal body functions. It usually manifests itself in an extremely unhealthy body image. If left untreated, it can lead to serious physiology injury or death. It is almost exclusively a female disorder.

==See Also==

[[bulimia nervos]]

== Sources ==

Abnormal Psychology, Rosenhan & Seligman, 1984

[[Category: Psychology]]

Wooden horse

2007-08-09T06:32:20Z

Elamdri: Redirecting to Trojan Horse

#REDIRECT [[Trojan Horse]]

Trojan Horse

2007-08-09T06:31:48Z

Elamdri: New page: The '''Trojan Horse''' was a mythological device used in Homer's ''Illiad''. It was a large wooden horse on wheels, which was delivered to the gates of Troy as supposed tribute by the Gree...

The '''Trojan Horse''' was a mythological device used in Homer's ''Illiad''. It was a large wooden horse on wheels, which was delivered to the gates of Troy as supposed tribute by the Greeks. Secretly however, the Horse was made hollow, and filled with Greek soldiers, who came out at night and attacked the city.

[[Category:Mythology]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2007-07-23T08:45:02Z

Elamdri:

See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.

: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?

: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit

: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all. "I wanna hold your hand," for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland. I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world. That tune is fun for reminiscing.

: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning. [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained. Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Eric Cartman (South Park)

2007-07-18T22:14:52Z

Elamdri:

Eric Cartman is a character on the television show South Park.

[[Category: Animation]]

Eric Cartman (South Park)

2007-07-18T22:14:34Z

Elamdri:

Eric Cartman is a character on the television show South Park.

[[Category: South Park]]

Order of Assassins

2007-07-18T08:29:42Z

Elamdri: New page: The '''Order of Assassins''' is an ancient Muslim group that was founded by Hasan ibn al-Sabbah. Hasan founded the group in order to protect his sect of Islam. The word "assassin" is suppo...

The '''Order of Assassins''' is an ancient Muslim group that was founded by Hasan ibn al-Sabbah. Hasan founded the group in order to protect his sect of Islam. The word "assassin" is supposedly derived from the term "hashashin," the term Hasan's follower's referred to themselves as. Before committing the murders, the hashashins would eat hashish. The hashashins were adept at stealth and surprise killings, again leading to the creation of the term "assassination."<ref>Gus Martin. Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues.</ref>

==Popular Culture==

The Order of Assassins has gained recent fame due to it's depiction in the novel [[Angels and Demons]], by [[Dan Brown]], of da Vinci Code fame. It also will be featured in the upcoming video game [[Assassin's Creed]].

==References==
<references/>

User talk:DesertSeagull

2007-07-15T03:41:16Z

Elamdri: New page: Nice play on words with the username--~~~~

Nice play on words with the username--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:41, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Tomato

2007-07-14T20:03:20Z

Elamdri: New page: A '''tomato''' is a type of red fruit.

A '''tomato''' is a type of red fruit.

Penny Arcade

2007-07-13T23:41:08Z

Elamdri: /* External Links */

Penny Arcade is a popular webcomic created by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Penny Arcade explores video games, the video game industry, and video game culture.

==External Links==

http://www.penny-arcade.com/

Penny Arcade

2007-07-13T23:41:02Z

Elamdri: /* External Links */

Penny Arcade

2007-07-13T23:40:31Z

Elamdri:

Penny Arcade

2007-07-13T23:40:16Z

Elamdri: New page: Penny Arcade is a popular webcomic created by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Penny Arcade explores video games, the video game industry, and video game culture.

Penny Arcade is a popular webcomic created by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Penny Arcade explores video games, the video game industry, and video game culture.

Jack Thompson

2007-07-13T23:39:19Z

Elamdri:

'''John Bruce "Jack" Thompson''' is a Florida attorney famous in the media for attacking video games, among other forms of media, as responsible for inciting violence among children. Thompson is known for using personal attacks and inflammatory tactics, rather than hard data, to support his cause. Thompson is under investigation from the Florida Bar for inappropriate conduct.<ref>Ostrovsky, Daniel. [http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1170928966137 Fla. Bar Seeks Sanctions Against Morality Watchdog Jack Thompson]. February 9, 2007 (accessed July 13, 2007), ''New York Law Journal''</ref> He resides in Coral Gables, [[Florida]]. Thompson is a [[Presbyterian]] and politically [[conservative]].<ref>Eugene F. Provenzo Jr., Jack Thompson. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1019/p09s01-coop.html A political odd couple's advice on finding common ground]. October 19, 2004 (accessed July 13, 2007), ''Christian Science Monitor''</ref>

Thompson is particularly well-known among the video game industry for his controversial "A Modest Video Game Proposal", where Jack wrote a letter to leaders of the video game industry; Jack stated that he would donate $10,000 to a charity of Paul Eibeler's (CEO of Take-Two Interactive) choosing, if any video game-creating entity would create and publish a video game based on his criteria; He wanted the main character of the game (a father whose son was killed by a boy who played violent video games) to kill several high-ranking video game industry executives at the [[Electronic Entertainment Expo]] (E3).<ref>Saunderson, Matt. [http://gc.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=5883 Attorney Proposes Violent Game]. October 10, 2005 (accessed July 13, 2007), ''Gamecube Advanced Media Network''</ref> The game was soon released (titled ''I'm O.K - A Murder Simulator''), though Thompson claimed his letter was satirical, and has not yet donated the promised $10,000. Mike Kralhulik and Jerry Holkins of the [[Penny Aracade]] webcomic, avid critics of Thompson and his methods, later donated a $10,000 check to the [[ESA]], in Jack Thompson's name, believing that the [[ESA]] would have been Eibler's charity of choice. Thompson responded by attempting to file legal charges against Kralhulik and Holkins.<ref>http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/10/17</ref>

==References==
<references/>

User talk:DanH

2007-07-13T23:29:36Z

Elamdri: /* Uh-oh... */

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

== unicode ==

Do you know how to use unicode to avoid the spam filter? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:30, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*I am sure you read all that on that other wiki. Check with them. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal? ==
So I'm a "vandal" am I? Clean out your ears, knucklehead, because I'm about to tell you something about real vandals. The real Vandals were a race of pagan barbarian murderers and thieves who swept across Europe killing anyone who got in the way of their "fun." Know who does that sound like? Not me, certainly. Maybe it sounds like those stupid teenagers you cater to on this site, who just want to "get high" and play their little murder simulators, no matter what it's doing to their family, their culture, or their country.

When I found this place, I thought it was finally the venue(look it up if you don't know what it means) for truth about dangerous parts of popular culture like Dungeons and Dragons and violent video games. You try to insert some truth into the articles over on Wacopedia, and you get shot down by mindless liberals chanting their little mantras "It's just a game," "You're a close minded fanatic," and "Get a life." I've got a life, junior, and it's a lot better than yours because I go OUTSIDE once and a while. But this was supposed to be where people can showcase a conservative(read: realistic) viewpoint on this filth. And when I come back, what do I find? Some scrawny little coward had deleted all my work and called me a "vandal."

YOU are the real vandals, peddling this smut to young children who come here to escape from the cesspit that is Wacopedia. Their loving parents see all the conservative trappings here and say, "Oh, this must be safe," but most probably never take the time to actualy read the idiotic and subversive lies you present as truth. Let's take a look, shall we?

The article on video games has pages full of nice, harmless sounding fluff, but how much information does it have on the scientificly proven pyschological effects they have on people who become violent and obsessed from playing them? A SINGLE line at the very bottom of the page about Grand Theft Auto, which everyone has already heard about and a comment from some pixelante about how we shouldn't "judge" video games based on what "a couple crazy kids did." That's the same tired rhetoric used by hippies who want their pot legalized. "Hey, man, a couple of people kill each other over drugs. But, like, the ends(brainwashed teenagers having "fun") justify the means(the death of the innocent" Here's an idea. Get out of your parent's basement and try actually living life, instead of rehearse taking the lives of those who are actually doing something worthwhile.

Your article on Dungeons and Dragons is also very telling. It's got three sections on how to play the game, and I counted at least six different places where criticism is deflected, and that's without reading the section on the "Magic System" (I don't worship the devil, and I'm not planning on casting any magic spells anytime soon, so why on earth would I read a section about how to do so?). I wander how parents would feel if they found out your website had occult knowledge right out in the open? But, hey, I suppose "If it feels good, do it." And if anybody trys to stop us, we can just plug our fingers in our ears and concentrate on something that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like how your article on Hitler calls him evil. Well, duh!. A bunch of book burners is what you are, heeping all the truth about anything wrong that isn't one of your pet causes onto the bonfire with your morals and common decency.

My page on "anime," as these perverted freak call it, was mangled. Your little slant eyed toadie, Ed Poor Morals, only had the courage to put a little note at the end about how well this sick "art" blends into porn.(Of course, some little brain fried deliquent has already subtely changed even that, so it sounds much less disgusting than it really is.) I can only thank God that you left enough of my message in that parents will be able to see the link to porn, and stop their kids from becoming ignorant sociopaths, kinda like most of the people on this site.

And finally let's look at your little advertisement for online games(your page on Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games, in case you don't know). I clicked on a few, then went back and got rid of the links to protect children from smut. I even put a note saying that they weren't family friendly. And what did one of you little cowards do? Put them back and said "I hope he's not right about them not being family friendly." Here's a novel ideal, why don't you actually CHECK? Then you could see all the violence, New Age idealogy, and practical nudity in these "family friendly" websites. But you won't do that. I'm on to you. You've probably got a little side deal with the game companies. You give them free advertising with a spin that makes it seem like their product is harmless, and you get some money for the advertising.

That just makes me sick. These children come to you for the facts without the bias and lies most media shoves down their throats. And what do you do? Line them up and march them right into the hands of the gaming companies that don't care if people get hurt or if society is degraded, as long as they can make a buck. Most gaming companies are Japanese, did you know that? Or where you too distracted by counting your shiny silver coins to actually research what you were doing? Sure, but who cares right. Aren't the Japanese Buddhist? So they believe in love and peace, right? Islam is the FASTEST GROWING religion in the world. You're kidding yourself if you think none of the Japs have converted so they could get their 72 virgins. Even a search on the internet will show you thousands of site about people who have stolen, killed themselves or others, and wasted their lives on twisted "entertainment." How many repeats of Columbine will it take before you wake up and do your part to stop this insanity?

But, I suppose this will fall on deaf ears. After all, George Washington said "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." But you don't really understand what you're selling. Will you still mock me when it one of YOUR friends or loved ones who gets gunned down by some pale, greasy gamer who's driving down the street thinking the people he's shooting aren't real, or kidnapped so some lunatic in a black robe can sacrifice them to his Dungeons and Dragons gods(who are really demons) so he can get a better result for his latest spell? Will you still think that it's all just "harmless fun" and that you don't need to warn people about a very real danger to themselves and their families then? You can do the right thing. You can stop censoring people who come here to expose the truth. You could save a life by stopping some innocent little boy from growing up to be a deranged killer.

I'm probably wasting my time though. You've probably already thrown away your mind, drooling over the latest murder simulator with all the biggest looking swords and "coolest" spells. People who try to spread the truth are always harrassed and mocked, but good always wins in the end. Hopefully, enough people will read this and do a little research on these subjects. Then they'll try to clear up the lies and misconceptions you have all over this place. They'll get censored and thrown out of course. But soon, enough people will see through these blatant advertisments for this smut and try to correct it you'll be doing nothing but trying to stem the tide of light into the tangle of biased nonsense you're using to shield your spineless business partners, who have to use tactics like this because they're to cowardly to come out in the open and defend their dangerous product. And do you know why? Because they can't. I know it, they know it, and, deep down, you know it too.

I'll be praying that somehow you find it in your heart(or at least the part that hasn't been destroyed by the dehumanizing messages these things send) to help spread the truth.

(P.S. Oh, and I'm not Jack Chick. Contrary to what you might believe, there is more than one person in this country with that name.)

: This post wins the internet. Anyways, if I were to guess, it's this guy. [http://www.jackthompson.org/] --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 22:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::This might be the funniest thing I have ever read [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

*He seemed "normal" to me on other issues. But then I have no idea what sparked his post, or anything else.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:33, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just to nitpick, at the time the Vandals attacked the Roman empire and took over North Africa, they were Arian Christian, not pagan.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 12:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== reminder ==

does the word [[Hannibal]] mean anything to you? heh heh heh[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I'll have to get that tomorrow morning; I'm going out of town for three days. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Uh-oh... ==

looks like we have a Jack Thompson impersonator trying to take you out, Dan. Or worse yet, Jack himself... I shudder at the mere thought. Be vigiliant, don't bend, we will defend you, Dan. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's only one way to tell... [[Jack Thompson|*Creates Article*]].--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:07, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::*ROFL!! Yeah, like he's something to fear, Thompson! You guys kill me sometimes, giving him the reaction he wants, lol. Good idea, Elamdri! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Dunno about you, Terry, but an opportunity to take on Thompson ''mano y mano'' is something I would relish. I hope the article I'm about to write about him attracts his wrath.--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::NOOO, you blocked him! How am I gonna have any fun now?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Let's play with this guy - he deserves it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::I somewhat doubt he's Jack Thompson, he even denied it. But still, wouldn't it be something if we got the real Jack Thompson to come sniffing around?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:18, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::As of today, that's my new goal. We know he'll find us sooner or later (he gave Wikipedia quite a headache), so let's school him quickly and get it over with. Let's move this discussion to the sysop page, agreed? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:21, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, AIM! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::Sure--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:29, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DanH

2007-07-13T23:18:14Z

Elamdri: /* Uh-oh... */

User talk:DanH

2007-07-13T23:15:50Z

Elamdri: /* Uh-oh... */

Jack Thompson

2007-07-13T23:08:43Z

Elamdri: New page: '''John Bruce "Jack" Thompson''' is a Florida attorney famous in the media for attacking video games, among other forms of media, as responsible for inciting violence among children.

'''John Bruce "Jack" Thompson''' is a Florida attorney famous in the media for attacking video games, among other forms of media, as responsible for inciting violence among children.

User talk:DanH

2007-07-13T23:07:03Z

Elamdri: /* Uh-oh... */

Talk:World of Warcraft

2007-07-13T22:58:11Z

Elamdri: /* Recent Changes */

I think we are too dignified to have such lengthy articles about video games. I propose that we do not have any articles on video games at all. What say you? ---[[User:Be not dismayed|Be not dismayed]] XXI June 2007

:It's a pretty significant cultural phenomenon. I am about to apply my personal test. I am about to see whether it's been mentioned in ''The New York Times.'' If so, I think it's important. And if it's "fit to print," it's probably fit for an encyclopedia. Here goes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:46, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:A search on the exact phrase "World of Warcraft" ''plus'' "Blizzard" in ''The New York Times'' since 2000 turns up 26 hits. On a quick eyeballing, virtually all appear to be relevant and many of which are clear ''news'' articles ''about'' the game. Here are a few:

:*December 9, 2004: "Thousands of Opponents Await In a New Virtual Fantasy World"
:*February 10, 2005: "The Game Is a Hit, But the Work Isn't Done"
:*August 6, 2005: "Social Significance in Playing Online? You Betcha!" "Yet outside my romantic and family life, nothing this year has given me more satisfaction than helping my guild in World of Warcraft defeat Ragnaros for the first time early Tuesday morning. World of Warcraft has been the video game world's breakout phenomenon since its introduction last November, signing up more than 3.5 million paying subscribers worldwide...."
:*December 9, 2005:" Ogre to Slay? Outsource It To Chinese," about the "gold farming" phenomenon
:*May 11, 2006: "A Major Online Game Galaxy Gets a New Race of Characters"
:*September 5, 2006: "An Online Game, Made in America, Seizes the Globe"
:*January 17, 2007 "World of Warcraft Expands"

:Speaking as someone who has never played World of Warcraft or any other MMORPG, nor Dungeons & Dragons before it, the evidence would seem to suggest that "World of Warcraft" is a significant cultural phenomenon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:56, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:P. S. The Britannica does not have an article about World of Warcraft in the encyclopedia proper, but it does have an article in the 2007 Book of the Year on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9435326/The-Virtual-World-of-Online-Gaming The Virtual World of Online Gaming], and it opens "Virtual worlds generated billions of real dollars in 2006 as millions of players around the world fought, bought, crafted, and sold in a variety of online environments. The most populous, Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft, drew seven million subscribers (with more than five million in China alone)." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:59, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a mom, I think it is useful to have such articles, so that parents may get a Conservapedia view on things in which their kids may express interest. In addition, video games are a real business, creating real jobs - you can even major in game development in college. The article can be positive or negative, as the facts dictate - either way, it is useful information. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

If you want junior high and highschool kids to use Conservapedia, you better make it fun for them for where they are at in their lives. This is HUGE at their ages. What I don't understand is, why does the editing keep changing so much with adding information then deleting it? Is it being copied from wiki or something? No explanation is given. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: It looks like the last major revert before it was locked was probably because the article read like an advertisement. The problem with this article is that it has no direction. For example, I don't think we need to explain the factions, races, classes, etc. If people want to read about that they can just got to Blizzard's website or a fan site. I think if we're trying to be encyclopedic here, we need to just stick to what it is, and it's cultural impact. I've played the game since it was released, and I'd be glad to work on it if it were unlocked. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 23:30, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::Article overboard! '''Way''' overboard. This game is worth mentioning, just for its cultural importance, but... this is more of a condensed stratagy guide. Needs a good trim-down. - BornAgainBrit
:::It may be a bit overboard, but it has a huge following, especially among age groups that Andy is most gearing the use of Conservapedia for. It makes sense to give them the type of information that they want that will get them interested if it gets them to spend time looking at Conservapedia and using it as a resource. In other words in this one we may want to go beyond a dry encyclopedia article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:54, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: Right now it looks like we've removed most of the random terminology that one could easily gain off of the official website. It gives a concise description of what the basic premise of the game is, notes it's popularity, and brings up some criticisms of the game. What type of information beyond this do you think would be relevant? I'm happy to make whatever changes might be needed, but like I said before, we just need a good direction as to what type of information we're trying to relate here. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: I agree we need a general understanding, but looking at the edit history, the recent direction is not one that has been agreed upon and was not the reason the article was unlocked. It appears this game is being cut some slack in giving more information than is usually desired, but then it is in a unique position of having an immense following of dedicated players and curious onlookers and may be a way to attract more attention to Conservapedia from groups that otherwise wouldn't be drawn to using our website. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:29, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Article locked ==

I'd also be glad to share my WoW knoledge with the kind folk of Conservapedia... if this weren't locked. --[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:48, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:It was locked by [[user:Elamdri|Elamdri]], so you could ask him about unlocking it if you like. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've unlocked it for now. If it stays relatively good, I see no reason to leave it locked.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:25, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Recent Changes ==

I think it may be wise to engage in concensus discussion before making major changes. While I'm sure all changes are being made in good faith, it's going against the reasons the Sysop stated he unprotected the article. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Well, first off, he hasn't stated any reasons that I can see why he unprotected it, only because it was requested. "If it stays relatively good, I see no reason it should be protected" doesn't really offer any insight as to 1) what was wrong in the first place and 2) what he'd like to see out of the article. Furthermore, I would argue that while this is a popular video game, CP is not a website that is going to attract your curious video game enthusiast. They are more than likely going to seek out official video game websites, or perhaps a wiki specifically focused on the game (ie www.wowwiki.com). I believe providing a more concise explination of the game and cultural issues surrounding it is more appropriate for this encyclopedia. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:48, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, but Elamdri himself put in many of the additions that were removed, and it is unlikely that's what he wanted. ;-) I'm not saying either that we're going to suddenly get 8.5 million game players, but the first rule of selling is to get them in, and the second is to sell your product -- give them something they want. We did a fine job on the Longbow article, but chances are more people passing through here are going to be curious to see what is said about World of WarCraft than that ancient weapon. (Although actually, in this case, there may be some overlap.) Personally, I've never played the game, but having played other role playing games in the past, I was curious when I read about it. If I'm a new person, that makes me more inclined to think favorably about Conservapedia and use it more, or at least think about it. Peace to you my friend. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:13, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I protected the World of Warcraft article because we had a rash of vandal attacks against it a while back. Rather than revert it every time, unofficial CP policy is to revert the vandalism and protect until the vandal gets bored/blocked. Then if we find the article to be a high profile target, we keep the article locked, unless a reasonable request comes along, which Funnny provided. As for the terminology and game content that was cut and re-added, I'm not particularly attached to it so much as to get upset about someone removing it, although asking would be nice ;). Personally, I feel wiki's that aren't confined to one one area, like wowwiki, are going to end up growing out of their britches so to speak. Our articles might start out small and concise, but I see no problems with them developing to be all inclusive.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:58, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:World of Warcraft

2007-07-11T21:25:40Z

Elamdri: /* Article locked */

Template:User Bushfan

2007-07-07T04:13:39Z

Elamdri: Reverted edits by ButterscotchCake (Talk); changed back to last version by Human

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#3399ff |info-s=10 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:George_w_bush.jpeg|45px]] |info=This user supports President George W. Bush.}}

Template:President

2007-07-07T04:13:20Z

Elamdri: Reverted edits by ButterscotchCake (Talk); changed back to last version by BrianCo

{| class="infobox bordered" style="float: width:23em; right; margin: 0 0 0.5em 0.5em; text-align: left; font-size: 85%; margin-left:5px" border=0 align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250"
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; font-size: 120%; height: 20px; background: DarkOrchid no-repeat scroll top left;"| '''{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}'''
|-

{{!}}align="center" colspan="2"{{!}}{{#if:{{{image|}}}|[[image:{{{image}}}|200px]]|}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{seq|}}} | 
{{#ifeq: {{{office|}}} | vice |

{{!}}colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; font-size: 120%; height: 24px; background: thistle no-repeat scroll top left;" <hr/>{{!}} '''{{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq|}}} = 11 or {{{seq|}}} = 12 or {{{seq|}}} = 13 }} | 0 | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq|}}} mod 10}}| 1 | {{{seq|}}}st | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq|}}} mod 10}} | 2 | {{{seq|}}}nd | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq|}}} mod 10}}| 3 | {{{seq|}}}rd | {{{seq|}}}th }} }} }} | {{{seq|}}}th }} Vice-President of {{{country|the United States}}}''' | 

{{!}}colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; font-size: 120%; height: 24px; background: plum no-repeat scroll top left;" <hr/>{{!}} '''{{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq|}}} = 11 or {{{seq|}}} = 12 or {{{seq|}}} = 13 }} | 0 | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq|}}} mod 10}}| 1 | {{{seq|}}}st | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq|}}} mod 10}} | 2 | {{{seq|}}}nd | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq|}}} mod 10}}| 3 | {{{seq|}}}rd | {{{seq|}}}th }} }} }} | {{{seq|}}}th }} President of {{{country|the United States}}}'''
}}
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{term_start|}}} | 
{{!}}colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black;" {{!}}'''Term of office''' {{{term_start|}}} - {{#if:{{{term_end|}}} | {{{term_end|}}} | }} | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{party|}}} | 
{{!}} '''Political party '''
{{!}} [[{{{party|}}}]] | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{pres|}}} | 
{{!}} '''President'''{{#if:{{{2pres|}}} | s}}
{{!}} [[{{{pres|}}}]] {{#if:{{{pres_dates|}}} | ({{{pres_dates|}}}) | }}{{#if:{{{2pres|}}} | [[{{{2pres|}}}]] {{#if:{{{2pres_dates|}}} | ({{{2pres_dates|}}}) | }} | }}{{#if:{{{3pres|}}} | [[{{{3pres|}}}]] {{#if:{{{3pres_dates|}}}| ({{{3pres_dates|}}}) | }} | }}{{#if:{{{4pres|}}} | [[{{{4pres|}}}]] {{#if:{{{4pres_dates|}}} | ({{{4pres_dates|}}}) | }} | }} | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{vp|}}} | 
{{!}}'''Vice President'''{{#if:{{{2vp|}}} | s}}
{{!}} [[{{{vp|}}}]] {{#if:{{{vp_dates|}}} | ({{{vp_dates|}}}) | }}{{#if:{{{2vp|}}} | [[{{{2vp|}}}]] {{#if:{{{2vp_dates|}}} | ({{{2vp_dates|}}}) | }} | }}{{#if:{{{3vp|}}} | [[{{{3vp|}}}]] {{#if:{{{3vp_dates|}}} | ({{{3vp_dates|}}}) | }} | }}{{#if:{{{4vp|}}} | [[{{{4vp|}}}]] {{#if:{{4{vp_dates|}}} | ({{{4vp_dates|}}}) | }} | }} | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{previous|}}} | 
{{!}}'''Preceded by'''
{{!}} [[{{{previous|}}}]] |
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{next|}}} | 
{{!}}'''Succeeded by'''
{{!}} [[{{{next|}}}]] |
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{seq2|}}} | 
{{#ifeq: {{{office2|}}} | vice |

{{!}}colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black ; font-size: 120%; height: 24px; background: thistle no-repeat scroll top left;" <hr/>{{!}} '''{{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq2|}}} = 11 or {{{seq2|}}} = 12 or {{{seq2|}}} = 13 }} | 0 | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq2|}}} mod 10}}| 1 | {{{seq2|}}}st | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq2|}}} mod 10}} | 2 | {{{seq2|}}}nd | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq2|}}} mod 10}}| 3 | {{{seq2|}}}rd | {{{seq2|}}}th }} }} }}| {{{seq2|}}}th }} Vice-President of {{{country|the United States}}}''' |

{{!}}colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; font-size: 120%; height: 24px; background: plum no-repeat scroll top left;" <hr/>{{!}} '''{{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq2|}}} = 11 or {{{seq2|}}} = 12 or {{{seq2|}}} = 13 }} | 0 | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq2|}}} mod 10}}| 1 | {{{seq2|}}}st | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq2|}}} mod 10}} | 2 | {{{seq2|}}}nd | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq2|}}} mod 10}}| 3 | {{{seq2|}}}rd | {{{seq2|}}}th }} }} }}| {{{seq2|}}}th }} President of {{{country|the United States}}}'''
}}
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{term_start2|}}} | 
{{!}}colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black;" {{!}}'''Term of office''' {{{term_start2|}}} - {{#if:{{{term_end2|}}} | {{{term_end2|}}} | }} | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{party2|}}} | 
{{!}}'''Political party'''
{{!}} [[{{{party2|}}}]] |
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{pres2|}}} | 
{{!}}'''President'''{{#if:{{{2pres2|}}} | s}}
{{!}} [[{{{pres2|}}}]] {{#if:{{{pres_dates2|}}} | ({{{pres_dates2|}}}) | }}{{#if:{{{2pres2|}}}| [[{{{2pres2|}}}]] {{#if:{{{2pres_dates2|}}}| ({{{2pres_dates2|}}}) | }} | }}{{#if:{{{3pres2|}}} | [[{{{3pres2|}}}]] {{#if:{{{3pres_dates2|}}}| ({{{3pres_dates2|}}}) | }} | }}{{#if:{{{4pres2|}}} | [[{{{4pres2|}}}]] {{#if:{{4{pres_dates2|}}}| ({{{4pres_dates2|}}}) | }} | }} | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{vp2|}}} | 
{{!}}'''Vice-President'''{{#if:{{{2vp2|}}} | s}}
{{!}} [[{{{vp2|}}}]] {{#if:{{{vp_dates2|}}} | ({{{vp_dates2|}}}) | }}{{#if:{{{2vp2|}}} | [[{{{2vp2|}}}]] {{#if:{{{2vp_dates2|}}} | ({{{2vp_dates2|}}}) | }} | }}{{#if:{{{3vp2|}}} | [[{{{3vp2|}}}]] {{#if:{{{3vp_dates2|}}} | ({{{3vp_dates2|}}}) | }} | }}{{#if:{{{4vp2|}}} | [[{{{4vp2|}}}]] {{#if:{{4{vp_dates2|}}} | ({{{4vp_dates2|}}}) | }} | }} | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{previous2|}}}| 
{{!}}'''Preceded by'''
{{!}} [[{{{previous2|}}}]] | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{next2|}}} | 
{{!}}'''Succeeded by'''
{{!}} [[{{{next2|}}}]] | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{seq3|}}} | 
{{#ifeq: {{{office3|}}} | vice | 

{{!}}colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; font-size: 120%; height: 24px; background: thistle no-repeat scroll top left;" <hr/>{{!}} '''{{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq3|}}} = 11 or {{{seq3|}}} = 12 or {{{seq3|}}} = 13 }} | 0 | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq3|}}} mod 10}}| 1 | {{{seq3|}}}st | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq3|}}} mod 10}} | 2 | {{{seq3|}}}nd | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq3|}}} mod 10}}| 3 | {{{seq3|}}}rd | {{{seq3|}}}th }} }} }}| {{{seq3|}}}th }} Vice-President of {{{country|the United States}}}''' |

{{!}}colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; font-size: 120%; height: 24px; background: plum no-repeat scroll top left;" <hr/>{{!}} '''{{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq3|}}} = 11 or {{{seq3|}}} = 12 or {{{seq3|}}} = 13 }} | 0 | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq3|}}} mod 10}}| 1 | {{{seq3|}}}st | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq3|}}} mod 10}} | 2 | {{{seq3|}}}nd | {{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{{seq3|}}} mod 10}}| 3 | {{{seq3|}}}rd | {{{seq3|}}}th }} }} }}| {{{seq3|}}}th }} President of {{{country|the United States}}}'''
}}
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{term_start3|}}} | 
{{!}}colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black;" {{!}}'''Term of office''' {{{term_start3|}}} - {{#if:{{{term_end3|}}} | {{{term_end3|}}} | }} | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{party3|}}} | 
{{!}} '''Political party'''
{{!}} [[{{{party3|}}}]] | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{pres3|}}} | 
{{!}} '''President'''{{# if:{{{2pres3|}}}|s}}
{{!}} [[{{{pres3|}}}]] {{#if:{{{pres_dates3|}}} | ({{{pres_dates3|}}}) | }}{{#if:{{{2pres3|}}} | [[{{{2pres3|}}}]] {{#if:{{{2pres_dates3|}}} | ({{{2pres_dates3|}}}) | }} | }}{{#if:{{{3pres3|}}} | [[{{{3pres3|}}}]] {{#if:{{{3pres_dates3|}}} | ({{{3pres_dates3|}}}) | }} | }}{{#if:{{{4pres3|}}} | [[{{{4pres3|}}}]] {{#if:{{4{pres_dates3|}}} | ({{{4pres_dates3|}}}) | }} | }} | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{vp3|}}} | 
{{!}} '''Vice President'''{{# if:{{{2vp3|}}}|s}}
{{!}} [[{{{vp3|}}}]] {{#if:{{{vp_dates3|}}} | ({{{vp_dates3|}}}) | }}{{#if:{{{2vp3|}}} | [[{{{2vp3|}}}]] {{#if:{{{2vp_dates3|}}} | ({{{2vp_dates3|}}}) | }} | }}{{#if:{{{3vp3|}}}| [[{{{3vp3|}}}]] {{#if:{{{3vp_dates3|}}} | ({{{3vp_dates3|}}}) | }} | }}{{#if:{{{4vp3|}}} | [[{{{4vp3|}}}]] {{#if:{{4{vp_dates3|}}} | ({{{4vp_dates3|}}}) | }} | }} | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{previous3|}}} | 
{{!}} '''Preceded by'''
{{!}} [[{{{previous3|}}}]] |
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{next3|}}} | 
{{!}}'''Succeeded by'''
{{!}} [[{{{next3|}}}]] | 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{birth_date|}}} | 
{{!}}colspan="2"{{!}}<hr/>
{{!-}}
{{!}} '''Born'''
{{!}} {{{birth_date}}} {{#if:{{{birth_place|}}} | [[{{{birth_place|}}}]] | }}| 
}}
{{!-}}
{{#if:{{{death_date|}}} | 
{{!}}'''Died'''
{{!}} {{{death_date}}} {{#if:{{{death_place|}}} | [[{{{death_place|}}}]] | }}| 
}}
{{!-}}

{{#if:{{{spouse|}}} |
{{!}}'''Spouse'''
{{!}} {{{spouse}}}{{#if:{{{spouse2|}}} | {{{spouse2|}}} | }} | 
}}
{{!-}}
{{#if:{{{religion|}}} | 
{{!}}'''Religion'''
{{!}} {{{religion}}} | 
}}
{{!-}}
|}<noinclude>

{{TemplateDoc|pages=Article pages|purpose=Country presidents|cat=}}
{{Parms|
{{Parm|name|Name of president|no|defaults to page name}}
{{Parm|image|Picture of president|no|Only the file name is required}}
{{Parm|country|Country|no|defaults to United States}}
{{Parm|office|President or Vice|no|vice (default is president)}}
{{Parm|seq|Sequential number|no|}}
{{Parm|term_start|First date of office|no|}}
{{Parm|term_end|Last date of office|no|}}
{{Parm|vp|1st Vice president|no|Name of VP - linked}}
{{Parm|vp_dates|1st Vice president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|2vp|2nd Vice president|no|Name of VP - linked}}
{{Parm|2vp_dates|2nd Vice president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|3vp|3rd Vice president|no|Name of VP - linked}}
{{Parm|3vp_dates|3rd Vice president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|4vp|4th Vice president|no|Name of VP - linked}}
{{Parm|4vp_dates|4th Vice president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|pres|1st president|no|Name of pres - linked}}
{{Parm|pres_dates|1st president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|2pres|2nd president|no|Name of pres - linked}}
{{Parm|2pres_dates|2nd president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|3pres|3rd president|no|Name of pres - linked}}
{{Parm|3pres_dates|3rd president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|4pres|4th president|no|Name of pres - linked}}
{{Parm|4pres_dates|4th president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|previous|Predecessor|no| linked}}
{{Parm|next|Successor|no| linked}}
{{Parm|office2|President or Vice|no|vice (default is president)}}
{{Parm|seq2|Sequential number|no|}}
{{Parm|term_start2|First date of office|no|}}
{{Parm|term_end2|Last date of office|no|}}
{{Parm|vp2|1st Vice president|no|Name of VP - linked}}
{{Parm|vp_dates2|1st Vice president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|2vp2|2nd Vice president|no|Name of VP - linked}}
{{Parm|2vp_dates2|2nd Vice president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|3vp2|3rd Vice president|no|Name of VP - linked}}
{{Parm|3vp_dates2|3rd Vice president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|4vp2|4th Vice president|no|Name of VP - linked}}
{{Parm|4vp_dates2|4th Vice president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|pres2|1st president|no|Name of pres - linked}}
{{Parm|pres_dates2|1st president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|2pres2|2nd president|no|Name of pres - linked}}
{{Parm|2pres_dates2|2nd president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|3pres2|3rd president|no|Name of pres - linked}}
{{Parm|3pres_dates2|3rd president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|4pres2|4th president|no|Name of pres - linked}}
{{Parm|4pres_dates2|4th president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|previous2|Predecessor|no| linked}}
{{Parm|next2|Successor|no| linked}}
{{Parm|office3|President or Vice|no|vice (default is president)}}
{{Parm|seq3|Sequential number|no|}}
{{Parm|term_start3|First date of office|no|}}
{{Parm|term_end3|Last date of office|no|}}
{{Parm|vp3|1st Vice president|no|Name of VP - linked}}
{{Parm|vp_dates3|1st Vice president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|2vp3|2nd Vice president|no|Name of VP - linked}}
{{Parm|2vp_dates3|2nd Vice president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|3vp3|3rd Vice president|no|Name of VP - linked}}
{{Parm|3vp_dates3|3rd Vice president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|4vp3|4th Vice president|no|Name of VP - linked}}
{{Parm|4vp_dates3|4th Vice president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|pres3|1st president|no|Name of pres - linked}}
{{Parm|pres_dates3|1st president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|2pres3|2nd president|no|Name of pres - linked}}
{{Parm|2pres_dates3|2nd president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|3pres3|3rd president|no|Name of pres - linked}}
{{Parm|3pres_dates3|3rd president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|4pres3|4th president|no|Name of pres - linked}}
{{Parm|4pres_dates3|4th president term|no|Dates in office}}
{{Parm|previous3|Predecessor|no| linked}}
{{Parm|next3|Successor|no| linked}}
{{Parm|birth_date|Date of birth|no|}}
{{Parm|birth_place|Place of birth|no|linked}}
{{Parm|death_date|Date of death|no|}}
{{Parm|death_place|Place of death|no|linked}}
{{Parm|spouse|Spouse|no|}}
{{Parm|spouse2|Spouse|no|second spouse}}
{{Parm|religion|Religion|no|linked}}
}}

===Sample Data Block===
The following may be copied and pasted at the top of the page being edited
<pre>
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>President 
|name= 
|image= 
|office= 
|seq= 
|country= 
|term_start= 
|term_end= 
|party= 
|vp= 
|vp_dates= 
|2vp= 
|2vp_dates= 
|3vp= 
|3vp_dates= 
|4vp= 
|4vp_dates= 
|pres= 
|pres_dates= 
|2pres= 
|2pres_dates= 
|3pres= 
|3pres_dates= 
|4pres= 
|4pres_dates= 
|previous= 
|next= 
|office2= 
|seq2= 
|term_start2= 
|term_end2= 
|party2= 
|vp2= 
|vp_dates2= 
|2vp2= 
|2vp_dates2= 
|3vp2= 
|3vp_dates2= 
|4vp2= 
|4vp_dates2= 
|pres2= 
|pres_dates2= 
|2pres2= 
|2pres_dates2= 
|3pres2= 
|3pres_dates2= 
|4pres2= 
|4pres_dates2= 
|previous2= 
|next2= 
|office3= 
|seq3= 
|term_start3= 
|term_end3= 
|party3= 
|vp3= 
|vp_dates3= 
|2vp3= 
|2vp_dates3= 
|3vp3= 
|3vp_dates3= 
|4vp3= 
|4vp_dates3= 
|pres3= 
|pres_dates3= 
|2pres3= 
|2pres_dates3= 
|3pres3= 
|3pres_dates3= 
|4pres3= 
|4pres_dates3= 
|previous3= 
|next3= 
|birth_date= 
|birth_place= 
|birth_date= 
|birth_place= 
|death_date= 
|death_place= 
|spouse= 
|spouse2= 
|religion= 
<nowiki>}}</nowiki>
</pre>

</noinclude>

Simpsons

2007-07-06T00:40:03Z

Elamdri: Redirecting to The Simpsons

#REDIRECT [[The Simpsons]]

Futurama

2007-07-06T00:39:02Z

Elamdri:

Futurama is a television show made by [[Simpsons]] creator Matt Groening. The show follows the antics of Phillip J. Fry (commonly called "Fry" in the show), a young man from the year 2000 who gets cryogenically frozen for 1000 years and wakes up in the year 3000. Futurama follows a similar comedy formula as the [[Simpsons]], with some science-fiction jokes mixed in.

Roman Catholic Church

2007-07-04T00:55:19Z

Elamdri: Reverted edits by XhailXsatanX666x (Talk); changed back to last version by Joaquín Martínez

The [[Roman Catholic Church]] is headed by the pope, the bishop of Rome, currently [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. It is one of the largest religions in the world, with more than 1 billion adherents (In the United States more than 64 million.) The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. The Roman Catholic faith teaches the Pope is the successor of [[Saint Peter]]. The term '''Catholic Church''' is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of [[Jesus Christ]] (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal").

To belong to the Catholic Church one must accept as factually true the gospel of our lord [[Jesus Christ]]. ''"The chief teachings of the Catholic church are: God’s objective existence; God’s interest in individual human beings, who can enter into relations with God (through prayer); the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the immortality of the soul of each human being, each one being accountable at death for his or her actions in life, with the award of heaven or hell; the resurrection of the dead; the historicity of the Gospels; and the divine commission of the church. In addition the Roman Catholic Church stresses that since the members, living and dead, share in each other’s merits, the [[Virgin Mary]] and other saints and the dead in purgatory are never forgotten." '' <ref> [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ro/RomanCat.html The Columbia Encyclopedia]</ref> The presence of Christ is believed to be present in the Eucharist, the bread and wine is Jesus himself. Another essential belief is the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus as the Blessed Virgin Mary and veneration of the saints.

The principal sources for the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church are the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible), Sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium of the Church.

The term Catholic is frequently applied to the Roman Catholic Church, though many Protestants object to Roman Catholics monopolizing the term "Catholic". Conversely, many Roman Catholics dislike the adjective "Roman" because it implies, contrary to (Roman) Catholic doctrine, that their church is not ''the'' universal Church of Christ.

[[Image:Cathpop.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Catholics in the world.]]

== History ==
The original Christian community was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and led by the Apostles. St. [[Paul|Paul the Apostle]] was, together with [[Saint Peter]], the most notable of Early Christian missionaries. After an initial period of persecution, Christianity was legalized in the fourth century by Constantine I. In 380, Emperor Theodosius I accepted Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the [[Roman Empire]]. During the [[Middle Ages]] the Church underwent a time of missionary activity and expansion. This Catholic Christian Church underwent in 1054 a great schism that divided the Church into a Western (Latin) branch, which has been called as the Catholic Church and an Eastern branch, which has become known as the [[Orthodox Church]]. The second schism was the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. During the First Vatican Council (1869–1870) and the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) the Catholic Church undertook the most comprehensive reforms. She stretched relations with other Christian communities and other religions. She also issued directions for a revision of the liturgy.

==Different churches==

The term "The Catholic Church" refers to any one of several Rites, but in the United States is often used synonymously for the largest Rite, the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Other Rites include the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean Rites. Some Eastern rites have significant differences in liturgy, history, discipline and hierarchy from the Roman Catholic Church, but still recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and are in communion with Rome. These Eastern Rite churches are Catholic and do not belong to the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].

The Eastern branches do not have a single umbrella organization. They include the Eastern Orthodox Church and a number of Eastern Catholic Churches. Despite important differences in doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern churches recognize each other as part of the universal, or Catholic Church. For example, each of them accepts each others' Holy Orders (priesthood) as valid.

The Roman Catholic Church historically regarded [[Protestant]] Christianity as heretical, that is, being against Roman doctrine. However, this changed in the 1960's when Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council, where '''the''' '''doors of the Church were opened wide''', and Protestants referred to as '''"our separated brethren".''' This was an exciting period for Catholics and Protestants alike as moves were made to bring the separated churches back together.

[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|John Paul II]]

The Anglican Church (Episcopalian in the United States) occupies an odd situation, because it encompasses within it factions ("Low Church") that emphasize its Protestant aspects and factions ("High Church") that emphasize its Catholic aspects. Anglo-Catholics regard the Anglican church as part of the Catholic Church, and in the unbroken line of the Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branches take a position that could be described as saying that the Anglican Church is almost but not quite Catholic. There have long been unification overtures, and Anglican priests who wish to adopt Catholic Holy Orders are often provided with an abbreviated path to that goal.

The [[Nicene Creed]], the great historical statement of Christian belief, contains the line "I [or we] believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church". The [[Apostles' Creed]] contains a similar affirmation. However, Protestants and Catholics place different interpretations on the term "universal", or "catholic". Protestants believe that it refers to the general, over-arching spiritual unity of all Christian believers, Jew or gentile, which transcends individual churches and denominations. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the [[Roman Catholic Church]], as the single true church founded by Christ, is the universal Catholic Church in which their is neither Jew nor gentile. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

== Saint Paul's Writings ==

[[Paul|St. Paul]] is the second most prolific contributor to the [[New Testament]]. Thirteen letters are attributed to him and fully known as the "Catholic (or Universal) Epistles of Paul". The letters are written in Greek. The epistles contain the basis of Christian doctrine, interpretation and commentary from earlier scriptures. They are full of expositions of what Christians should believe and how they should live.

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

''St. Paul reminded the Christians how they should live. They should think about the things in heaven (Colossians 3:2), because they belong with Christ (Colossians 3:3-4). They should not do evil deeds (Colossians 3:5-11). Instead, they should love other people (Colossians 3:12-14). And they should serve God (Colossians 3:15-17). If we invite Jesus into our lives, we will become friends of God (Colossians 1:15-23).'' </blockquote>

St. Paul's influence on Christian thinking has been more significant than any other single New Testament author.

== Fathers ==

St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397, was one of the most illustrious Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and fitly chosen, together with St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Athanasius, to uphold the venerable Chair of the Prince of the Apostles in the tribune of St. Peter's at Rome. <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm St. Ambrose] Catholic Encyclopedia.</ref>
 

==Controversy==
[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]
There has been much controversy in recent years about Catholic priests in relation to the abuse of children in their care. Cases of pedophilia and ephebophilia have both been discovered in many churches across the world<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex.htm</ref>. Many instances of abuse occurred with little or no repercussion for priests involved. In some cases, bishops were aware of the abuse but did not effectively deal with it, allowing the abusive priest to continue to remain in contact with minors.

== See also ==

*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Vatican City]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]

==External links==
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

*[http://tcrnews2.com/VaticanCouncil2.html The Reasons for the Second Vatican Council]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/vonbalthasarfathers.html The Fathers, the Scholastics, and Ourselves ]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/predestination.html Ruminating on Laughter, Predestination, Mystery ]
*[http://www.cua.edu/ The Catholic University of America] Washington, D. C.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm St. Paul] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://tcrnews2.com/Marykerygma05.html Mary is not the Kerygma]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/RFK_daughter.html Kathleen Kennedy Townsend: Failing America's Faithful]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/ChristNietzscheIslam.html A Civilization Without the Influence of Jesus Christ]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/Birds_Trojan.html Birds of a Feather and Trojan Horse Islam]
*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church] Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site.
*[http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/index.html Al Pellegrino Cattolico] Italian web site.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Christianity]]

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Catholic Church]]

Talk:Terrorism

2007-06-30T20:29:36Z

Elamdri: /* Spectrum theory */

{{Protect|Hojimachong}}

==A definition==
Here's the definition as of March 13, 2007: "Terrorism is a term used to refer to violence (usually against civilians) instigated to further a certain political or ideological goal."

That's obviously not a good definition, unless you want to include ''all'' armed action. By saying ''usually'' against civilians, violent action against armies is not ruled out as a form of terrorism. For example, by that definition George Washington's fight at Valley Forge would be considered terrorism (because it was violent and it sought to further a political goal). I assume that's not what the person who wrote that definition intended.

It's also not a good definition because it seems some terrorist violence is not intended to further political or ideological goals. For instance, were the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway a form of terrorism, and if so, what political or ideological goal did they support? --[[User:Rotifer|Rotifer]] 05:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I OBJECT to the inclusion of the IRA as a terrorist group. Some splinter groups of the IRA have committed terrorist attacks, but for most of its history the IRA was a group of freedom fighters. The British government occupied Ireland against the Irish people's will, and Irish people (regular folks and leaders) banded together to fight (yes, with weapons, violence, etc.) against the occupying troops and police forces of the British. Attacking civilians is a different issue. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's simply untrue. An argument could be made that the IRA of 1916-1921 weren't terrorists. But at least since 1956 they have been. Indiscriminate killing of civilians who were in the wrong store or the wrong bar or restaurant at the wrong time certainly fits the definition. Yes they targeted soldiers and policemen, but most of those they killed were civilians. La Mon, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Baltic St, Canary Wharf.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Like Rotifer said, could someone please try to come up with a correct definition of terrorist? The definition so far seems to include freedom fighters as if they are terrorists. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Freedom Fighters are Terrorists our government likes. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about freedom fighters since it is misleading - terrorism and freedom-fighting are not mutually exclusive. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait a minute!!! You seem to be implying that conservatives are sometimes in favor of terrorism!!! That's not what you meant to imply, is it? I'm putting the statement about the difference between terrorism and freedom-fighting back in. You are very, very, welcome to clarify it... I think the whole page needs clarification... But we can't allow confusion between terrorism and freedom fighting in this page. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terrorism and freedom fighting are not "opposites", Terrorism is a tactic, or method. So "Terrorists" might be freedom fighters, or might not be, and "Freedom fighters" might employ terrorism, or might not. You can say that the IRA were freedom fighters, but you can't deny that they committed terrorist acts. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The "freedom fighter" definition needs work. I've commented on its talk page, but it's also relevant to this discussion.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 04:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

New to this site so not sure as to the talk protocol but I'd like to point out the truism that one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" and that a objective analysis based on political affiliation is incredibly biased. And, as a UK resident, I'd object to anyone wishing to remove the IRA from the list of terrorist organisations. From personal experiance, the Manchester bombing carried out by the IRA purely targeted civillians which would label them firmly as terrorists.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:To agree with what has been said above on the '''Terrorist/Freedom Fighter''' debate, these are subjective labels depending on your opinion of the groups under discussion, whereas "terrorism" is a defined military/paramilitary tactic, regardless of '''who''' uses it, whether for freedom, national self-determination, religious hatred or anything. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 23:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighters==

I think what needs to be pointed out is what somebody did say before: terrorism is a tactic; freedom fighters are people. Freedom fighter can be a terrorist, but a terrorist does not have to be a freedom fighter. There is an enthymeme there, but I don't have time to go into it just now. I will come back to discuss this later on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== IRA ==

I have added Continuity IRA and Real IRA as they are both considered to be terrorist organizations by the British and American governments.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Government==
'' A government can support a terrorist, or the terrorist's goals, but cannot itself be terroristic. ''

The Nazi regime was not terroristic? Saddam putting people in woodchippers is not terrorism? The Soviet, Chinese, Korean & Cuban gulag systems are not employing terrorism to intimidate the populace and keep them in check? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yknow, I didn't like the way that was originally written, but I disagree more with the re-edit. Governments can engage in terroristic activities. Thats why we have the term "State Sponsored Terrorism."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The term is not accurate. "State sponsored terrorism" is an [[oxymoron]]. States, by definition, cannot be terroristic (including the Nazis, or whomever else you want to name) because their forces are ALWAYS military. Calling state actions terrorism is the equivalent of saying the US Navy Seals are state sponsored terrorists-- does that make it more clear? The term SST entered the lexicon probably in the same way "irregardless" did, as a useless modifier. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It is possible for states to harbour, fund or support terrorists due to the fact that, although not being part of the state, they are considered to have the same aims as the controlling party of said state. Hence whilst not strictly "state sponsored terrorism" this could be construed as "state sanctioned terrorism".--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT) offtopic, I need to remember to sign my contribs ; )

::Please sign your posts with four tildes "[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)" I understand that states can harbor terrorists, but they cannot be terroristic. Terrorism, by definition (which is admittedly difficult) is not a state act. Look at a country like Somalia, they essentially have no government, but are they a nation of terrorists? They can't be a '''nation''' is the problem. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Flippin, So is it just my imagination this document exists ([http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf pgs. 171 - 178 pdf]), or are denying the legitimcay of US State Dept. authority to publish it?

:An excerpt:

Chapter 6

STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR OVERVIEW

Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and
guidance to terrorist organizations.

State sponsors of terrorism provide critical support to non-state terrorist groups. Without state sponsors, terrorist groups would have much more difficulty obtaining the funds, weapons,
materials, and secure areas they require to plan and conduct operations. Most worrisome is
that some of these countries also have the capability to manufacture WMD and other
destabilizing technologies that can get into the hands of terrorists. The United States will
continue to insist that these countries end the support they give to terrorist groups. --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I am saying the distinction is rhetorical, not ideological. In 2008, the terms will probably change. Look at the recent episode with the "global war on terror" language. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This is still an issue of semantics. Whether a state is complicit in acts that would be viewed as terrorism (therefore rendering it not an act of terrorism) or whether it "merely" supports their aims and provides a haven, it makes little difference in the end. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 18:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::It makes a great deal of difference. The problem is this: when a state acts it is not terrorism. Simply put, that is like saying putting one foot in front of the other and moving your body is walking. So, every time I put one foot in front of the other I am walking. So, cross country skiing becomes a form of walking. OR every time I move forward, I am walking. If I am in a car, moving forward, we don't call that walking. Semantics are important in this case. When a state acts, the resulting action is from their military force-always. If a state is complicit in acts of terrorism, they are declaring war because that is a military action. This distinction is key to why our country is divided on what to do about Iraq right now. Terrorists act outside the state--they may have the same goals, but if they act within the state they are not terrorists, they are troops. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So Saddam gassing the Kurds (including infants) was not an act of terrorism? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, neither was Hitler gassing the Jews. They were acts of genocide, they were atrocious and vulgar, but definitely not terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Citations needed==

We need citations for each one of these:
* [[Al-Qaeda]]
* [[Contra]]
* [[Mujahadeen el-Khalq]]
* [[SAVAK]] (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)
* [[FRAPH]] (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried to give the following references, but someone else was working on the article (someone who actually knows how to use the 'reference' tags!) and there was an edit conflict, so ill put them here for now:

* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm Al-Qaeda]
* [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html Contra]
* [http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html Mujahadeen el-Khalq ]
* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/savak.htm SAVAK (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)]
* [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) ]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1163909,00.html FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)]

[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 01:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Now added to the article [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 02:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Orgone, Thank you, and good job. Now two problems exist; (1) the al Qeade reference is unacceptable in the regard, the source state unequivocally "Al-Qaeda....was created in 1989 ....
The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism". It was [[Mujahideen]] that recieved support, not al Qeade. (2) Subhead reads, "Groups Considered to be Terrorist Organizations Funded by the United States"; '''''considered by whom?''''' we need a source for this claim.

Finally, as a word of caution, whatever the cause of the error of represnting al Qeade with this
claim false claim, I highly recommend having the proper research in place before posting such a controversial inclusion. There is nothing wrong with bringing valid, highly controversial material to light like this; however, when something is as easily disprovable as a claim like this one, it does reflect upon the credibility of the editor who placed it. So as to avoid being accused of wreckless partisanship or other things that can undermine true scholarship and research, please have the material properly orgainized and cited, and faulty inclusion of this nature then can be regarded as good faith errors as opposed to naked propagandizing. Thank you for your attention to this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
===al Qaede===
''reverted material:''
* [[Al-Qaeda]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm ''Al-Qaeda's origins and links''], BBC News, July 20, 2004.</ref>

===Contras===
Here's another one; the Reagan State Dept. did not have ''Contra's'' on the terrorist watch list. This is now example two of bad use of sources and sloppy research methodology. I think we have to revert the subhead now due to its controversial and unsourced claim.

* [[Contra]]<ref>National Security Archive, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html ''The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988''] 1990.</ref>

===SAVAK===
The claim SAVAK "received US funding" is highly questionable, being that (a) it was a bureau of the Iranian government. (b) Iran's oil wealth hardly necessitates US subsidies to run an internal bureau. ''Prima facia'' this claim appears bogus, but it will be researched. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

==img==
Good img. Why don't we move it up to the top? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Good idea. Done. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, bad image. I really think this ought to be deleted. Terrorism is not just a political strategy, but a rhetorical one. This image '''is''' the reason many Americans died, but the image itself was what the terrorists wanted us to see. THIS image is their achievement and by putting it on this page, font and center, you endorse their message (which is: we can do this to even the most powerful nation on earth.) Ask yourself this one question: Had you, or your neighbors ever heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11? Most likely not. THIS image made them a household name. It really must be removed. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if the 9/11 picture 'endorses' the terrorists' message, do pictures of starving Jewish prisoners from the Holocaust endorse Hitler's message? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, the message with Hitler was military and political. With 9/11 the point was for everyone to see the terrorists strength--their ability to bring us to our knees, and all that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree... but what sort of image would you recommend if this one is not good enough? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

A picture of something that does not connote the terrorists' values. So, no images of them with Nick Berg, that sort of thing. Honestly, the best approach might be something like the picture of the guy on the balcony in Munich, 1972. Gives the image, without the current debate. That would be a good example. The other is simply too much, too soon. I appreciate your consideration on this. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[Image:Terrormunich.jpg]] This the image you're referring to? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 14:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I think it gives the impression of the what the page will discuss without the rhetorical issue I mentioned before. Thanks. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==IMG X2==
Wow, looks great. Thanks! [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==source for edit==
http://www.amazon.com/Terrorist-Myths-Illusion-Rhetoric-Reality/dp/0139068015/ref=sr_1_1/104-9898859-8430311?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178134302&sr=1-1 Peter Sederberg's book is the first I found to directly address the issue of defining terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Link for edit ==

At "See also"

[[Yasser Arafat]]

::Only problem is, he wasn't a terrorist. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 19:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Spectrum theory==
Elmadri, while the recent inclusion are ambitious, some of it warrants discussion. This appears to be an effort to re-establish the old [[political spectrum theory]] and apply it to terrorist thinking, motives, and ideology. Let's examine this for example,

*''[Leftist] radicals believe that they are currently being oppressed by some current government, idealogy or regime, and therefore they should overthrow that oppressor and install a better government.''

*''[Rightist} Reactionary terrorist violence is an attempt to regain the lost government and return to "order" and status quo.''

And we see [[al-Qaeda]] placed under "Leftist." Leftist then proceeds to propound Marxist-Leninist motivations. Now, it can be argued Al-Qaeda can fit under either of these definitions, but debating which is more appropriate may not be helpful. The fundamental problem is the spectrum theory itself. And this simply appears, once again, of trying to pigeon-hole a square peg into a round hole.

So, while some, if not most of the material is good, it probably needs reorganization. That is, we should probably remove the subheads and not try to assign some or all extreme terrorist groups to an ideological class defined by the spectrum theory. While discussion of tradition Marxist-Leftist terrorism is valuable, nonetheless, the spectrum theory is not definitive of all politcal motivations. Some groups come together simply out of the practical necessity of the moment, irregardless and irrespective of an underlying ideology of its members, that is to say, not all political activity (in this case, I'm referring to extremist political activity) is ideologically driven. This is the fundamental flaw of the spectrum theory. Therefore, we should not perpetuate a flawed theory by assigning questionable motives to groups on other pages outside the [[Political spectrum]] article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be quite frank, I'm working from some of my textbooks here. Now the thing is, that they do address the changes in though about terrorism, and I want to rewrite some of it to take into account what you are talking about. Obviously, there has been changes in how terrorist operate and how we view terrorism, and what I've put in doesn't reflect that, but rather more the post Cold War view. I was going to go in and put that stuff in, but I think I upset Andy with the article on the Patriot Movement, which was my bad. I wasn't thinking at the time. Therefore, I'm trying to kinda stay away from the more politically charged stuff for the time being. Feel free to go in and change stuff of course, but I would like it if you left the the stuff in and perhaps simply categorized it as spectrum theory and added that its a little outdated.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:34, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Thank you. If you've read the [[political spectrum theory]] article, you'd probably see how difficult it is to label persons, groups, and even ideologies as "left" or "right", and never was this more true than in the post-Cold War era. The simple fact is, not all poltical action is ideologically driven. Take the [[NRA]] for example, widely regarded as the most powerful special interest group in the US, yet nonetheless, it's broadbased grassroots come from a huge cross section. A woman who carries a gun in self defence to protect herself against rape, can hardly be pigeon-holed into an ideological mold.

:::Being that the question is so unsettled, and "left/right" spectrum theory really is little more than journalistic shorthand to argue prejudices without having to discuss issues, I suggest we just drop it from the article. We can come up with better subheads. I'll be a little busy in the early part of this week, but by mid week should be able to focus a little closer and help you out. Thanks again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:18, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

AL QAIDA is not leftist.

Anyone care to explain exacly how al Qaida qualifies as a LEFTIST terrorist group?

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:Good observation PF, and we are discussing it. The idea here is to eliminate the ideological groupings, and fund some other system of classification. Perhaps reviewing some of the source websites would be helpful. Care to assist? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::Why do you consider imposing a system of classification so important? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Terrorism, as of the last decade or so, has undergone a radical shift in how it operates. We're starting to see a breakdown of the old system that RobS was pointing out. For example, it is getter hard to classify terrorists within a political spectrum, as the world is no longer really divided between communism and capitalism anymore. Also, terrorist are changing their goals and strategies. Where once, a terrorist would choose a target that would be symbolic and surgical, now terrorist are concerned with indiscriminate destruction. Also, now rather than operating in clandestine groups, they choose to operate in this small cell network. Like I said, I was planning on retooling it, but at the moment, I was more concerned with getting the most information in as possible.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:29, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Archbishop of Canterbury

2007-06-28T22:14:54Z

Elamdri: Reverted edits by Muchmarcle (Talk); changed back to last version by Epicurius

In the [[Anglican Church]], the Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of [[England]] and Leader of the World Anglican Communion. The current Archbishop of Canterbury is Dr [[Rowan Williams]] (2002-), who is seen as a theological liberal.

==Peerage==
The Archbishop is a [[Lord Spiritual]] in the [[House of Lords]] as long as he holds his position. The practice has developed of appointing retired archbishops as peers so that they continue to sit in the Lords after their retirement.

==Present and former Archbishops==

The present Archbishop is Dr Rowan Williams (2002-), a former academic theologian who had previously served as Archbishop of Wales. He is seen as being a theological liberal.

Archbishop Williams was preceded by the Rt. Rev. [[George Carey]] (1991-2002). Carey rose through the church from working-class origins, and was seen as being on the Church of England's [[Evangelism|evangelical]] wing.

Carey was preceded by Archbishop [[Robert Runcie]] (1980-1991). Runcie was seen as a fully-paid-up member of the British Establishment, whose contacts and knowledge of protocol were markedly superior to those of the more naive, working-class Archbishop Carey. His natural home was the [[High Church]] wing of the Church of England, whose beliefs and practices have some affinities with [[Roman Catholicism]].
[[Category:Religious people]]

Lagrange Point

2007-06-28T22:14:01Z

Elamdri: New page: A '''Lagrange Point''' is a point in space around two orbiting bodies where another small body can remain at a relatively fixed orbit between the other two bodies.

A '''Lagrange Point''' is a point in space around two orbiting bodies where another small body can remain at a relatively fixed orbit between the other two bodies.

Chimera

2007-06-28T00:21:01Z

Elamdri:

The chimera (pronounced keye-MIR-uh) was "a fire-breathing she-monster in Greek mythology having a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail."<ref>http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chimera</ref>

In modern usage, a chimera is a scientifically created combination of two different animal cells in a living organism, such as an embryo. However, chimeras do occur in nature by odd chance. However, these variations tend to be very subtle. Recently, scientist have focused on creating a partially human chimera. Such combination is widely opposed on religious and ethical grounds.

== References ==

<references/>

Chimera

2007-06-28T00:16:30Z

Elamdri:

The chimera (pronounced keye-MIR-uh) was "a fire-breathing she-monster in Greek mythology having a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail."<ref>http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chimera</ref>

In modern usage, a chimera is a scientifically created combination of two different animal cells in a living organism, such as an embryo. Recently, scientist have focused on creating a partially human chimera. Such combination is widely opposed on religious and ethical grounds.

== References ==

<references/>

H. P. Lovecraft

2007-06-27T17:13:54Z

Elamdri: /* Works */

[[Image:998907809.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''H. P. Lovecraft''' (1890-1937) was an [[United States of America|American]] author of fantasy and horror tales. He is the author who created the [[Cthulhu]] mythos, a fantasy world adapted by many subsequent authors.

==Works==

*[[Dagon]]
*[[The Call of Cthulhu]]
*[[The Other Gods]]
*[[The Shadow Over Innsmouth]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lovecraft, H. P.}}
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Horror]]

H. P. Lovecraft

2007-06-27T17:13:41Z

Elamdri:

[[Image:998907809.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''H. P. Lovecraft''' (1890-1937) was an [[United States of America|American]] author of fantasy and horror tales. He is the author who created the [[Cthulhu]] mythos, a fantasy world adapted by many subsequent authors.

==Works==

[[Dagon]]
[[The Call of Cthulhu]]
[[The Other Gods]]
[[The Shadow Over Innsmouth]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lovecraft, H. P.}}
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Horror]]

Talk:Satan

2007-06-27T07:29:31Z

Elamdri: /* Satan reigning in Hell? */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

Just to be clear, in the Jewish tradition, Satan is an angel who serves as the adversary of Man. He never rebelled and he still serves God, acting as a sort of "prosecutor" while God sits as judge. The page should probably be altered to reflect the split. I have no idea how Islam views the Devil, though I think they call him "Iblis." I have edited the article to present this alternate view, for fairness.

If I recall correctly, Iblis was either an angel or a Djinn who was thrown out of Heaven for refusing to bow before Adam. (Some mystics have sympathy for him, on the grounds that it's wrong for an angel to bow before anyone but God, even if God orders them to.) Supposedly, he'll eventually repent and be allowed back into Heaven.

Satanists don't actually worship Satan. where as Satan, as refered to in the article, is a physical being and/or person, Satanists instead believe in a archetype of their beliefs, which they call satan. thus when satanists refer to satan, they are actually talking about themselves/others and the manifestation of their ideologies within, as opposed to the devil.

==Oh, COME ON!==

This article was just editted to "remove the athiest bias". Take a look at the changes.

'''"In the Christian tradition, he rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]]"'''

was changed to

'''He rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]]'''

:This basically states that Christians are correct, and that it is not only in their tradition, but is fact. Fix this please.

'''"In the Jewish tradition, Satan faithfully serves God as a tester of the piety of men."'''

was changed to

'''"Jews believe that Satan faithfully serves God as a tester of the piety of men."'''

:This means the same thing, but seems to have been changed to make it seem like the latest change was not to make Christians look 100% correct by adding consistency. Change the wording back or leave it, doesn't matter.

'''"Christian Views"'''

was changed to

'''"History and Goals"'''

:This, once again, assumes that Christians are 100% correct. There are other views of Satan, not just the Christian view, so this should be changed back to stay accurate and unbiased.

'''"In Christianity, Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God"'''

was changed to

'''"Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God"'''

:Once again, trying to show that the Christian view is the only view. Personally, that is not my view, and is therefore inaccurate to say it is the hisory and goals. Change it back to being a Christian idea.

'''"Some believe that Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth"'''

was changed to

'''"Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth"'''

:Again, only some people believe that, I personally do not, change it back to keep unbiased.

'''"The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions."'''

was changed to

'''"The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions, which offers compelling evidence of his existence."'''

:Yet again, trying to prove Satan's absolute existance, despite not everyone thinking so. This is a Christian view, and all these sections should be changed back to the unbiased state that they were in. It was not "athiest biased", it was simply showing the possibility of other views. Thank you. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Nevermind, it had already been changed it back by the time I typed all this. Thanks. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Satan reigning in Hell? ==

I realize this is a concept from Milton, but does anyone know if this is Biblical? The lake of fire was created for satan and his angels for his eternal punishment at the end of days. In Revelation he is thrown down from heaven and he is described as "the prince of this world" in the New Testament, but where does it state he reigns in hell?

Also, where is there a "divine council" of the angels where satan is present in the New Testament? If this is the case, then we should cite the place.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:39, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the Bible implies that Satan is a prisoner in Hell along with the rest of the damned. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:41, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought that the New Testament statement that was removed implied that he was referenced in the NT, not this divine council. But I didn't really read it so I may be wrong.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:31, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I will correct accordingly, to make this more clear. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Who tempted Jesus in the desert...? If Satan was indeed IMPRISONED in Hell, how did he tempt Jesus? "Get thee behind me!" Ring a bell? If you believe these things... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:09, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:That doesn't mean he reigns in hell, only that he still has freedom (although it may be limited). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::Enough freedom to render the the concept of imprisonment to be null and void. If he can come into our world and tempt The Christ, well, reallly, how does that fit imprisonment? Unless you wish to argue that it was in God's plan, but then, of course, you'd have to show me where that is written (I refer you to the Old Testament book of Job where The Lord makes plain that ot was His choice to let Satan test Job, so that I may set precedent). The point I was making is, Satan niether reigns over what we call "Hell" nor is he imprisoned in it. I could go furtherbut I'd be making this a philosophical and theological debate; one I would be severly chastised over at that...[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm afraid you may be confusing this issue. All we were discussing was whether or not he reigns in hell, not whether or not he is imprisoned. As the article had previously stated he reigned in hell, it was important to quickly discuss before removing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:01, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

As we all know, there are differing views of the book of Revelation, but most agree that Satan is finally put in hell forever. The idea of Satan ruling hell right now works if you're the cartoonist for the Far Side, but it's not really the biblical view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::(edit conflict) There are different interpretations depending upon which branch of hermeneutics and exegesis you support; the article appears to be in keeping with what might loosely be termed the majority opinion. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Shoot, I think on this I'll go with Dante. At least his rendition is a little interesting. Lake of Ice > Lake of Fire.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 05:27, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yeah I'd have to agree with you there. Ice cold fits more with the absence of God's love than flame does. In my opinion. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Plus it is scarier if you think about it. Frozen in Lake of ice > Burning in lake of Fire. With Fire, there is just the pain, Ice has a whole psychological aspect heaped on top.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:29, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?

2007-06-26T17:34:47Z

Elamdri: Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified? moved to Conservapedia:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?: debate

#REDIRECT [[Conservapedia:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]

Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?

2007-06-26T17:34:47Z

Elamdri: Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified? moved to Conservapedia:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?: debate

To prevent the spread of communism, Yes. Whether or not we won is irrevlant. You can't win them
all, and we chose to lose in DC not VC.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 12:42, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Satan

2007-06-25T09:27:26Z

Elamdri:

{{protect|MountainDew}}

Just to be clear, in the Jewish tradition, Satan is an angel who serves as the adversary of Man. He never rebelled and he still serves God, acting as a sort of "prosecutor" while God sits as judge. The page should probably be altered to reflect the split. I have no idea how Islam views the Devil, though I think they call him "Iblis." I have edited the article to present this alternate view, for fairness.

If I recall correctly, Iblis was either an angel or a Djinn who was thrown out of Heaven for refusing to bow before Adam. (Some mystics have sympathy for him, on the grounds that it's wrong for an angel to bow before anyone but God, even if God orders them to.) Supposedly, he'll eventually repent and be allowed back into Heaven.

Satanists don't actually worship Satan. where as Satan, as refered to in the article, is a physical being and/or person, Satanists instead believe in a archetype of their beliefs, which they call satan. thus when satanists refer to satan, they are actually talking about themselves/others and the manifestation of their ideologies within, as opposed to the devil.

==Oh, COME ON!==

This article was just editted to "remove the athiest bias". Take a look at the changes.

'''"In the Christian tradition, he rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]]"'''

was changed to

'''He rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]]'''

:This basically states that Christians are correct, and that it is not only in their tradition, but is fact. Fix this please.

'''"In the Jewish tradition, Satan faithfully serves God as a tester of the piety of men."'''

was changed to

'''"Jews believe that Satan faithfully serves God as a tester of the piety of men."'''

:This means the same thing, but seems to have been changed to make it seem like the latest change was not to make Christians look 100% correct by adding consistency. Change the wording back or leave it, doesn't matter.

'''"Christian Views"'''

was changed to

'''"History and Goals"'''

:This, once again, assumes that Christians are 100% correct. There are other views of Satan, not just the Christian view, so this should be changed back to stay accurate and unbiased.

'''"In Christianity, Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God"'''

was changed to

'''"Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God"'''

:Once again, trying to show that the Christian view is the only view. Personally, that is not my view, and is therefore inaccurate to say it is the hisory and goals. Change it back to being a Christian idea.

'''"Some believe that Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth"'''

was changed to

'''"Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth"'''

:Again, only some people believe that, I personally do not, change it back to keep unbiased.

'''"The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions."'''

was changed to

'''"The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions, which offers compelling evidence of his existence."'''

:Yet again, trying to prove Satan's absolute existance, despite not everyone thinking so. This is a Christian view, and all these sections should be changed back to the unbiased state that they were in. It was not "athiest biased", it was simply showing the possibility of other views. Thank you. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Nevermind, it had already been changed it back by the time I typed all this. Thanks. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Satan reigning in Hell? ==

I realize this is a concept from Milton, but does anyone know if this is Biblical? The lake of fire was created for satan and his angels for his eternal punishment at the end of days. In Revelation he is thrown down from heaven and he is described as "the prince of this world" in the New Testament, but where does it state he reigns in hell?

Also, where is there a "divine council" of the angels where satan is present in the New Testament? If this is the case, then we should cite the place.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:39, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the Bible implies that Satan is a prisoner in Hell along with the rest of the damned. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:41, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought that the New Testament statement that was removed implied that he was referenced in the NT, not this divine council. But I didn't really read it so I may be wrong.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:31, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I will correct accordingly, to make this more clear. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Who tempted Jesus in the desert...? If Satan was indeed IMPRISONED in Hell, how did he tempt Jesus? "Get thee behind me!" Ring a bell? If you believe these things... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:09, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:That doesn't mean he reigns in hell, only that he still has freedom (although it may be limited). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::Enough freedom to render the the concept of imprisonment to be null and void. If he can come into our world and tempt The Christ, well, reallly, how does that fit imprisonment? Unless you wish to argue that it was in God's plan, but then, of course, you'd have to show me where that is written (I refer you to the Old Testament book of Job where The Lord makes plain that ot was His choice to let Satan test Job, so that I may set precedent). The point I was making is, Satan niether reigns over what we call "Hell" nor is he imprisoned in it. I could go furtherbut I'd be making this a philosophical and theological debate; one I would be severly chastised over at that...[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

As we all know, there are differing views of the book of Revelation, but most agree that Satan is finally put in hell forever. The idea of Satan ruling hell right now works if you're the cartoonist for the Far Side, but it's not really the biblical view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::(edit conflict) There are different interpretations depending upon which branch of hermeneutics and exegesis you support; the article appears to be in keeping with what might loosely be termed the majority opinion. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Shoot, I think on this I'll go with Dante. At least his rendition is a little interesting. Lake of Ice > Lake of Fire.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 05:27, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Satan

2007-06-25T09:27:14Z

Elamdri: /* Satan reigning in Hell? */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

Just to be clear, in the Jewish tradition, Satan is an angel who serves as the adversary of Man. He never rebelled and he still serves God, acting as a sort of "prosecutor" while God sits as judge. The page should probably be altered to reflect the split. I have no idea how Islam views the Devil, though I think they call him "Iblis." I have edited the article to present this alternate view, for fairness.

If I recall correctly, Iblis was either an angel or a Djinn who was thrown out of Heaven for refusing to bow before Adam. (Some mystics have sympathy for him, on the grounds that it's wrong for an angel to bow before anyone but God, even if God orders them to.) Supposedly, he'll eventually repent and be allowed back into Heaven.

Satanists don't actually worship Satan. where as Satan, as refered to in the article, is a physical being and/or person, Satanists instead believe in a archetype of their beliefs, which they call satan. thus when satanists refer to satan, they are actually talking about themselves/others and the manifestation of their ideologies within, as opposed to the devil.

==Oh, COME ON!==

This article was just editted to "remove the athiest bias". Take a look at the changes.

'''"In the Christian tradition, he rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]]"'''

was changed to

'''He rebelled against [[God]] and was cast from [[Heaven]] to reign over [[Hell]]'''

:This basically states that Christians are correct, and that it is not only in their tradition, but is fact. Fix this please.

'''"In the Jewish tradition, Satan faithfully serves God as a tester of the piety of men."'''

was changed to

'''"Jews believe that Satan faithfully serves God as a tester of the piety of men."'''

:This means the same thing, but seems to have been changed to make it seem like the latest change was not to make Christians look 100% correct by adding consistency. Change the wording back or leave it, doesn't matter.

'''"Christian Views"'''

was changed to

'''"History and Goals"'''

:This, once again, assumes that Christians are 100% correct. There are other views of Satan, not just the Christian view, so this should be changed back to stay accurate and unbiased.

'''"In Christianity, Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God"'''

was changed to

'''"Satan's goal is to lead people away from the love of God"'''

:Once again, trying to show that the Christian view is the only view. Personally, that is not my view, and is therefore inaccurate to say it is the hisory and goals. Change it back to being a Christian idea.

'''"Some believe that Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth"'''

was changed to

'''"Satan is able to possess and control living humans on Earth"'''

:Again, only some people believe that, I personally do not, change it back to keep unbiased.

'''"The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions."'''

was changed to

'''"The notion of Satan, or an evil force, is noted in many if not all of the major world religions, which offers compelling evidence of his existence."'''

:Yet again, trying to prove Satan's absolute existance, despite not everyone thinking so. This is a Christian view, and all these sections should be changed back to the unbiased state that they were in. It was not "athiest biased", it was simply showing the possibility of other views. Thank you. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Nevermind, it had already been changed it back by the time I typed all this. Thanks. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Satan reigning in Hell? ==

I realize this is a concept from Milton, but does anyone know if this is Biblical? The lake of fire was created for satan and his angels for his eternal punishment at the end of days. In Revelation he is thrown down from heaven and he is described as "the prince of this world" in the New Testament, but where does it state he reigns in hell?

Also, where is there a "divine council" of the angels where satan is present in the New Testament? If this is the case, then we should cite the place.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:39, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the Bible implies that Satan is a prisoner in Hell along with the rest of the damned. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:41, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought that the New Testament statement that was removed implied that he was referenced in the NT, not this divine council. But I didn't really read it so I may be wrong.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:31, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::::I will correct accordingly, to make this more clear. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Who tempted Jesus in the desert...? If Satan was indeed IMPRISONED in Hell, how did he tempt Jesus? "Get thee behind me!" Ring a bell? If you believe these things... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:09, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:That doesn't mean he reigns in hell, only that he still has freedom (although it may be limited). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::Enough freedom to render the the concept of imprisonment to be null and void. If he can come into our world and tempt The Christ, well, reallly, how does that fit imprisonment? Unless you wish to argue that it was in God's plan, but then, of course, you'd have to show me where that is written (I refer you to the Old Testament book of Job where The Lord makes plain that ot was His choice to let Satan test Job, so that I may set precedent). The point I was making is, Satan niether reigns over what we call "Hell" nor is he imprisoned in it. I could go furtherbut I'd be making this a philosophical and theological debate; one I would be severly chastised over at that...[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

As we all know, there are differing views of the book of Revelation, but most agree that Satan is finally put in hell forever. The idea of Satan ruling hell right now works if you're the cartoonist for the Far Side, but it's not really the biblical view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::(edit conflict) There are different interpretations depending upon which branch of hermeneutics and exegesis you support; the article appears to be in keeping with what might loosely be termed the majority opinion. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Shoot, I think on this I'll go with Dante. At least his rendition is a little interesting. Lake of Ice > Lake of Fire.

Talk:Aisha

2007-06-25T07:28:02Z

Elamdri:

Wouldn't it make more sense for Aisha bint Abi Bakr to be the page title, and have Aisha redirect to this page?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:28, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Aisha

2007-06-25T07:27:54Z

Elamdri: New page: Wouldn't it make more sense for Aisha bint Abi Bakr to be the page title, and have Aisha redirect to this page?

Wouldn't it make more sense for Aisha bint Abi Bakr to be the page title, and have Aisha redirect to this page?

User talk:DanH

2007-06-24T22:44:45Z

Elamdri:

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

==Vandalism==

Dan,

Thanks for all your help dealing with this latest vandal. Rather than deleting all the pages he creates, I have been replacing them with content or redirecting them, and then protecting them. Eventually, we can hope he will run out of inventive names for Satan! ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 16:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[deletedpage]] ==

when pages need to be deleted and protected, just protect it and replace the content with <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[deletedpage]]</nowiki>. that way it doesn't show up on searches. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 12:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Please take a look at this edit ==

You might want to have a look at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&diff=160970&oldid=160909 edit], and the associated photo that was uploaded to make the edit possible. I've already left a message with the user responsible for the photo and edit, but am not sure if it is revertable. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Allegation of Racism==

I fail to see how my comments on Sikhs are racist. Islam and Sikhism do not describe races they describe religion. Both are wrong in my opinion are to be condemed

== Thank you indeed ==

It has been an honor. Thank you indeed.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Deceit Entry ==

Dan, please accept my apologies on the Ward Churchill edit to the [[deceit]] entry. I was confused about who he is. Feel free to reinsert something, with support like this: [http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3841949,00.html]
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
No need to apologize. I just figured that this instance was not quite conducive to the direct you had intended for this article. I'll re-add it a little later this evening. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hovind ==

May I ask why you removed "controversial". Given that many other YECs also have issues with him, calling him controversial seems fair. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 12:59, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I've come under attack for my edits on this article (there was even a call for me to be blocked from the site, though it's not on any CP talk pages) and I was trying to "balance" the article somehow. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:02, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== notice ==

please read this: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hello! ==

First of all, thanks for the greeting. This project is very interessting. I'm trying to build up a counter-Wikipedia in german language. The situation of the german Wikipedia is really dire. If you are dissapoited by the english language Wikipeda, take a closer look at the german one. There are not liberals (left) dominating, there are partly well known left-wing extremists (communists, socialists) serving as administrators. It's bad. --[[User:Deutscher|Deutscher]] 16:43, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Trashbat ==
Dan - I've no idea if Trashbat is blocked or otherwise in disgrace but the crude sexual reference you removed from [[Leeds]] was not posted by him but by Tony Drago. FYI. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:44, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
: I stand corrected. Well spotted. Tony Drago must have been a sock. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:49, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

*I don't see Dan online, however I did see: ''10:13, 20 May 2007 DanH blocked "Trashbat" with an expiry time of infinite ("dogging" reference to Leeds)'' So the two users being blocked are different instances. The other user's block isn't infinte. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:TK The "dogging" reference was put in twice but I only noticed the second edit which was done by Tony Drago. I thought that Trashbat was being unfairly blocked instead of Tony Drago but Dan pointed out that Trashbat had made the orginal edit a lot earlier, so it was fair after all. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:20, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Siege mentality ==

Thanks for moving that. I was trying to do it myself with a name change and redirect but being a sysop has its advantages I guess. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Contaception]] ==

Dan, can you move this to its proper title with an '''R''' in it. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Orthohombic]] ==

OK here's another one with a missing '''R''' - it should be orthorhombic. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:38, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== think i made a mistake ==

Got your message. I unblocked him I think before i got your message. Please make sure I did the unblocking right as i am not too techie here. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==
I notice that some sysops protect images. Do you want me to do that to?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 15:16, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Article Creations==
Your welcome Dan. I enjoy contributing to this site. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 22:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== ! ==
I wanted to undo the Joshua article! Your to fast.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for your kind welcome. I am glad to be here. I hope I can make a positive contribution. --[[User:ErnstR|ErnstR]] 00:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for protecting Joshua. Recently I have become more aware of the responsibility that we have to avoid efforts at sensationalism or inappropriate edits. I found one of our articles in an internet search engine, the first one I have seen. It was listed under atheism. There, proudly, is the link to conservapedia. What is the first line of text in the search engine for all to see what conservapedia says? George Bush states that he doesn't believe atheists should be U.S. citizens... This is what is presented as conservapedia? When we allow through junk, we sully the reputation of the site... Thanks again... [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:25, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks! (sorry not to have anything different from the above 2) ==

It's good to be back! Oh, and check out my shiny new hellenised sig!--[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''ύικι ντερπρετηρ''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Tiny typo==

Hi, hope you don't mind but I am really really picky about punctuation. I'm not proud of the fact, I just can't help it! In the Bible article, in the King James section, second paragraph, second sentence, it says "it's vocabulary", which should be "its vocabulary". "It's" is only ever a contraction of "It is". I wouldn't say anything but I just know there are people like me out there who will see that mistake, roll their eyes, and jump to conclusions (unfairly) about the quality of the article. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 19:09, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

* And then I went and wrote "tint typo" as the description. That's justice. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 19:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
==Chrono Trigger==
This was a well known video game in the mid 90s. It is definetly noteworthy. Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia both have articles on it.

== Answers in Creation ==

So do I get brownie points for creating this one Dan? ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

You definitely do from me, but probably not from the majority of the sysops. LOL just kidding [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi Dan, I'm trying for sysop now to join you 'elect' guys. I know you've put a 'good job' on my page before so I thought I'd ask what you think of my overall contribution to conservapedia. If you're pleased with my work, I hope you'll drop by and add some comments. Thanks ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:25, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Weimar republic ==

Why did you remove the stub? It is more than appropriate for this article. [[User:Order]]

== Protection ==

Hi Dan,

We may be at the point where it would be wise to protect Satan (again) and Hell. I know Satan was opened again to merge in Luficer, but that's been taken care of. Thanks! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lions Den ==

Dan with a name like yours was it wise to enter the Lion's Den? :-) [[User:DollarsAndSense|DollarsAndSense]] 16:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cumbernauld ==

DanH I see you reverted my reversion of this entry. Channel 4, is an incredibly controversial channel in the UK often broadcating sensationalist programs. It's main output is a program called Big Brother where members of the public are locked in a house together in order to be voted out by the public. Even this is fixed as the most sensational members are reinstated to boost viewing figures. It has featured coed type nude jacuzzi scenes and even live sexual acts. It also gave a prime-time slot to Richard Dawkins to attack religious belief. I would not take seriously any reference to programming from this source. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 17:58, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:Follow the link - [http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/D/demolition/worst2.html] Or would you prefer a BBC link? Try [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4362410.stm] I have no idea why you have suddenly appeared to defend reversion of my corrections of previous deliberately inserted inaccuracies and falsehoods, but I stand by my edits and the links above refute your opinion. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:02, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::Your BBC link actually refers to a protest by the local council against this slur. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 18:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::: A ''slur'' that has seen the town 3 times voted a "carbuncle" etc. Regardless of the news source, the national opinions remain the same. Attacking the edit by claiming it is a liberalist, pornographers' conspiracy is just peurile. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:09, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::If your are going to engage in ''ad hominem'' attacks and name calling then I will not continue this discussion. It is not appropriate language for Conservapedia. [[User:Dafydd|Dafydd]] 18:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::The word "peurile" is directed at the action, not the person. And did you forget which sock you were supposed to be using? I thought you were [[User:Alban]]...? Sock-puppetry is also a peurile action. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you for your support Dafydd but as a native Scot I think I know what I'm talking about. Cumbernauld is not a monstrous carbuncle and deserves better than being derided by a sensationalist sassenach TV station. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 18:18, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oops! Got the correct puppet on now XD [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Oh yes, very funny. Accuse me of socking. Just because someone else objects to your abusive language. If you want to continue this discussion further then I suggest you move it to one of our talk pages rather than cluttering up a sysops page. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 18:32, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Please refer back to [[User talk:Dafydd|your other talk page]] to see confirmation that you were busted via IP address. Nice try. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:37, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thanks Dan. I appreciate your support. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 23:29, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==Why was my edit reverted?==

What's wrong? I'm trying to improve the baraminology article by explaining what the types of people under the Human Holobaramin are. It's what's in the Bible. [[User:BillJones|BillJones]] 02:02, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

The Mongoloid entry was totally racist. For one. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:26, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

==Your granny==

I mean, your grammar: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Skylab&curid=28032&diff=186334&oldid=186289] Nice fix! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:30, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. My Grandmother would expect nothing less. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== South Africa ==

Dan, there's a lot on this site I disagree with. So be it. But I am glad to see that people here find all those racist bits on South Africa as loathsome as I do. Thanks for nuking all those entries by a guy who seems to be longing for the days of Pik Botha. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 23:15, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

==Capitals==

Thanks for the info. I did search under several titles for US Capitals, etc. but no pages came up. Should I ask a sysop to delete my page, or is that unnecessary? [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 15:20, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

I think your page looks good, and better than the other one. Maybe if all the links got fixed that would be best. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:23, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

== blocking ==

Hey how can you find the IP for the user, I dont think I have the checkuser button. lol Sorry I might sound dumb.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 16:19, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I sent the instructions to you through Conservapedia email. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:21, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::I heard about the email and no one told me how to acess it!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 16:44, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

How to access your email? It should just be sent to whatever email you signed up to the site with. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:45, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::O thanks. Um Tk told me you also get a email through conservapedia. So I got that confused.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 16:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

That may be what he meant. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, it was. Will, if your email is enabled here, users can email you, CP will forward it to your regular email account. If you reply to them via your email client, they will also have your email. If you respond to them via the CP "email this user" deal, they will not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:05, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Should I block Brainslug? Brainslug created Zimbardo Cookie Experiment and has had a 2 hour block in his past. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth~]]

Yes. If he wants back, he can email you and plead his case. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

How was your paper on [[Putin]]? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:17, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:well done. He is not a good guy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:57, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Andorra ==
On the matter of [[Andorra]], look at who the edits before me were made by; [[So Alone]] who was blocked for being a sock of this one guy. Do you think his edits are trustworthy? [[User:UnderCurrent|UnderCurrent]] 16:35, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for pointing that out! Definitely not trustworthy. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:38, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:P.S. Where would one find a compendium on user boxes around here? [[User:UnderCurrent|UnderCurrent]] 16:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Userboxes [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:56, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hello, I was looking at the user creation log and I noticed this:

15:08, 12 June 2007 HolographicMedia (Talk | contribs | block) created account for User:OpticalEthernet (Talk | contribs | block)

What happened, and is this allowed? Can users create accounts for others like this?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:56, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure how that works, but I think that without an explanation given, it generally isn't allowed. I know that HolographicMedia was blocked earlier today. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:58, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

== you missed ==
I think you missed [[User:MartyFillmore]]. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:43, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

Hello, Dan. I see you protected an [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Balkans.png image] I uploaded. Did you, by any chance, look at the talk page? The image is a modified version of a Wikipedia image, and I wasn't sure if it was acceptable. Thanks! [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 00:31, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== War Elephants ==

Hell ya it is!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:25, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I bet its true [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:48, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Request for assistence in writing Article. ==

I have noted that two rather influential Supreme Court Justices have not managed to receive articles about them, namely, Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas. However previous attempts at writing articles have ended in deletion as the result of perhaps a bit too overt a bias, I have the [[William Orville Douglas| beginnings of an article]] but am not remotely certain as to how I should proceed from here without repeating past mistakes. If at all possible could you review the beginnings of the page and lend me some of your wisdom?
Thanks-N. i. V.[[User:Nullius in Verba|Nullius in Verba]] 08:40, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

*Don't bother, Dan. I rather think old Nullius will have a problem with soiled robes, and won't be able to participate. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==[[Freedom]]==
Dan, have you seen the Freedom entry? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Freedom&action=history] This article probably needs some serious treatment. Any idea who we can recruit to work on it? Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:32, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'll ask Karajou. Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:37, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::It's on my list, boys. This should have been emailed, to keep from crossing up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

==script?==
do we italicize book titles? Thanks!--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple HI!]''' 15:01, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I have before, at least. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:02, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Where was my signature dishonestly used? I'd like to see. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 17:50, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I looked through the history and couldn't really find anything that looked like vandalism (except for that crap by Humorless). Could you perhaps direct me to the diff? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 15:22, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==FF Vandal==
Is there something we can do? TK was helping me but he signed off AIM.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:03, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

We can lock the database for a few seconds if it doesn't let up. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think thats going to deter him. TK has done it three times now.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:07, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Who goes to bed at 11?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:18, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Kids. [[User:Niandra|Niandra]] [[User talk:Niandra|talk]] 00:19, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

When I was a kid, I wasn't allowed online past 11. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:18, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::When I was a kid we didn't have internet...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:20, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Liar! That was me! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:59, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Ok, lemme rephrase, when I was a kid we couldn't AFFORD the internet.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:01, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Hi There! ==

I hear that you're against Wikipedia. Me too. They accused me for '''Disruption, Single purpose account created for AFD purposes'''. I like you and your site.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 15:38, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Back ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHojimachong&diff=205937&oldid=205934 thanks]! My final marks for the year were five "A"s and one "B". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:41, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thank you for the welcome ==

As a disgruntled former Wikipedian, I appreciate it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:34, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Keepp fighting ==

Ya will do but I am going away until next monday which would be july 2.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:11, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

==WoW article==

We had a guy copy and paste a bunch of junk to the article from wikipedia, but I accidentally edited it before I caught it. Is it possible to rollback to BethanyS's edit, or does it have to be done manually?

Talk:Terrorism

2007-06-24T21:35:04Z

Elamdri: /* Spectrum theory */

Talk:Terrorism

2007-06-24T21:34:27Z

Elamdri: /* Spectrum theory */

{{Protect|Hojimachong}}

==A definition==
Here's the definition as of March 13, 2007: "Terrorism is a term used to refer to violence (usually against civilians) instigated to further a certain political or ideological goal."

That's obviously not a good definition, unless you want to include ''all'' armed action. By saying ''usually'' against civilians, violent action against armies is not ruled out as a form of terrorism. For example, by that definition George Washington's fight at Valley Forge would be considered terrorism (because it was violent and it sought to further a political goal). I assume that's not what the person who wrote that definition intended.

It's also not a good definition because it seems some terrorist violence is not intended to further political or ideological goals. For instance, were the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway a form of terrorism, and if so, what political or ideological goal did they support? --[[User:Rotifer|Rotifer]] 05:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I OBJECT to the inclusion of the IRA as a terrorist group. Some splinter groups of the IRA have committed terrorist attacks, but for most of its history the IRA was a group of freedom fighters. The British government occupied Ireland against the Irish people's will, and Irish people (regular folks and leaders) banded together to fight (yes, with weapons, violence, etc.) against the occupying troops and police forces of the British. Attacking civilians is a different issue. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's simply untrue. An argument could be made that the IRA of 1916-1921 weren't terrorists. But at least since 1956 they have been. Indiscriminate killing of civilians who were in the wrong store or the wrong bar or restaurant at the wrong time certainly fits the definition. Yes they targeted soldiers and policemen, but most of those they killed were civilians. La Mon, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Baltic St, Canary Wharf.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Like Rotifer said, could someone please try to come up with a correct definition of terrorist? The definition so far seems to include freedom fighters as if they are terrorists. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Freedom Fighters are Terrorists our government likes. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about freedom fighters since it is misleading - terrorism and freedom-fighting are not mutually exclusive. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait a minute!!! You seem to be implying that conservatives are sometimes in favor of terrorism!!! That's not what you meant to imply, is it? I'm putting the statement about the difference between terrorism and freedom-fighting back in. You are very, very, welcome to clarify it... I think the whole page needs clarification... But we can't allow confusion between terrorism and freedom fighting in this page. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terrorism and freedom fighting are not "opposites", Terrorism is a tactic, or method. So "Terrorists" might be freedom fighters, or might not be, and "Freedom fighters" might employ terrorism, or might not. You can say that the IRA were freedom fighters, but you can't deny that they committed terrorist acts. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The "freedom fighter" definition needs work. I've commented on its talk page, but it's also relevant to this discussion.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 04:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

New to this site so not sure as to the talk protocol but I'd like to point out the truism that one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" and that a objective analysis based on political affiliation is incredibly biased. And, as a UK resident, I'd object to anyone wishing to remove the IRA from the list of terrorist organisations. From personal experiance, the Manchester bombing carried out by the IRA purely targeted civillians which would label them firmly as terrorists.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:To agree with what has been said above on the '''Terrorist/Freedom Fighter''' debate, these are subjective labels depending on your opinion of the groups under discussion, whereas "terrorism" is a defined military/paramilitary tactic, regardless of '''who''' uses it, whether for freedom, national self-determination, religious hatred or anything. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 23:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighters==

I think what needs to be pointed out is what somebody did say before: terrorism is a tactic; freedom fighters are people. Freedom fighter can be a terrorist, but a terrorist does not have to be a freedom fighter. There is an enthymeme there, but I don't have time to go into it just now. I will come back to discuss this later on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== IRA ==

I have added Continuity IRA and Real IRA as they are both considered to be terrorist organizations by the British and American governments.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Government==
'' A government can support a terrorist, or the terrorist's goals, but cannot itself be terroristic. ''

The Nazi regime was not terroristic? Saddam putting people in woodchippers is not terrorism? The Soviet, Chinese, Korean & Cuban gulag systems are not employing terrorism to intimidate the populace and keep them in check? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yknow, I didn't like the way that was originally written, but I disagree more with the re-edit. Governments can engage in terroristic activities. Thats why we have the term "State Sponsored Terrorism."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The term is not accurate. "State sponsored terrorism" is an [[oxymoron]]. States, by definition, cannot be terroristic (including the Nazis, or whomever else you want to name) because their forces are ALWAYS military. Calling state actions terrorism is the equivalent of saying the US Navy Seals are state sponsored terrorists-- does that make it more clear? The term SST entered the lexicon probably in the same way "irregardless" did, as a useless modifier. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It is possible for states to harbour, fund or support terrorists due to the fact that, although not being part of the state, they are considered to have the same aims as the controlling party of said state. Hence whilst not strictly "state sponsored terrorism" this could be construed as "state sanctioned terrorism".--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT) offtopic, I need to remember to sign my contribs ; )

::Please sign your posts with four tildes "[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)" I understand that states can harbor terrorists, but they cannot be terroristic. Terrorism, by definition (which is admittedly difficult) is not a state act. Look at a country like Somalia, they essentially have no government, but are they a nation of terrorists? They can't be a '''nation''' is the problem. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Flippin, So is it just my imagination this document exists ([http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf pgs. 171 - 178 pdf]), or are denying the legitimcay of US State Dept. authority to publish it?

:An excerpt:

Chapter 6

STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR OVERVIEW

Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and
guidance to terrorist organizations.

State sponsors of terrorism provide critical support to non-state terrorist groups. Without state sponsors, terrorist groups would have much more difficulty obtaining the funds, weapons,
materials, and secure areas they require to plan and conduct operations. Most worrisome is
that some of these countries also have the capability to manufacture WMD and other
destabilizing technologies that can get into the hands of terrorists. The United States will
continue to insist that these countries end the support they give to terrorist groups. --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I am saying the distinction is rhetorical, not ideological. In 2008, the terms will probably change. Look at the recent episode with the "global war on terror" language. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This is still an issue of semantics. Whether a state is complicit in acts that would be viewed as terrorism (therefore rendering it not an act of terrorism) or whether it "merely" supports their aims and provides a haven, it makes little difference in the end. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 18:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::It makes a great deal of difference. The problem is this: when a state acts it is not terrorism. Simply put, that is like saying putting one foot in front of the other and moving your body is walking. So, every time I put one foot in front of the other I am walking. So, cross country skiing becomes a form of walking. OR every time I move forward, I am walking. If I am in a car, moving forward, we don't call that walking. Semantics are important in this case. When a state acts, the resulting action is from their military force-always. If a state is complicit in acts of terrorism, they are declaring war because that is a military action. This distinction is key to why our country is divided on what to do about Iraq right now. Terrorists act outside the state--they may have the same goals, but if they act within the state they are not terrorists, they are troops. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So Saddam gassing the Kurds (including infants) was not an act of terrorism? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, neither was Hitler gassing the Jews. They were acts of genocide, they were atrocious and vulgar, but definitely not terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Citations needed==

We need citations for each one of these:
* [[Al-Qaeda]]
* [[Contra]]
* [[Mujahadeen el-Khalq]]
* [[SAVAK]] (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)
* [[FRAPH]] (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried to give the following references, but someone else was working on the article (someone who actually knows how to use the 'reference' tags!) and there was an edit conflict, so ill put them here for now:

* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm Al-Qaeda]
* [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html Contra]
* [http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html Mujahadeen el-Khalq ]
* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/savak.htm SAVAK (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)]
* [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) ]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1163909,00.html FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)]

[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 01:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Now added to the article [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 02:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Orgone, Thank you, and good job. Now two problems exist; (1) the al Qeade reference is unacceptable in the regard, the source state unequivocally "Al-Qaeda....was created in 1989 ....
The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism". It was [[Mujahideen]] that recieved support, not al Qeade. (2) Subhead reads, "Groups Considered to be Terrorist Organizations Funded by the United States"; '''''considered by whom?''''' we need a source for this claim.

Finally, as a word of caution, whatever the cause of the error of represnting al Qeade with this
claim false claim, I highly recommend having the proper research in place before posting such a controversial inclusion. There is nothing wrong with bringing valid, highly controversial material to light like this; however, when something is as easily disprovable as a claim like this one, it does reflect upon the credibility of the editor who placed it. So as to avoid being accused of wreckless partisanship or other things that can undermine true scholarship and research, please have the material properly orgainized and cited, and faulty inclusion of this nature then can be regarded as good faith errors as opposed to naked propagandizing. Thank you for your attention to this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
===al Qaede===
''reverted material:''
* [[Al-Qaeda]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm ''Al-Qaeda's origins and links''], BBC News, July 20, 2004.</ref>

===Contras===
Here's another one; the Reagan State Dept. did not have ''Contra's'' on the terrorist watch list. This is now example two of bad use of sources and sloppy research methodology. I think we have to revert the subhead now due to its controversial and unsourced claim.

* [[Contra]]<ref>National Security Archive, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html ''The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988''] 1990.</ref>

===SAVAK===
The claim SAVAK "received US funding" is highly questionable, being that (a) it was a bureau of the Iranian government. (b) Iran's oil wealth hardly necessitates US subsidies to run an internal bureau. ''Prima facia'' this claim appears bogus, but it will be researched. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

==img==
Good img. Why don't we move it up to the top? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Good idea. Done. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, bad image. I really think this ought to be deleted. Terrorism is not just a political strategy, but a rhetorical one. This image '''is''' the reason many Americans died, but the image itself was what the terrorists wanted us to see. THIS image is their achievement and by putting it on this page, font and center, you endorse their message (which is: we can do this to even the most powerful nation on earth.) Ask yourself this one question: Had you, or your neighbors ever heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11? Most likely not. THIS image made them a household name. It really must be removed. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if the 9/11 picture 'endorses' the terrorists' message, do pictures of starving Jewish prisoners from the Holocaust endorse Hitler's message? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, the message with Hitler was military and political. With 9/11 the point was for everyone to see the terrorists strength--their ability to bring us to our knees, and all that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree... but what sort of image would you recommend if this one is not good enough? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

A picture of something that does not connote the terrorists' values. So, no images of them with Nick Berg, that sort of thing. Honestly, the best approach might be something like the picture of the guy on the balcony in Munich, 1972. Gives the image, without the current debate. That would be a good example. The other is simply too much, too soon. I appreciate your consideration on this. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[Image:Terrormunich.jpg]] This the image you're referring to? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 14:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I think it gives the impression of the what the page will discuss without the rhetorical issue I mentioned before. Thanks. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==IMG X2==
Wow, looks great. Thanks! [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==source for edit==
http://www.amazon.com/Terrorist-Myths-Illusion-Rhetoric-Reality/dp/0139068015/ref=sr_1_1/104-9898859-8430311?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178134302&sr=1-1 Peter Sederberg's book is the first I found to directly address the issue of defining terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Link for edit ==

At "See also"

[[Yasser Arafat]]

::Only problem is, he wasn't a terrorist. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 19:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Spectrum theory==
Elmadri, while the recent inclusion are ambitious, some of it warrants discussion. This appears to be an effort to re-establish the old [[political spectrum theory]] and apply it to terrorist thinking, motives, and ideology. Let's examine this for example,

*''[Leftist] radicals believe that they are currently being oppressed by some current government, idealogy or regime, and therefore they should overthrow that oppressor and install a better government.''

*''[Rightist} Reactionary terrorist violence is an attempt to regain the lost government and return to "order" and status quo.''

And we see [[al-Qaeda]] placed under "Leftist." Leftist then proceeds to propound Marxist-Leninist motivations. Now, it can be argued Al-Qaeda can fit under either of these definitions, but debating which is more appropriate may not be helpful. The fundamental problem is the spectrum theory itself. And this simply appears, once again, of trying to pigeon-hole a square peg into a round hole.

So, while some, if not most of the material is good, it probably needs reorganization. That is, we should probably remove the subheads and not try to assign some or all extreme terrorist groups to an ideological class defined by the spectrum theory. While discussion of tradition Marxist-Leftist terrorism is valuable, nonetheless, the spectrum theory is not definitive of all politcal motivations. Some groups come together simply out of the practical necessity of the moment, irregardless and irrespective of an underlying ideology of its members, that is to say, not all political activity (in this case, I'm referring to extremist political activity) is ideologically driven. This is the fundamental flaw of the spectrum theory. Therefore, we should not perpetuate a flawed theory by assigning questionable motives to groups on other pages outside the [[Political spectrum]] article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be quite frank, I'm working from some of my textbooks here. Now the thing is, that they do address the changes in though about terrorism, and I want to rewrite some of it to take into account what you are talking about. Obviously, there has been changes in how terrorist operate and how we view terrorism, and what I've put in doesn't reflect that, but rather more the post Cold War view. I was going to go in and put that stuff in, but I think I upset any with the article on the Patriot Movement, which was my bad. I wasn't thinking at the time. Therefore, I'm trying to kinda stay away from the more politically charged stuff for the time being. Feel free to go in and change stuff of course, but I would like it if you left the the stuff in and perhaps simply categorized it as spectrum theory and added that its a little outdated.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:34, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game

2007-06-24T21:24:00Z

Elamdri: Reverted edits by Aistee (Talk); changed back to last version by Jaques

'''Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games''' (MMORPGs for short) are a genre of video and computer games that involve many players logging into a server that is usually owned by the company that develops or publishes the game and playing in a virtual world. This world is ongoing. (It exists even if you aren't playing)

Most MMORPGs charge a monthly fee. Costs associated with running a MMORPG are for the servers used, for support staff, and for developers to create new content. The cost of developing and running a MMORPG can be high, but with ongoing monthly charges for players, the potential profit can be extraordinary as well.

== History ==

MMORPGs are a step above [[Multiplayer Online Dungeons]] (MUDs), which are text-based multiplayer online games.

== Commercial MMORPGs ==
* [[Everquest]]
* [[World of Warcraft]]
* [http://www.playonline.com/ff11us/index.shtml Final Fantasy XI]
* [http://www.darkageofcamelot.com/ Dark Age of Camelot]
* [[City of Heros]]
* [[Ultima Online]]
* [[Anarchy Online]]
* [[Urban Dead]]
* [[Second Life]]
* [[EVE Online]]
* [[Guild Wars]] pay once, no monthly fees.
* [[Middle Earth Online]]
* [[Phantasy Star Online]]
* [[Phantasy Star Universe]]
* [http://www.industryplayer.com/index.php Industry Player] massive multi-player online business simulation game.
* [http://play.toontown.com/webHome.php?r=358498&r=446861&r=506777&r=616690 ToonTown] Disney's cartoon theme MMORPG.
* [http://www.lineage2.com/ Lineage II]
* [http://www.darkspace.net/ DarkSpace] sci-fi outer-space MMORPG.
* [http://www.ddo.com/ Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach]
* [http://www.cityofvillains.com/ City of Villains]
* [http://ac.turbine.com/ Asheron's Call]
* [http://www.lotro.com/ The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar]
* [http://www.soulultimatenation.com/ Soul of the Ultimate Nation] fantasy theme MMORPG developed by Korean company.
* [http://global.lunia.com/main.asp Lunia: Record of Lunia war]
* [http://www.darkages.com/ Dark Ages] MMORPG based on Celtic mythology and horror writings of [[H. P. Lovecraft]].
* [http://thematrixonline.station.sony.com/ The Matrix Online]
* [http://www.gametap.com/home/myst/index.html Myst Online: Uru Live]
* [http://www.fomportal.com/ Face of Mankind] sci-fi MMORPG
* [http://9dragons.acclaim.com/index.htm 9 Dragons] Korean company developed MMORPG
* [http://www.awplanet.com/rw/pages/index.en.do;jsessionid=768272CBD42D84920F9125D2F2B6E277 AWplanet]
* [http://ng.neocron.com/ Neocron] world's first cyber-punk theme MMORPG.
* [http://global.cronous.com/# Cronous: The Shadow of Conspiracy]
* [http://www.fwo.com.my/ Fung Wan Online] MMORPG developed by Hong Kong company.
* [http://www.istaria.com/ Horizons: Empire of Istaria]
* [http://home.mland.sdo.com/2006/ Magical Land] chinese MMORPG
* [http://rise.unistellar.com/ Rise: The Vieneo Province]
* [http://iro.ragnarokonline.com/ Ragnarok Online] 2D anime theme MMORPG
* [http://www.roma-victor.com/ Roma Victor] historically authentic MMORPG based on the Roman Empire; pay once, no monthly fee.
* [http://www.clubpenguin.com/ Club Penguin] MMORPG for children.
* [http://www.navyfield.com/ Navy Field] naval combat MMORPG set during World War II.

==Free MMORPGS==
*[http://www.endless-online.com/ Endless Online] 2D [[anime]] style MMORPG.
*[http://flyff.gpotato.com/ Fly for Fun]
*[http://www.gaiaonline.com/ Gaia Online]
*[http://global.goonzu.com/center/default.asp Goonzu Online]
*[http://www.gunzonline.com/ Gunz: The Duel]
*[http://www.habbo.com/ Habbo]
*[http://www.maplesea.com/ Maple Story]
*[http://fate.netgame.com/ Scions of Fate]
*[http://www.globalmuonline.com/ Mu Online]
*[http://oz.ongameport.com/ OZ] online life simulator.
*[http://www.anarchy-online.com/content/downloads/tryout/ Anarchy Online Free Version] has in-game advertisements.
*[http://www.gamescampus.com/xiah/index.asp Xiah] asian martial arts MMORPG.
*[http://ranonline.e-games.com.my/index_eng.asp RAN Online] school campus based MMORPG.
*[http://o2jam.e-games.com.my/ O2Jam] musical MMORPG.
*[http://www.tibia.com/news/?subtopic=latestnews Tibia] 2D fantasy theme MMORPG
*[http://www.kalonline.com/index.asp Kal Online] 3D oriental fantasy MMORPG
*[http://www.furcadia.com/ Furcadia] animal world theme MMORPG
*[http://legendofares.netgame.com/ The Legend of Ares] 3D medieval fantasy MMORPG.
*[http://www.gamescampus.com/shotonline/ Shot Online] massive multiplayer online golf game.
*[http://www.tricksteronline.com/ Trickster Online]
*[http://corum.gpotato.com/index.php/?i=download Corum Online] 3D fantasy theme MMORG
*[http://www.silkroadonline.net/ Silkroad] 3d fantasy theme MMORPG
*[http://oilempires.itch.com/ Oil Empire]
*[http://sco.gpotato.com/ Space Cowboy Online]
*[http://www.wanmei.com/en/wmgj.htm Perfect World] chinese MMORPG based on mythologies, cost 30 million dollars to develop.
*[[RuneScape]]
*[http://www.knightonlineworld.com/ Knight Online]
*[http://www.dofus.com/ Dofus] 2D anime theme MMORPG.
*[http://www.martialheroes.com/main.php The Empire of Martial Heroes]
*[http://www.darkandlight.com/en/ Dark & Light]
*[http://www.galaxseeds.com/ GalaXseeds] cartoon theme MMORPG for preteens.
*[http://darkswords.eu/?r=1910 DarkSwords]
[[Category:Games]]

Shale

2007-06-24T21:20:44Z

Elamdri: New page: '''Shale''' is a smooth rock often used to make chalkboards.

'''Shale''' is a smooth rock often used to make chalkboards.

Pastor

2007-06-24T21:19:53Z

Elamdri: New page: A '''Pastor''' is one of the names given to the leader a Protestant Church.

A '''Pastor''' is one of the names given to the leader a Protestant Church.

Communist Party of the Soviet Union

2007-06-24T20:47:14Z

Elamdri: New page: '''The Communist Party of the Soviet Union''' was the major party of the Soviet Union started by Lenin.

'''The Communist Party of the Soviet Union''' was the major party of the Soviet Union started by Lenin.

Gun control

2007-06-24T09:44:51Z

Elamdri: /* Gun control outside the USA */

'''Gun control''' is the regulation by governments of [[gun]] ownership and the right to carry, conceal, or use [[firearm]]s.

Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc.

Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and [[liberals]] as a remedy to [[crime]]. [[Libertarian]]s and [[conservative]]s, on the other hand, argue that whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms. For instance, despite the prohibition of handgun ownership in the [[United Kingdom]], an island nation without any neighboring "gun culture" nations, handgun crime has been steadily increasing there for many years. As of 2005/06, the total deaths by shooting in the UK had increased to 50.<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf</ref>. Comparably, the United States suffered 11,350 gun deaths in 2005.<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html</ref>However, it should be noted that the USA has a population approximately 5 times greater than the UK, <ref>http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004997.html</ref> and the number of murders by shooting is approximately 200 times higher.

Gun control laws have been enacted at the federal, state, and local level with the intent of placing restrictions on the right of individual private citizens to own [[firearms]].

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal circuits [[courts of appeals]] have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html</ref>

==Overview==
The end effect of gun control laws is the reduction of gun crime.

"Gun control" is the use of legislation to place restrictions on the right to bear arms right. This can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

In the United States the three primary federal gun control laws are:
* National Firearms Act (1934)
* Gun Control Act (1968)
* Brady Bill (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).

==Objections to gun control==
Studies by John Lott and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates<ref>http://www.johnrlott.com/</ref>. [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in America even though it completely bans private handguns <ref>http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm</ref>. It should be noted however, that correlation should not necessarily imply causation. DC's high crime rate could be attributable to other factors, such as high poverty rates. Moreover, if gun control laws are designed to combat crime, it would be expected that they would be found in areas with higher crime rates.

After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the USA is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by Congress. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070309-102401-2730r.htm</ref>

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''Dred Scott v. Sandford'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights." [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

== Gun control outside the USA ==
In [[Singapore]], which has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, the capital punishment is mandatory for "arms trafficking", i.e. owning more than two weapons under the Misuse of Arms Act, and caning is mandatory for any person found in posession of a weapon (not even a firearm).

In [[Japan]], firearms are illegal. Ironically, [[Japan]] is also the home of [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs [[airsoft]] guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart. [[Tokyo Marui]] products are so realistic that they are used in many movies as props, and have resulted in many accidental deaths involving police mistaking them for real guns.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==External Links==

*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]