Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-19T04:28:18Z

FernoKlump: /* Disappearing Hell */

The translations of several passages in the [[Bible]] are disputed. This has led to some [[doctrine|doctrinal]] disagreement throughout [[Christian]] history, with scholars and others citing different [[translation]]s of the same passage to support slightly different views. A few critics of [[Christianity]] cite rare uncertainties in translation to challenge the entire religion; this viewpoint ignores the overwhelming agreement in translation and the role of [[faith]], [[prayer]] and divine inspiration in religious discourse.

[[Islam]] dictates that the [[Koran]] be read only in its original [[Arabic]], thereby avoiding any issues of translation. Translations of the Koran do exist, but they are not used for study, worship or devotional purposes.

== Vanishing Devil ==

Modern translations have been eliminating references to the [[Devil]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|[[King James Bible|KJB]]||57 references to the Devil<ref>http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/search/?type=bible&keyword=Devil&translation=kjv</ref>
|-
|[[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]||32 references to the Devil<ref>http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/search/?type=bible&keyword=Devil&translation=kjv</ref>
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||35 references to the Devil<ref>http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/search/?type=bible&keyword=Devil&translation=kjv</ref>
|}

== Disappearing Hell ==

Modern translations have been eliminating references to [[Hell]]. For example, the [[King James Bible]] mentions Hell 54 times<ref>http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=Hell&t=KJV</ref>, while the [[New International Version]] mentions it only 14 times<ref>http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=Hell&t=NIV&sf=5</ref>. The following translations of Matt 11:23 in chronological order illustrate the disappearance:

{| class="wikitable"
|[[King James Bible|KJB]]||And thou, [[Capernaum]], which art exalted unto [[heaven]], shalt be brought down to [[hell]]: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in [[Sodom]], it would have remained until this day.
|-
|[[Revised Standard Version|NRSV]]||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|[[New American Bible|NAB]]||And for your , Capernaum: 'Will you be exalted to heaven" You will go down to the netherworld.' For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
|}

== Downplaying the Deity of Jesus ==

Modern versions tend to downplay the deity of Jesus, and use phrases like "Lord Jesus Christ" and "Jesus Christ" less frequently than older translations. Here is a comparison:<ref>These are taken from the keyword search tool on http://www.biblegateway.com/</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|[[King James Version|KJV]]||81 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|[[English Standard Version|ESV]]||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||60 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|}

See also the section on "Jesus as God" below. One commentator argues that modern translations are not downplaying Jesus's deity, but the tables provided in the analysis indicate otherwise.<ref>http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/kjodeityofchrist.php</ref>

== Downplaying the Spirit at Creation ==

The first few sentences of the Bible describe Creation, and liberal translations tend to deny the presence of the Spirit of [[God]]. Here is Genesis 1:1-2 in several different translations:

{| class="wikitable"
|RSV<ref>Revised Standard Version</ref>||In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
|-
|New English Bible||In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters.
|}

== Light versus Darkness in John 1:5 ==

The translation of John 1:5 requires addressing whether "darkness", which perhaps encompasses both a lack of [[faith]] and pure evil, fails to understand the "light" (Jesus), or whether it may understand the light but fails to ''overcome'' it. In addition, there is the issue as to whether the darkness ''continues'' to fail to overcome the light. Here are various translations of that single verse:

{| class="wikitable"
|New King James Version||And the light sines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
|-
|[[Today's New International Version|Today's NIV]]||The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||That light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness did not overcome it.
|}

== Isaiah 7:14 ==

This passage is a prophesy of the birth of [[Jesus]], and the dispute concerns whether to translate the term for the woman as "virgin" or "young woman." The Hebrew term is ambiguous; the Greek term as used in the [[Septuagint]] means "virgin".

{| class="wikitable"
|[[New American Bible|NAB]]||... the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||... The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||... The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
|-
|[[Revised Standard Version|NRSV]]||Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|}

== Romans 3:28 ==

This passage sparked the [[Reformation]]. [[Martin Luther]] added an extra German word for "alone" (alleine or alleyn) after the phrase: "justified by faith": "So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, alleyn durch den Glauben." This reflected Luther's view that man is justified (saved) by faith alone, and that salvation comes only from faith. The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Church) taught that man is justified (saved) by faith and good works.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
|-
|Holman||For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
|-
|NIV||For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
|-
|NRSV||For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.
|}

== John 19:30 ==

This passage describes the last words of [[Jesus]], and what happened next.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||... he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
|-
|Holman||... He said, "It is finished!" Then bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit.
|-
|NIV||... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|NRSV||... he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|Msg<ref>The Message</ref>||... Jesus said, "It's done ... complete." Bowing his head, he offered up his spirit.
|}

== "Holy Spirit" (Paraclete) ==

[[Jesus]] used the Greek term "paraclete" to refer to what is now commonly called the "Holy Spirit" in English (formerly the "Holy Ghost," see next section below). The Greek term can mean "(1) a legal advocate, or counsel for defense, (2) an intercessor, (3) a helper, generally."<ref>[http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Paraclete "Paraclete".] NETBible.com</ref> What are the differences in translation in its biblical use? One of the five references to this word by John (four in his Gospel, and the fifth in his first letter) is in John 15:26, which quotes Jesus:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
|-
|Holman||When the Counselor comes -- whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father -- he will testify about me.
|-
|NIV||When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
|-
|NRSV||When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.
|}

== Holy "Spirit" or Holy "Ghost" ==

The English language lacks an equivalent for the Greek term "pneuma", which is used 350 times in the New Testament to express the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151 "Pneuma".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> This Greek word is typically translated as "to breathe, "to blow," or "of the wind."<ref name="pneo">[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4154&version=kjv "Pneo".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> It forms the root for the English term "pneumonia".<ref name="pneo"/>

For hundreds of years the English translation of this term in connection with the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]] has been "Holy Ghost":<ref name="Holy Ghost">[http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html "Some Thoughts on the Use of the Term the Holy Ghost".] Geocities.com</ref>

:Not only does the King James Bible use the term the Holy Ghost, but all earlier English Bibles did as well. The Holy Ghost is found in Wycliffe's translation 1395, Tyndale’s New Testament 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Douay-Rheims version, and in more modern times it is also found in Montgomery’s New Testament, the Revised Version, the Catholic Douay version 1950, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millennium Bible.

Yet none of the modern English versions of the Bible translates this as "Holy Ghost," and instead they insist on the less forceful and more ambiguous term "Holy Spirit." One commentator observes:<ref name="Holy Ghost"/>

:It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts.

For example, the New International Version repeatedly refers to a personal, human "ghost" where the King James Bible referred to "spirit":

:Mt 14:26:

::New International Version: When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.<ref name="Matthew">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NAS&bookcode=mt&bookname=Matthew&chapterid=14&verseid=26 Matthew 14:26.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.<ref name="Matthew"/>

:Luke 24:39:

::New International Version: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.<ref name="Luke">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NIV&bookcode=lu&bookname=Luke&chapterid=24&verseid=39 Luke 24:39.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."<ref name="Luke"/>

== The Adulteress Story, beginning of John 8 ==

The authenticity of the story of Jesus and an adulteress appears at John 7:53 through John 8:11 is rejected by most modern biblical translations and many if not nearly all modern biblical scholars, and it does not exist in any of the early biblical manuscripts.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]</ref> The passage has become a favorite of [[liberals]] to argue against [[capital punishment]]: "Common reasons against capital punishment ... Abolitionists '''often''' quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm "Capital punishment - the death penalty; Basic reasons: pro and anti".] ReligiousTolerance.org (emphasis added)</ref>

The passage is used to deny the very existence of Hell, and thus the necessity of being saved.<ref>Here is an example of a false denial of Hell based on the Adulteress Story: "No one is going to burn in hell. ... Here's what we know from Jesus' teachings. He would never condemn anyone. Read the story of the adulteress about to be stoned." - Craig. [http://forum.greaterreality.com/messages/9.html "Re: Heaven and Hell".] Greater Reality Forums. Forum.GreaterReality.com</ref>

The different translations of the Bible comment on this passage as follows:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||7,53-8,11: The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel.
|-
|Holman||Other mss [manuscripts] omit bracketed text [John 7:53-8:11].
|-
|NIV||The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.
|-
|NRSV||The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.
|-
|Amp<ref>Amplified Bible</ref>||John 7:53 to 8:11 is absent from most of the older manuscripts, and those that have it sometimes place it elsewhere. The story may well be authentic. Indeed, Christ's response of compassion and mercy is so much in keeping with His character that we accept it as authentic, and feel that to omit it would be most unfortunate.
|}

== Our Father ==

Different versions have different translations for the leading Christian prayer, the ''Our Father'' (at Mt 6:12-13):

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|Holman||Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.
|}

== Protestant or Catholic ==

There appears to be no meaningful differences between translations of the New Testament between Protestants and Catholics.<ref>Akin, Jimmy. [http://www.jimmyakin.org/greek/page/2/ "The Greek New Testament".] JimmyAkin.org</ref> There are differences with respect to the Old Testament.

Note that there are significant differences between modern translations and translation of several hundreds of years ago.

== Jesus as God - Romans 9:5 ==

A point of contention is the description of Jesus as God in Romans 9:5. Here are several translations of it:

{| class="wikitable"
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
|-
|NIV||Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
|-
|NAB||theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|RSV||The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen.
|}

==Acts 8:37==
{| class="wikitable"
|KJB||And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37&version=9;]
|-
|NIV||........[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37;&version=31;]
|-
|ESV||.........[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37;&version=47;]
|}

===Context===
Right before Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunch, the eunuch asked "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (KJV Acts 8:36) In other versions, nothing. The chariot stands still, and he is baptized (v. 38)

===Meaning===
This omission shows an emphasis being placed on works rather than faith in Jesus Christ. Baptisim alone will not take you to Heaven.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Bible translations]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]

William Jennings Bryan

2008-12-19T04:25:18Z

FernoKlump: sp

[[image:WJBryan.jpg|200px|thumb|The Great Commoner, William Jennings Bryan, 1907.]]
'''William Jennings Bryan''' (1860-1925) was a populist three-time [[Democratic]] presidential nominee, known as "The Great Commoner" due to his strong political support for farmers and laborers. <ref>http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/aa/bryan</ref> He was notable for advocating that the United States drop the [[gold standard]] and switch to the inflationary silver standard, a move designed to help farmers and hurt big business.

In 1896, Bryan delivered one of the most riveting speeches in all of American history, known as the "Cross of Gold" speech. A phenomenal orator, Bryan galvanized the national political convention at the young age of only 36. His speech almost single-handedly united the Democratic and Populist parties, thereby laying the foundation for what became the modern [[Democratic Party]].

<blockquote>''Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.''</blockquote>

Bryan was (along with [[Woodrow Wilson]]) the most prominent Democrat in the [[Progressive Era]], and was a leader in many progressive causes, such as anti-trust, peace and prohibition.

He served as Secretary of State during the Administration of President [[Woodrow Wilson]], and resigned based on his principled opposition to American involvement in [[World War I]].

Bryan then toured Europe and became alarmed at the consequences of teaching [[Darwinian evolution]] as he was a devout evangelical. He grew concerned that this theory was the intellectual basis for the massive world wars, and that the theory led to an erroneous view that human races must inevitably fight with each other for survival of the fittest. He feared another world war.

He argued for the prosecution in the [[Scopes trial]] in in 1925, a case which he won. Already in poor health, he died five days after the trial while taking his afternoon nap after church.<ref>Larson, Edward J. (2006), Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial And America's Continuing Debate over Science And Religion, Basic Books, p. 199</ref> [[Bryan College]], a private Christian college located in Dayton, is named for him. Unfortunately, [[liberal bias]] in plays such as ''[[Inherit the Wind]]'' have cast Bryan as not only the loser, but an ignorant man simply for sticking to logic and his beliefs. Modern Christians remember him for his valiant defense of Christianity in the face of [[deceit]] perpetrated by [[ACLU]] [[lawyer]] [[Clarence Darrow]].

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bryan, William Jennings}}
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]

Normal price

2008-12-19T04:13:58Z

FernoKlump: Redirecting to Market clearing price

#REDIRECT[[Market clearing price]]

Equilibrium price

2008-12-19T04:13:39Z

FernoKlump: Redirecting to Market clearing price

#REDIRECT [[Market clearing price]]

Climate change issue

2008-12-19T04:13:23Z

FernoKlump: Redirecting to Science of global warming

#REDIRECT [[Science of global warming]]

Normal price

2008-12-19T04:13:07Z

FernoKlump: Redirecting to Market Clearing Price

#REDIRECT[[Market Clearing Price]]

Horatio Nelson

2008-12-19T04:08:04Z

FernoKlump: hmmmm... I'm not sure what those headers were for...

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Nelson1.jpg|250px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|Horatio Nelson
Viscount Nelson of the Nile and Burnham Thorpe
|-
|Born
|September 29, 1758
|-
|Died
|October 21, 1805
|-
|}
Vice-Admiral '''Horatio Nelson''' was a [[British]] naval commander during the [[Napoleonic Wars]] with [[France]]. He played a key role in the victories at the battles of the Nile (1798), Copenhagen (1801), and the crucial [[Battle of Trafalgar]] (1805), where at his greatest triumph he was mortally wounded aboard his flagship [[HMS Victory]]. He was also known for the scandal concerning his famous love affair with Lady [[Emma Hamilton]].

==Early years==
Horatio Nelson was the sixth of eleven children born to Edmund and Catherine Nelson. Edmund was the rector of the parish of Burnham Thorpe, Norfolk, England. Although of good manners and scholarly, the Nelsons were poor. Preferment for an education was difficult, but it was hoped that a distant relation, Lord Walpole, could provide the means. However, Catherine’s brother, at the time a captain in the Royal Navy, made the decisive act and agreed to take the boy, then aged twelve, to sea after his mother’s death (Durant, pg. 518).

He was a slight boy, not physically strong, and often sick, but at every opportunity he would seize the initiative and learn all he could. He had to learn how ships operate, and as a midshipman, how to lead men. But there were also times for adventure, such as his first voyage to the West Indies and a scientific expedition to the Arctic in 1773, where, on the ice, he stood up to an advancing polar bear; only a shot from a ship’s gun prevented the bear from killing him and drove it away. He was reprimanded for leaving the ship without authorization (Durant, pg. 518).

By 1777, Nelson was a lieutenant, and had sailed for the [[West Indies]] to conduct operations against the Americans during the [[American Revolutionary War|Revolution]]. By age 20, he was promoted to captain, the youngest officer to hold that rank in the Royal Navy, and was given command of a frigate, taking part in operations against the [[Spain|Spanish]] in what is now [[Nicaragua]]. Although the attack on San Juan was successful, it proved to be costly in the weeks afterward, as nearly the entire British force succumbed to [[yellow fever]].

In 1783 he was back in England, and given the command of another frigate the following year. Sailing again for the West Indies, he strictly enforced the Navigation Act, with the unfortunate result of making enemies of British authorities and merchant ship owners stationed in the Caribbean islands who had profited with the American trade that the Act had forbidden. Vulnerable due to the experience there, as well as the lonliness of command, he made a port call on the island of Nevis in March, 1785, and met the widow Francis Nisbet and her young son Josiah. He courted her for two years, and they married in March, 1787 on Nevis.

Nelson returned with his bride to England and found himself without a ship’s appointment and on half pay, which continued for the next five years, possibly the result of prejudice related to his enforcement of the Navigation Act]. But by 1793 events in France would determine the Navy’s course of action: the Terror would run rampant, [[King]] [[Louis XVI]] would face the guillotine, and Nelson was given command of the 64-gun HMS ''Agamemnon''.

==Mediterranean==
In the [[Mediterranean]], he was tasked to fight a losing defense of British allies and interests in the French port of Toulon against revolutionaries who were in the act of changing France from a monarchy to a republic; among them was a young artillery officer named Napoleon Bonaparte. Despite the loss, Nelson was content emotionally during the months spent there. On board his ship was a well-trained crew, and amongst his crew was his son whom he had taken on board; waiting for both was a loving wife. And it was during this time that Nelson changed from an enthusiastic young officer to a genius of a commander. Some of his success in his mission was due to the British minister in Naples, Sir William Hamilton.

Lord Hood had moved his base to Corsica after Toulon fell, and where Nelson and his crew went ashore to help capture Bastia and Calvi; a French shot ricocheted debris into his right eye, nearly losing it and rendering him blind there. An upsurge in French successes caused the British to abandon their bases in the central Mediterranean and consolidate at Gibraltar and the Tagus. Hood had earlier been replaced by two individuals, one of whom, Sir John Jervis, was a very experienced sailor who quickly recognized the command qualities possessed by Nelson.

[[Image:Trafalgar1.JPG|thumb|200px|left|''Battle of Trafalgar'' by J.M.W. Turner, 1822-24.]]

==References==
*Durant, Will and Ariel. ''The Age of Napoleon'', Simon And Schuster, New York (1975).
*Howarth, David, and Howarth, Stephen. ''Lord Nelson: The Immortal Memory'', Viking Penguin, Inc. New York (1988)
*Warner, Oliver. ''Trafalgar'', The MacMillan Company, New York (1959)
*Bennett, Geoffrey. ''Nelson The Commander'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York (1972)

==Links==
*[http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nelson/introduction.htm British National Archives: Biography of Nelson]
*[http://www.snr.org.uk/victory.htm Society for Nautical Research: HMS Victory]
*[http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/the_battle_of_trafalgar.htm Battle of Trafalgar]
*[http://www.aboutnelson.co.uk/englandexpcts.htm Nelson's famous signal at Trafalgar]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nelson, Horatio}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Military History]]
[[Category:Napoleonic Wars]]

Paul Newman

2008-12-18T01:11:31Z

FernoKlump: "despite being heterosexual" ... ?

'''Paul Newman''' (January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) was an [[United States of America|American]] [[actor]], [[film]] [[director]], and [[producer]], born in Ohio. He was a liberal, who supported [[same-sex marriage]]. He was a major backer of the [[Democratic Party]]. He was the founder of a food company, Newman's Own, which donates all of its profits to charities. He has a son (who predeceased him), and a daughter, by his first marriage, which ended in divorce. He has three daughters by his second marriage, which lasted fifty years until his death. He was a former chain-smoker, who died of [[lung cancer]] in Connecticut, aged 83.

As an actor, Paul Newman was best known for taming the wild, rebellious youth stereotype typefied by [[James Dean]] and [[Marlon Brando]]. Instead, his characters were often cool, reserved and with a sense of heart.

Newman appeared in film, on [[television]], and on [[Broadway]]. Some of his best-known movie roles were in:
*''Cat on a Hot Tin Roof'' (1959),
*''Exodus'' (1960),
*''The Hustler'' (1961),
*''Hud'' (1963),
*''Harper'' (1966),
*''Cool Hand Luke'' (1967),
*''Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid'' (1969),
*''The Sting'' (1973)
*''The Towering Inferno'' (1974),
*''Slap Shot'' (1977),
*''Absence of Malice'' (1981),
*''The Verdict'' (1982),
*''The Color of Money'' (1986),
*''Nobody's Fool'' (1994), and
*''Road to Perdition'' (2002).

Newman appeared with his second wife, actress [[Joanne Woodward]], in
*''The Long, Hot Summer'' (1958),
*''Rally 'Round the Flag, Boys!'' (1958),
*''From the Terrace'' (1960),
*''Paris Blues'' (1961),
*''A New Kind of Love'' (1963),
*''Winning'' (1969),
*''WUSA'' (1970),
*''Harry & Son'' (1984), and
*''Mr. and Mrs. Bridge'' (1990).

Newman received ten [[Academy Award]] nominations, winning once for Best Actor for ''The Color of Money''.

Newman was an auto racing enthusiast. He drove a Porsche in Lemans in 1979.

== See also ==

*[[Henry Fonda]]
*[[Sidney Poitier]]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Newman, Paul}}
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-17T01:09:49Z

FernoKlump: /* Statistical Analysis */

==Mind Altering Drugs==
The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! Done.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with [[liberal friendship]] & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see ''[[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]''). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Organization ==

I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Great job Rod!-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Wow==
Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only ''after'' you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?

:::: If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Ooooh, SO close, but no cigar! The arguments is that liberals know that professors are liberal - see [[professor values]] - and conform their behavior & values deliberately to the professor's to get better grades not for substance, but because they agree with the professor's worldview. It's not that they're smart; they're just playing the game.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 22:22, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: I gotta say, my personal experiences negate any of the categories in the statistical portion. I simply realized, over time, that conservatism didn't hold all the answers. That, surprise, there was no perfect school of political thought. All this talk about the "liberal education system" is funny to me, because, honestly, I couldn't give you the political leanings of ANY of my teachers/professors. Who they did/would vote for, their stances on gun control, abortion, homosexuality, government, it simply never came up. I'm sure there was some rule on the books preventing teachers from discussing such things, and they were followed. The military upbringing put me in many different schools in various parts of the country, domestic and abroad, and not a single one broke that rule. Granted, I never sought out my instructors political beliefs, but the never volunteered them either. They were there do their job of teaching me, and I was there to do mine of learning.

:::: As far as my friends go, they fall much into the same boat. I hang out with them to relax after work. Watch a game, play a game, maybe throw a party, whatever, not to have heated arguments that won't resolve anything.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: ShawnJ, you probably vote and so do your friends and teachers; you adhere to certain values and so do your friends and teachers; and you make statements of a political nature just as your friends and teachers do. I'm sure you've taken courses in economics, history, government, English literature, and science, and it is impossible to teach or learn those topics without forming opinions that affirm or deny conservative principles. Perhaps you were unaware of it at the time, but with an open mind you can reconsider it now.

::::: Your teachers voted overwhelmingly for [[Barack Obama]], to take just one example, and they taught you things consistent with their view. I'd guess that 50% of what you learned in school was false, and those of who care about the truth embark on a path to revisit and reconsider all of it. I encourage you to join us.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:43, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Ohkay......... ==

Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::I think he meant Blagovejich :)-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Alex, I find that accusation offensive! ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Come to think of it, how on earth is that an apology for drug use/abuse/misuse? if i had used such works of the devil (which they are) i would probably have voted Democrat so that i could have continued using illegal drugs - but no - i voted republcan this year and my political compass test says that im a right-wing authoritarian.----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Seriously? ==
Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? [[User:DM|DM]] 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.

: Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:: Let us tackle race, firstly. What race is President Obama? Black? No, he's not black. He's African-American. Now what's the difference? I would consider someone who is African-American to be an American who immigrated from Africa or is of African descent. Now who is Black? Black people are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the New World to work as slaves. Now, Barack Obama is descended from an African man. Thus, he can be called African-American. But he is not a descendant of Africans who were slaves, thus he is not Black. Is this just a difference of their places in history? No. Black people are of West African descent exclusively. They didn't sail to the other side of Africa to kidnap slaves. President Obama is of East African descent. Hmmm.

:: So is race a simple issue? [[User:DM|DM]] 23:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: It is extremely simple to millions of non-conservatives, who do not care one bit about the distinctions you attempt to draw in your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::Race CAN be complex. I don't think we're arguing that it's not. However, globalism & the global economy, as well as the complex relationship between taxes & economic growth, can be harder to grasp for some liberals. That's all we're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong Aschlafly).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 10:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Morally depraved nature ==

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_mentioning_Conservapedia prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Statistical Analysis ==
Ok I know this is a mystery and not an encyclopedic article but could we please get one or two cites for the statistical analysis section since it would be very interesting to read the studies that that was based off of --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:good wuestion WillB! how were these statistics compiled?
:Agreed. It definitely does not look good at its present state where these numbers have nothing to back them up -- even if listed as estimates. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 18:20, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:: It's an estimate, and a work in progress. Do you doubt its truth? Perhaps you're simply saying that a liberal newspaper would not admit this, and you'd be right about that. But the truth is not constrained by what liberals will admit.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:29, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::: I was just stating my curiosity -- one that I believe most readers share -- as to how those numbers came about. As to its validity, I have no way of knowing but based on my own encounters, those numbers look about right for the most part, except for one group that I believe is missing on that list. I know quite a few non-conservatives who, with an open mind, simply weighed conservative values against non-conservative values and decided that they identified more with non-conservative values. Their values usually gravitate towards "freedom of choice", as defined by themselves. (Obviously we disagree with it)
Examples include: Freedom to choose abortion, freedom to choose religion, freedom to choose a "lifestyle", etc. You might say that these people fall into the ''10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like irresponsible sexual promiscuity'' -- and that's true for some, but not for others. Some non-conservatives aren't interested in engaging in sexual promiscuity, dwelling in person temptation and self-destruction; they simply believe that it should be up to each individual if they choose to do so. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 21:42, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:::As I said it would be interesting to read how these estimates were arrived at. I have no idea what the percentages should be and would love to see the data but I know that since this is an essay that a cite is not required and my not be possible to get in any case. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:41, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly asks "Do you doubt its [the statistics'] truth?" To which I respond, yes, I do doubt it, but more importantly I doubt very much that these "statistics" should be referred to as such. I, further, dispute WillB's claim that because this is an essay Aschlafly is not obligated to provide citations or data to support his claim.

My basic issue here is that absent any sort of supporting documentation these "estimates" are nothing of the sort and are, instead, simply guesses. A guess is not the same as a statistical estimate. To understand why, consider ASchlafly's first cited reason, "Did not hear about conservative principles...", which I will refer to as Claim A. Now, in theory Claim A is true of some portion of the population (A "population" being defined as the set of things we're interested in studying. In this case, for the sake of argument, we'll assume the population is American citizens or legal residents). This value is known as a population parameter and we will refer to it as "Mu", following the common statistical practice of referring to true population values with Greek symbols. Now, the difficulty is that the population is too large for us to assess as a whole. To deal with this, we take a sample of the population- for example, a random sample. Now, the composition of a true random sample is determined by its parent population. So, for example, if Claim A is true of 40% of the population, as ASchlafly asserts, then a true random sample will- in theory- contain the same proportion of persons for whom Claim A is true. The quantity in the sample for whom Claim A is true will be referred to as X-bar, a symbol used to refer to the arithmetic mean of a sample, and is not written in Greek as it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter. So, if our random sample is perfect Mu should equal x-bar.

Now, this is true in theory, but in practice things get tricky. While a true random sample is the ideal, it is also the case that larger samples provide better estimates (i.e. more accurate values of x-bar) than smaller samples. Thus, it is almost always the case that Mu does not equal x-bar but rather is only approximately equal to x-bar. The relation between a particular value of x-bar and the value of Mu is determined using two things: the estimated [[standard deviation]] of a distribution of means and a [[confidence interval]]. The distribution of means is a mathematical construct that indicates how often we ought to see the x-bar of a sample of a given size, n, vary by a certain amount from the value of Mu. For our purposes we would estimate it using sample information by dividing the sample variance by n (i.e the sample size) and then taking the square root. We will refer to this as SDm (i.e. the standard deviation of the distribution of means). We would then use this value to construct a confidence interval. A confidence interval is a range of scores within which we are certain to a specific probability that we will find Mu. Put differently, it is like saying, "The true population value is x-bar plus or minus y amount, with a certainty of 95%." Confidence intervals are almost always included with point estimates (i.e. estimates of a specific value, such as x-bar) because statisticians are well aware that x-bar almost never precisely equals Mu. We would construct our confidence interval by taking x-bar and then adding, and subtracting, the value of the product of SDm and a t-value corresponding to our desired level of certainty and degrees of freedom (i.e. x-bar + (SDm)(t-value) and x-bar - (SDm)(t-value)). A t-value is a score taken from the t-distribution, which is an approximation of the [[normal distribution]] used when a smaller sample size produces non-normality. The t-distribution asymptotically approximates the normal distribution, so with large sample sizes you can essentially use the normal distribution instead. The degrees of freedom in this case are equal to n-1. So, if we drew a sample of 101 people and wanted to be 99% sure that our confidence interval included Mu then we would use a t-value of 2.626. So, in summation, using the sample information we can compute not simply an estimate of the value of Mu (i.e. x-bar) but also an interval within which we can be confident (e.g. 99% certain) that the true value of Mu lies. Obviously, the smaller the confidence interval, the more exact our estimate of Mu is likely to be and, if we assume that the sample x-bar is derived from is a perfect random sample, then the quality of our estimate is based entirely on sample size. Further, the relationships discussed above are well-documented empirically and have been proven out by mathematicians and statisticians since about the turn of the century.

The reality, of course, is that samples are rarely if ever perfectly random. Sampling error inevitably creeps in and, as a result, confidence intervals often have to be adjusted for this added error. If we cannot determine the extent of the sampling error's influence on our statistics then there is no mathematical adjustment possible and we, instead, have to assess the robustness of our estimates against the probable size of the error. And what all this means is that something is a statistical estimate rather than an offhand guess precisely because it includes not only a point estimate (e.g. 40% of the population subscribes to Claim A) but also a confidence interval around that point estimate (e.g. plus or minus 10%). Moreover, the point estimates as well as the confidence intervals are produced using a set of established procedures that are rooted in the mathematical characteristics of both population/sample relationships and the estimators (i.e. the computations used to produce the point estimates). Given that this is the case, point estimates are almost always provided with confidence intervals or standard errors and, additionally, information must be provided in order to allow others to assess the likely accuracy of the estimates.

ASchlafly has provided a set of point estimates generated in an unknown manner from unknown data. He has included no confidence intervals and no indication of the degree of accuracy in these estimates. As a result they are not statistical estimates and in no way should be referred to as the product of "statistical analysis". They are, to the contrary, nothing more or less than offhand guesses and should be referred to as such. On the other hand, if ASchlafly has some basis for these point estimates he should indicate where the data derive from and provide- at a bare minimum- the confidence intervals around these estimates as well as an outline indicating how he produced those intervals.

The point of statistics is not simply to compute an answer (e.g. a point estimate) but to produce along with it an estimate of the degree or error contained in that estimate. No human, after all, is perfect and it is in the nature of statistics to honestly quantify that imperfection. Absent confidence intervals or standard errors, and some understanding of how the data were gathered the appropriate response to the question "Do you doubt its truth" from anyone who is marginally competent in statistics must be "yes." Moreover, if ASchlafly wishes to label these assertions as "statistical estimates" then it is his responsibility to justify them in the manner accepted by statisticians. Otherwise, they should be (correctly) labeled as guesses.

Understand, the substance of my objection has nothing to do with whether or not ASchlafly's claims are correct but, rather, with the appropriateness of their presentation and treatment. -Drek
:Any reasonable argument should be capable of being put in two or three concise paragraphs, Drek. Your lengthy and confused screed doesn't add any light to this matter, I'm afraid. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::No sweat: ASchlafly's "statistics" are not statistics but guesses. He can demonstrate to the contrary by providing adequate citations to his data source as well as indicating the techniques used to generate the point estimates as well as confidence intervals and/or standard errors. Until he does so, referring to his guesses as "statistical analysis" is, at best, an exaggeration. Leaving this essay as-is saps credibility from both Conservapedia generally and ASchlafly particularly. See the above "confused screed" for a detailed explanation of my concerns. It's good to be succinct, but if Conservapedia is meant as an educational resource- and the criticism of Wikipedia for not offering courses lends support to that notion- then it's even better to be sufficiently thorough for students to follow the dispute. Or, as Beatrice Wright puts it, "You must learn to write in such a way that it will be as easy as possible for your critics to know why they disagree with you." -Drek
:::Andrew Schlafly is a qualified and experienced statistician and I'd certainly trust his judgement; not to sound suspicious, but in what way are you qualified to make such sweeping statements about this aricle? Also, you can be sure that his analyses and his estimates are based on a mature and thorough understanding of the issue being examined. Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::"Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context." Exactly right, and as you will notice, I am asking for a disclosure of that context so that we can all assess the accuracy and reliability of ASchlafly's claims for ourselves. If he is, indeed, a "...qualified and experienced statistician..." as you assert and his numbers are based on good data and appropriate techniques, this should be trivially easy. I also appreciate that you trust his judgment but statistics aren't about trusting someone's judgment, they are about verifiable results. Whether you or I view ASchlafly as a competent statistician has no bearing on the fact that he has not, at present, provided any justification whatsoever for the figures presented. Asking about my qualifications is something of an ad hominem since I have presented a lengthy explanation of why I question ASchlafly's claims. Rather than ask how I know what I do, why not respond substantively to my points? Regardless, while I have no expectation that you will take my word for it, I have been teaching statistics in an American four-year university for six years. -Drek
:::::I'm sorry you take it as an ad hom; I'm sure you appreciate that in such an environment a certain caution about people's claimed expertise is perhaps excusable. And I certainly accept your word as to your post and experience. But this is more than a pure, abstract, mathematical, dare I say professorial treatment of statistics. This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature, and in particular the nature of the Liberal-minded human, which is an additional layer of expertise which possibly you do not have - although, to be fair, working in a university (is it a public funded institution?) you would very likely be exposed daily to all kinds of Liberal nonsense. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::::"This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature..." The thing is, Bugler, that statistics are an applied branch of mathematics. Their express purpose is to allow us to extract certainty from the vapor of possibility or, less metaphorically, to allow us to derive useful knowledge from messy research situations. Indeed, multivariate methods like regression are often used when the purity of experimental control is unattainable. Statistics can only provide this service reliably, however, when there is a full disclosure of how they are obtained. If the data are valid, the procedures appropriate, and the necessary mathematical assumptions not grievously violated, then the conclusions may be trusted to a particular degree of certainty. That ASchlafly's statistics are being used to asses the "...nature of the Liberal-minded human..." is effectively irrelevant. I do not ask that ASchlafly produce perfect statistics, but unless and until he provides a basis for judging his numbers, they cannot be regarded as anything more than his personal opinion. I appreciate your accepting my claimed expertise on my word, however. I have worked at both public and private universities and you will understand that the various strains of "nonsense" that I have encountered from a variety of ideological camps underlies my interest in seeing that statistical methods are not abused. If statistics are to be used to adjudicate between rival claims, then we must emphasize the need for them to be performed correctly. More simply, the extent to which I agree or disagree with the outcome of an analysis has no bearing on whether or not it was done correctly. And, as a side note, I have enjoyed our chat, but will probably be away from my computer for the next day or so for travel. If I do not respond to further comments, please understand it is not out of rudeness. -Drek
:::::::: of course. ''Bon voyage!'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:37, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Drek, you really "take the cake" for the most long-winded liberal rant in recent memory here. The field of statistics does include estimates, and no one doubts that that there are percentages for each category listed. Are the estimates off slightly? Perhaps, but be specific about which one you think may be off.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: He's not claiming the statistics are wrong, he's saying that they are meaningless if the method of finding them is withheld. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 20:09, 16 December 2008 (EST)

== My political alignment ==

Ahem, I am a conservative (just see some of my userboxes, and i am against abortion, and i support classroom prayer too) and another thing, my comments were somewhat misguided. When you said mind-altering drugs, i thought you were implying that Obama and company were putting drugs of some sort into everyone's food. ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:But why on earth would you suspect any such thing was implied? Surely it is clear that it meant voluntarily-ingested illegal drugs? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

==question==
Are you honestly that arrogant that you wonder why people might not think exactly like you? sounds like mindless confomity to me.

==A further suggestion==
It struck me that denial of Conservative principles could be a result of incipient or presenting mental illness. Just as it has been widely demonstrated that Liberal beliefs can lead to psychiatric conditions (per http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Do_Liberal_Teachings_Cause_Mental_Illness%3F ), so there might also be a reciprocal effect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:19, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== "Abstract" principles ==

I don't define "more guns, less crime" and "less taxes, more revenue" as abstract characteristics. There are statistics to back up both claims, as there are statistics to support a counter-claim to either. Those statements are based off of concrete observations and statistics. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: The observation "more guns, less crime" does entail a slight abstraction, and there are people who may have trouble understanding. Statistics confirm it, as does logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::I don't doubt that people may have trouble understanding. However if it is statistically confirmed, where is the abstraction? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::: You can always find someone to dispute statistics, as your own posting demonstrates. The real obstacle to some is grasping the abstraction of the logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 14:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::I think we're arguing for the same side here, Andy. I'm not disputing any statistics; that's my point. The statistics are there ''plain as day'' that an armed citizenry opposes crime. I would say it's just blind ignorance (or faulty logic) to believe otherwise as opposed to an abstraction. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Tweaking the Statistics==
With all due deference to Andy's knowledge on the subject, I believe that it would be beneficial to consider reweighting the estimates for why people choose to remain liberal, despite superior arguments for conservatism, as follows:

:* 25%: did not hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them until ''after'' they made up their mind, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, and refuse to reconsider;
:* 25%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like sexual promiscuity;
:* 20%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent, and refuse to rise above the animosity;
:* 10%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers;
:* 10%: mistakenly feel that conservative values and benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family, not realizing the availability and benefits to all, including children of divorced parents;
:* 5%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest; and
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas.

The largest reason that people remain liberal is clearly their desire to have their immoral and atheistic actions become more socially acceptable so that they can justify such lifestyles to themselves and others. Being disciplined by conservatives goes hand in hand with this - liberals do not like people pointing out that their lifestyle choices are wrong and detrimental to the country as a whole. It is primarily conservatives who are willing to call a spade a spade and chastise immoral conduct. I decreased the point about hearing about conservative principles later in life because the vast majority of United States citizens are raised in Christian churches and are taught the Bible's conservative principles from a young age. It is only once they are school-aged that liberal indoctrination can begin.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Emo

2008-12-16T04:43:00Z

FernoKlump: /* "Emo-Core" */

'''Emo''' is a form of rock music, usually considered a sub-genre of alternative or "indie" rock. It is thought that the term emo derived from the fact that, on occasion, members of a band would become spontaneously and strongly emotional during performances. Emerging in the mid-to-late 1980s as a distinctive form of [[punk|punk rock]], the genre has recently gained popularity thanks to bands such as: [[Fall Out Boy]], [[My Chemical Romance]], [[Dashboard Confessional]], [[Taking Back Sunday]], [[Brand New]], and many others.

=Early Days =

=="Emo-Core"==

In 1983, the DC [[punk]] scene began to lose popularity and many of the bands of the [[era]] had started to break up. In 1984, the band [[Husker Dü]] began the slow start of the early emo movement with the release of their album, [[Zen Arcade]]. The album featured melodic songwriting, intense vocals, and punkish guitars. Soon afterward, bands such as [[Rites Of Spring]] and [[Embrace]] began to perfect the "DC Sound" with their music. Later on, this style of music begins to be referred to as "emo-core".

=="Emo"==

In 1997, several new bands inspired by the "emo-core" bands of a few years before began to emerge in several areas around [[North America]]. These bands added their own unique sound to the genre, including softer and sometimes whispered vocals, louder guitars, screaming vocals, and the most recognizable element of the genre, octave chords. The vocal style for this genre could range from normal singing, to screaming and even crying at some parts.

Much of the lyrics for this genre were somewhat abstract poetry which were often inaudible because of the volume of the instruments. When playing live, many bands would keep their backs to the audience while playing the quiet parts and would jump around and knock things over and scream at the top of their lungs during the loud parts.

There was almost no commercialism at all for this genre as most bands did not make t-shirts and only sold records at their shows.

Most "emo" bands would only be around for a short time. Many bands only released their first records posthumously.

In this decade, with the rise in popularity of such bands as Fall Out Boy. Panic! at the Disco, and My Chemical Romance, emo has become quite mainstream, getting as much radio play (if not more so) than hip-hop and "bubblegum" pop.

Source: http://altmusic.about.com/od/genresstyles/p/emo.htm

==Noteworthy Early Bands==

* [[Husker Du]],
* [[Rites Of Spring]],
* [[Embrace]],
* [[Dag Nasty]],
* [[Jawbreaker]],
* [[Moss Icon]],
* [[Shotmaker]],
* [[Still Life]]

=="Hardcore Emo"==

"Emo" played harder, faster and louder beginning in the early 1990s with bands such as [[Mohinder]], [[Heroin]], and [[Swing Kids]].

==Emo as a culture==

Recently, the term "Emo" has been used to describe people who wear dark clothing, makeup, use eye-liner, and wear tight pants. This modern stereotype also mentions that "emos" are emotional, suicidal, and often associated with [[borderline personality disorder]]. Although originally considered to be an extremely rude and false term, modern society has slowly accepted "emo" term to describe such people.

=References=

1. http://www.fourfa.com/

[[Category:Musical Genres]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-12-16T01:58:09Z

FernoKlump: /* What Lies by Wikipedia about Conservapedia? */

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

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

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

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

Well lets hope not ...

{{unsigned|Qgobo}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== People for the American Way ==

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

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

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

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

{{unsigned|Margheritapizza}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Smoking example ==

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

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

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

== Question ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Maths, anyone? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Administrator names? Huh?==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Question of Logic ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Categorization ==

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

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

== #12: Ron Paul smear ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Points #1, #4 ==

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

== Defamatory material in American Family Association article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wikipedia "bias" ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Analysis of Claims ==

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

'''Current Issue 1: SDI'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Issue 4: Liberal Criticism'''

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

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

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

'''Issue 6: Censorship'''

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

'''Issue 7: Smearing Conservapedia'''

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

'''Issue 8: Homosexual Agenda'''

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

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

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

== Reactions ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wikidrama due to anti-ID bias ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Antisemitism in the New Testament? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== POV on this ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Pope XIII? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== 'Chain of being' ==

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

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

== Fairness ==

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

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

== What Lies by Wikipedia about Conservapedia? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ancient Egypt

2008-12-16T00:55:02Z

FernoKlump: nomarchs ==> monarchs?

The '''Ancient Egyptian''' civilisation flourished in the Nile Valley from the late 4th millennium BC, until it’s absorption into the [[Roman empire]] in 30BC. After this time Ancient Egyptian culture and religion continued to flourish in Egypt until a decree by the Byzantine emperor Justinian in the 6th century AD forced the closure of [[Philae]] Temple.

Pharaonic culture, statecraft, literature, law, religious belief, scientific and technological advantages left a profound legacy upon the world, in particular the [[Greek civilization]] which absorbed much Egyptian learning through the Ptolemaic metropolis of [[Alexandria]].

== Geography ==
Ancient Egypt was a culture focused around the [[Nile Valley]], and it was here the Predynastic confederacies and petty chieftains were finally united to begin the Dynastic period at the end of the forth millennium BC.

The Nile Valley had a profound impact upon Egyptian culture and thinking, and it’s natural boundaries of almost empty deserts to east and west, the first cataract in the south, and [[Mediterranean]] sea in the north fostered the early adoption of a nation-state identity. These boundaries also protected Egypt in times of strife elsewhere in the region. Despite this, Egypt was not an island, and traded with neighbours in [[Nubia]], [[Libya]] and the [[Levant]], as well as further afield.

Egypt’s climate varied over time and location, through during the Dynastic era was, as it is today, predominantly a [[desert climate]], with long, hot summers and short, relatively mild winters, with rainfall being insignificant, with a Mediterranean climate prevailing in the Delta and far north.

The inundation defined the seasons. The [[Nile]], swollen by rains in [[Ethiopia]], never failed to rise each summer, though the level of rise varied greatly. As it rose, the water spread over the flood plain, depositing large amounts of mud, silt and organic matter, laying down a nutrient rich layer, replenishing the soil and soaking it. For three months the water remained before retreating, leaving enough moisture in the ground that no further irrigation would be necessary on the first harvest. It was this inundation that would be the foundation for Egypt’s great wealth, built not on gold, but on grain.

== Chronology ==
Egyptian history is split up into distinct periods, with the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms separated from each other and the Late Period by so-called “Intermediate Periods”, times of disunity and apparent unrest, or of foreign occupation. All dates before the Late Period are circa, and when dealing with purely Egyptian issues, it is common to work only within a framework of reigns and dynasties, rather than absolute dates.

=== Old Kingdom ===
The [[Old Kingdom]] covers Dynasties 3 to 6 (circa 2800 – 2186 BC). Although it has been argued by some that it should include Dynasties 1 – 3, and by others that it should only cover Dynasties 4 – 6, though 3 to 6 is the most widely accepted, beginning as it does with the revolutionary architecture of [[Djoser]].

The Old Kingdom is in many ways the zenith of the [[Divine Kingship]], and sees Pharaonic culture at it’s most confident and powerful, expressed in this periods most famous monuments, the Giza [[Pyramids]].

During this period the Egyptian state developed an all encompassing and highly organised bureaucracy, organised into a strictly hierarchical and highly centralised structure dominated by the [[Pharaoh]], who exercised an extremely high degree of control over resources.

The Old Kingdom came to an end in circumstances that are far from clear, but seem to be linked to the extremely long rule of Pepi II, at 96 years, the longest reigning monarch in history.

Following this, Egypt lapsed into a period of national fragmentation, lasting approximately 105 years.

=== Middle Kingdom ===
The [[Middle Kingdom]] saw Egypt re-unified under the 11th Dynasty, a royal line from Thebes, following by the northern 12th Dynasty who maintained a royal capital at [[Lisht]].

The Middle Kingdom sees the Egyptian nation engage for the first time in serious warfare. Under the great military Pharaohs [[Sensuret I]] and [[Senusret III]], Egypt annexed Lower Nubia, fixing a realm of Egyptian domination that extended south of the Second Cataract for the first time in history, reinforced by a series of fortresses with an unprecedented degree of sophistication.

A similar chain of fortresses secured the [[Sinai]] peninsula and Eastern delta, known as the [[Horus Road]] and [[Walls of the Ruler]]. These secured the overland route to [[Asia]], and defended the boarder. Despite this military strength, only a single expedition into Asia itself was carried out,

The grim work of re-unification and securing the borders left an indelible mark of the ideology of the period. Literature of the time often harks back to the chaos of the 1st Intermediate Period, and the ideal of importance of loyalty to, and adoration of, the ruler is also a strong theme.

Statuary of the time shows the great Pharaohs of the period with serious, stern expressions, showing a human side that planned and fought long and hard to reunify a fractured nation and to push on to new boundaries deep into hostile territory. This signaled a break with the past, and the future, for both the [[Old Kingdom]] and all successive periods (with the exception of [[Amarna]]) showing the Pharaoh in the traditional manner, in a state of divine serenity.

The [[Middle Kingdom]] met it’s end in the mid-13th Dynasty, as foreign influence permeated the heavily defended Sinai, eventually providing the momentum for an Asiatic dynasty to seize the Delta and Middle Egypt, and hold it for approximately 100 years.

=== New Kingdom ===
The [[New Kingdom]] is often called Egypt’s “Age of Empire”. Following the war of Reunification led by the 17th Dynasty, [[Ahmose I]] finally managed to liberate and reunify Egypt, founding the [[18th Dynasty]] and the [[New Kingdom]] in approximately 1500BC.

The Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty re-invented the Egyptian military forces, adopting the most advanced weapons of the day. Egyptian tactics were also revolutionized, becoming highly innovative. Many Egyptian campaigns of this period are regarded as military genius, with [[Thutmose III]] being regarded by most as the “[[Napoleon]] of Egypt”. These campaigns ultimately created a sprawling and varied Egyptian empire, stretching from [[Gebel Barkal]] to the [[Euphrates]], and a zone of influence far beyond.

It was at the height of this time of greatness that Egypt was plunged into turmoil. The heretical ruler, [[Amunhotep IV]], changed his name to [[Akhenaten]] and embraced a corrupted form of the Solar Cult as an absolutist [[monotheistic]] belief. Traditional temples were closed, and the capital city moved to a desert plain in Middle Egypt, where a new capital was established, named [[Akhetaten]]. Akhenaten died after 17 years on the throne, and both his cult and capital both died with him.

The Egyptian empire proved resilient to such trauma, and the traditional New Kingdom capital and cults were immediately restored, and the empire remained essentially unchallenged in Asia until the time of [[Ramesses III]] in the 20th Dynasty, and maintained it’s grip on Nubia until the fall of the New Kingdom at the close of the 20th Dynasty.

=== Late Period ===
It was with a sense of irony, that the impetus for re-unifying Egypt and rebuilding her former power would come from Nubia. The 25th Dynasty advanced out of their base at [[Napata]], and secured all of [[Upper Egypt]] by a process of gradual conquest, winning recognition from local monarchs and forming a confederacy. The Assyrians, with their vassals in the Delta, were alarmed, advanced south and sacked [[Thebes]]. However, the example had been made, and with the help of Greek mercenaries, [[Psamtik I]] of [[Sais]] freed himself from his [[Assyrian]] overlord, and reunified Egypt.

The 26th Dynasty harked back to the O[[ld Kingdom]] for it’s inspiration, in art religion and ideals of Kingship, and the period is often referred to as the “[[Saite Renaissance]]” or “Archaic Renaissance”.

The [[Late Period]] saw increased contact with the Hellenic world, with many Greek mercenaries serving in the Egyptian military, and a Greek merchants settling in the purpose built trading center of [[Naukratis]]. This ultimately proved fatal, and in 525 BC, [[Persian]] forces, with a large number of Greek mercenaries conquered Egypt following the defection of a key Egyptian mercenary commander, [[Phanes of Hallicarnassus]].

Egypt liberated herself from Perisan rule in 404BC, bringing to power the 29th and 30th Dynasties, the last sustained period of Egyptian native rule. The second Persian occupation was much more brief, lasting just over a decade from 343BC until the invasion of [[Alexander]] in 332BC.

=== Ptolemaic Period ===
Alexander put an end to the second Persian occupation in 332BC. Having secured Egypt, he traveled to the Oracle of [[Amun]] in [[Siwa]] Oasis, where the oracle pronounced him the Son of Amun, and legitimate ruler of Egypt. He also visited [[Memphis]], the traditional administrative capital of Egypt and centre of the cult of [[Ptah]]. These acts won him the respect of some of the Egyptian elite. Alexander also decided to develop a port on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast. He chose the coastal town of [[Ra-Kedet]], which would be redeveloped into the metropolis of [[Alexandria]], serving to link Egypt to his empire.

Following Alexander’s death, control of Egypt fell first of all to [[Phillip Arrhideaus]], then [[Alexander IV]], before passing to [[Ptolemy I]], a former general of Alexander. His decedents would rule Egypt with greatly varying degrees of success until the death of [[Cleopatra VII]] in 30BC. Although sometimes thought of as a period of unity equivalent to the New Kingdom, the Ptolemaic period was often highly unstable and wracked by rebellion. Ptolemaic rule became increasingly exploitative, thought the dynasty kept a superficial adherence to Egyptian religious and social traditions that ensured support, or at least neutrality, of the priesthood.

See also: [[Ptolemaic Period]] the [[Great Egyptian Revolt]].

=== Roman/Byzantine/Coptic Period ===
Roman rule attempted to integrate Egypt into the trading system of the [[Roman empire]], utilizing the wealth and productivity of Egyptian agriculture to supply the Rome and it’s army, and became increasingly exploitative, leading [[Rome]] to maintain three legions in the country. Traditional Roman tolerance of other religions and ways of life also assisted their moves to consolidate control, but administrative reforms did not help the gradual decline brought about by over exploitation, unrest, and Rome’s problems elsewhere. The rise of [[Christianity]] led to further pressures, and by the time of the [[Arab]] invasion, Egypt had become depopulated, with most of her cities lying abandoned.

== Government ==
Throughout the Dynastic Period, Egypt was an [[absolute monarchy]], ruled by a monarch regarded as divine. Egypt was a centralized state, with the monarch having the positions of [[head of state]], [[head of government]], head of the judiciary, [[commander in chief]] of the armed forces, and high priest of every temple. The monarch had several titles, the most well known being from the Greek derived “[[Pharaoh]]” (Egyptian: pr-aA, reconstructed as Per-‘a), though the more common Egyptian title was nsw-bity (Nesu-Bity), possibly translated as “[[King of Upper and Lower Egypt]]"). Day to day administration was overseen by a [[vizier]] (Egyptian: TAty, reconstructed as Tjaty), and in some periods of Egyptian history two viziers were appointed, one for Upper and one for Lower Egypt, reflecting a duality present in much of the administration.

The treasury, likewise, reflected the natural separation of the country, though a single treasurer oversaw both “The Overseer of the Double Granaries” being a common title for this role.

From at least the New Kingdom, Egypt maintained a full time professional military force consisting of an army and naval fleet, as well as a separate police and patrol force, the mDAw (reconstructed as Medjay).

Labour for large scale state works was provided by the public under a corvee requirement. See: [[Labour in Ancient Egypt]].

== Economy ==
The economy of Ancient Egypt has sometimes been described as a command economy. There is insufficient information available to determine to exact what degree the state directed economic activity, but that it played a very large role in the economy is clear, and in keeping with the Egyptian doctrine that the land and it's resources belonged to the Pharaoh. The view of many scholars is that this position was more literally true in the Old Kingdom, and over time, as the population expanded and economy became more complex, more delegation and autonomy became necessary, and towards the end of Late Period land could be brought and sold by private individuals.

=== Agriculture ===
The bedrock of the Egyptian economy, and source of it’s wealth with irrigation assisted agriculture. The Nile valley was an almost perfect environment for agriculture to thrive, with abundant water, extremely rich and continually refreshed soil, and one of the only places where soil salinisation did not occur. The principal crops were emmer wheat, barely and flax, backed up by market gardening (onions, garlic, lettuce, cabbages etc). However a variety of luxury goods were also grown, and it is known the grapes for wine were cultivated, alongside orchards, almonds and olives, dates, and bee-keeping for honey. Animal rearing, particularly cattle ranching was also important.

=== Mining ===
Mining and quarrying were important state industries, supplying the raw material for tools and luxury goods. Egypt had abundant limestone, sandstone, granite gold and copper reserves, along with precious and semi precious gemstones. Quarrying was almost entirely a royal monopoly, but small scale private extraction by monarchs occurred in sites nearest to the river. (see A[[ncient Egyptian Mining]])

=== Trade ===
For most of Egyptian history international trade was a royal monopoly, and was enforced through a system of border checkpoints. Merchants mostly operated by acting as agents for the state and essentially treading on their behalf, and goods in international trade were taxed. Major transactions and contracts were put in writing, and records survive. In the Ptolemaic period, a sales tax was also levied.

From the time of unification onwards Egypt traded with her immediate neighbors in Nubia and southern Palestine, and by the 2nd Dynasty royal trading expeditions traded regularly with Bybos, a key Egyptian partner in foreign affairs throughout much of the Pharaonic period. Trade with Punt, a land generally regarded as lying in the region of Eritrea was established by the 5th Dynasty, if not earlier.

== Society ==
Egyptian society was deeply conservative and hierarchical. The pyramid analogy is perhaps over used to describe Egyptian society, but nonetheless remains accurate, with the Pharaoh at the apex, above the vizier and other prominent courtiers, some with seemingly trivial titles but great influence, such as Fan Bearers, Sandal Bearers, Seal Bearers etc.

Beneath these were the Great Nobles, followed by Egypt’s large bureaucracy and officialdom. Beneath them stood the artisans and craftsmen. At the bottom of society proper, and accounting for circa. 80% of the population, the farmers. In addition to this, as in all societies, there also existed the “classless” people. Convicts, captives and the unfree, as well as the desert nomads and oasis dwellers who lives within Egypt’s area of influence, but never entirely integrated into Egyptian society.

The place of the military fluctuated, from a minor an important role in the Old Kingdom, which fielded no standing army, to a prominent role in the New Kingdom, where the 19th Dynasty bloodline is descended from military routes.

== Legacy ==
It is generally held that Pharaonic civilization left behind no direct cultural decedents. The Egyptian language survived into Coptic, and much Egyptian iconographic conventions were adopted into the Christian religion, particularly the Coptic church. Some Egyptian loan words survive today in Egyptian Arabic, which is distinctly different to other dialects, and, particularly in Upper Egypt, a few folk customs also survived at least until the early 20th century. Besides this however, there is little continuity in traditions.

Indirectly, Pharaonic culture left huge contributions to the world. Egypt was the first true nation-state, laying the foundations upon which the modern world is built. The development of bureaucratic administration based on writing, education, merit based selection, are all found in Egyptian culture. Technologically, the use of finished stone for construction, the use of paper, the art of architectural design, site surveying etc are first noted in Egypt, and possibly the disposable drill bit marks the first use of multi part disposable tools.

Academically, the science of medicine in Egypt was well understood, and the Greeks, often considered the fathers of western medicine, acknowledged the Egyptians as the finest physicians in the known world.

== Ancient Egypt in Modern Culture ==
Thanks to the distinctive and instantly recognizable style of Egyptian artwork and hieroglyphs, as well as the keen sense of aesthetic that pervaded so many aspects of the culture, Egyptian culture has a high profile and is perhaps one of the most instantly recognizable ancient cultures, even to those with very little historical knowledge. Despite this, time has not been kind to the reputation of Pharaonic Egypt, and the civilization today is sometimes perceived as tyrannical, brutal, decadent and superstitious, a view reinforced by a fog of popular mis-information, urban myths, and pseudo-archaeology (sometimes referred to as Extreme Egyptology or Alternate Egyptology) that surrounds Pharaonic culture.

Despite this, television programs covering new discoveries or examine particular aspects of Egyptian history (sometimes in a way that is itself confused or mis-informed) still attract a keen following, and the lives and achievements of the Pharaonic era continues to support he economy of modern Egypt though tourism, one of the three biggest foreign exchange sources in Egypt today.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
* David, R (1998), ''Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt'', Facts on File, New York
* Dodson, A & Hilton, D (2004), ''Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt'', Thames & Hudson, London
* Gardiner, A (1957), ''Egyptian Grammar'' (3rd edition), Griffith Institute, Oxford
* Montet, P (1964), ''Eternal Egypt'', Wiedenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, UK
* Mysliwiec, K (2000), ''The First Millennium BCE: The Twilight of Ancient Egypt'' (Trans: Lorton, D), Cornell University Press, Itaca, NY and London
* Newby, P H (1980), ''Warrior Pharaohs : The Rise and Fall of the Egyptian Empire'', Guild Publishing, London
* Shaw, I et al. (2000), ''Oxford History of Ancient Egypt'', Oxford University Press, Oxford

[[Category:Ancient Egypt]]
[[Category:Egypt]]
[[Category:History]]

Ancient Egypt

2008-12-16T00:54:21Z

FernoKlump: format

The '''Ancient Egyptian''' civilisation flourished in the Nile Valley from the late 4th millennium BC, until it’s absorption into the [[Roman empire]] in 30BC. After this time Ancient Egyptian culture and religion continued to flourish in Egypt until a decree by the Byzantine emperor Justinian in the 6th century AD forced the closure of [[Philae]] Temple.

Pharaonic culture, statecraft, literature, law, religious belief, scientific and technological advantages left a profound legacy upon the world, in particular the [[Greek civilization]] which absorbed much Egyptian learning through the Ptolemaic metropolis of [[Alexandria]].

== Geography ==
Ancient Egypt was a culture focused around the [[Nile Valley]], and it was here the Predynastic confederacies and petty chieftains were finally united to begin the Dynastic period at the end of the forth millennium BC.

The Nile Valley had a profound impact upon Egyptian culture and thinking, and it’s natural boundaries of almost empty deserts to east and west, the first cataract in the south, and [[Mediterranean]] sea in the north fostered the early adoption of a nation-state identity. These boundaries also protected Egypt in times of strife elsewhere in the region. Despite this, Egypt was not an island, and traded with neighbours in [[Nubia]], [[Libya]] and the [[Levant]], as well as further afield.

Egypt’s climate varied over time and location, through during the Dynastic era was, as it is today, predominantly a [[desert climate]], with long, hot summers and short, relatively mild winters, with rainfall being insignificant, with a Mediterranean climate prevailing in the Delta and far north.

The inundation defined the seasons. The [[Nile]], swollen by rains in [[Ethiopia]], never failed to rise each summer, though the level of rise varied greatly. As it rose, the water spread over the flood plain, depositing large amounts of mud, silt and organic matter, laying down a nutrient rich layer, replenishing the soil and soaking it. For three months the water remained before retreating, leaving enough moisture in the ground that no further irrigation would be necessary on the first harvest. It was this inundation that would be the foundation for Egypt’s great wealth, built not on gold, but on grain.

== Chronology ==
Egyptian history is split up into distinct periods, with the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms separated from each other and the Late Period by so-called “Intermediate Periods”, times of disunity and apparent unrest, or of foreign occupation. All dates before the Late Period are circa, and when dealing with purely Egyptian issues, it is common to work only within a framework of reigns and dynasties, rather than absolute dates.

=== Old Kingdom ===
The [[Old Kingdom]] covers Dynasties 3 to 6 (circa 2800 – 2186 BC). Although it has been argued by some that it should include Dynasties 1 – 3, and by others that it should only cover Dynasties 4 – 6, though 3 to 6 is the most widely accepted, beginning as it does with the revolutionary architecture of [[Djoser]].

The Old Kingdom is in many ways the zenith of the [[Divine Kingship]], and sees Pharaonic culture at it’s most confident and powerful, expressed in this periods most famous monuments, the Giza [[Pyramids]].

During this period the Egyptian state developed an all encompassing and highly organised bureaucracy, organised into a strictly hierarchical and highly centralised structure dominated by the [[Pharaoh]], who exercised an extremely high degree of control over resources.

The Old Kingdom came to an end in circumstances that are far from clear, but seem to be linked to the extremely long rule of Pepi II, at 96 years, the longest reigning monarch in history.

Following this, Egypt lapsed into a period of national fragmentation, lasting approximately 105 years.

=== Middle Kingdom ===
The [[Middle Kingdom]] saw Egypt re-unified under the 11th Dynasty, a royal line from Thebes, following by the northern 12th Dynasty who maintained a royal capital at [[Lisht]].

The Middle Kingdom sees the Egyptian nation engage for the first time in serious warfare. Under the great military Pharaohs [[Sensuret I]] and [[Senusret III]], Egypt annexed Lower Nubia, fixing a realm of Egyptian domination that extended south of the Second Cataract for the first time in history, reinforced by a series of fortresses with an unprecedented degree of sophistication.

A similar chain of fortresses secured the [[Sinai]] peninsula and Eastern delta, known as the [[Horus Road]] and [[Walls of the Ruler]]. These secured the overland route to [[Asia]], and defended the boarder. Despite this military strength, only a single expedition into Asia itself was carried out,

The grim work of re-unification and securing the borders left an indelible mark of the ideology of the period. Literature of the time often harks back to the chaos of the 1st Intermediate Period, and the ideal of importance of loyalty to, and adoration of, the ruler is also a strong theme.

Statuary of the time shows the great Pharaohs of the period with serious, stern expressions, showing a human side that planned and fought long and hard to reunify a fractured nation and to push on to new boundaries deep into hostile territory. This signaled a break with the past, and the future, for both the [[Old Kingdom]] and all successive periods (with the exception of [[Amarna]]) showing the Pharaoh in the traditional manner, in a state of divine serenity.

The [[Middle Kingdom]] met it’s end in the mid-13th Dynasty, as foreign influence permeated the heavily defended Sinai, eventually providing the momentum for an Asiatic dynasty to seize the Delta and Middle Egypt, and hold it for approximately 100 years.

=== New Kingdom ===
The [[New Kingdom]] is often called Egypt’s “Age of Empire”. Following the war of Reunification led by the 17th Dynasty, [[Ahmose I]] finally managed to liberate and reunify Egypt, founding the [[18th Dynasty]] and the [[New Kingdom]] in approximately 1500BC.

The Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty re-invented the Egyptian military forces, adopting the most advanced weapons of the day. Egyptian tactics were also revolutionized, becoming highly innovative. Many Egyptian campaigns of this period are regarded as military genius, with [[Thutmose III]] being regarded by most as the “[[Napoleon]] of Egypt”. These campaigns ultimately created a sprawling and varied Egyptian empire, stretching from [[Gebel Barkal]] to the [[Euphrates]], and a zone of influence far beyond.

It was at the height of this time of greatness that Egypt was plunged into turmoil. The heretical ruler, [[Amunhotep IV]], changed his name to [[Akhenaten]] and embraced a corrupted form of the Solar Cult as an absolutist [[monotheistic]] belief. Traditional temples were closed, and the capital city moved to a desert plain in Middle Egypt, where a new capital was established, named [[Akhetaten]]. Akhenaten died after 17 years on the throne, and both his cult and capital both died with him.

The Egyptian empire proved resilient to such trauma, and the traditional New Kingdom capital and cults were immediately restored, and the empire remained essentially unchallenged in Asia until the time of [[Ramesses III]] in the 20th Dynasty, and maintained it’s grip on Nubia until the fall of the New Kingdom at the close of the 20th Dynasty.

=== Late Period ===
It was with a sense of irony, that the impetus for re-unifying Egypt and rebuilding her former power would come from Nubia. The 25th Dynasty advanced out of their base at [[Napata]], and secured all of [[Upper Egypt]] by a process of gradual conquest, winning recognition from local nomarchs and forming a confederacy. The Assyrians, with their vassals in the Delta, were alarmed, advanced south and sacked [[Thebes]]. However, the example had been made, and with the help of Greek mercenaries, [[Psamtik I]] of [[Sais]] freed himself from his [[Assyrian]] overlord, and reunified Egypt.

The 26th Dynasty harked back to the O[[ld Kingdom]] for it’s inspiration, in art religion and ideals of Kingship, and the period is often referred to as the “[[Saite Renaissance]]” or “Archaic Renaissance”.

The [[Late Period]] saw increased contact with the Hellenic world, with many Greek mercenaries serving in the Egyptian military, and a Greek merchants settling in the purpose built trading center of [[Naukratis]]. This ultimately proved fatal, and in 525 BC, [[Persian]] forces, with a large number of Greek mercenaries conquered Egypt following the defection of a key Egyptian mercenary commander, [[Phanes of Hallicarnassus]].

Egypt liberated herself from Perisan rule in 404BC, bringing to power the 29th and 30th Dynasties, the last sustained period of Egyptian native rule. The second Persian occupation was much more brief, lasting just over a decade from 343BC until the invasion of [[Alexander]] in 332BC.

=== Ptolemaic Period ===
Alexander put an end to the second Persian occupation in 332BC. Having secured Egypt, he traveled to the Oracle of [[Amun]] in [[Siwa]] Oasis, where the oracle pronounced him the Son of Amun, and legitimate ruler of Egypt. He also visited [[Memphis]], the traditional administrative capital of Egypt and centre of the cult of [[Ptah]]. These acts won him the respect of some of the Egyptian elite. Alexander also decided to develop a port on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast. He chose the coastal town of [[Ra-Kedet]], which would be redeveloped into the metropolis of [[Alexandria]], serving to link Egypt to his empire.

Following Alexander’s death, control of Egypt fell first of all to [[Phillip Arrhideaus]], then [[Alexander IV]], before passing to [[Ptolemy I]], a former general of Alexander. His decedents would rule Egypt with greatly varying degrees of success until the death of [[Cleopatra VII]] in 30BC. Although sometimes thought of as a period of unity equivalent to the New Kingdom, the Ptolemaic period was often highly unstable and wracked by rebellion. Ptolemaic rule became increasingly exploitative, thought the dynasty kept a superficial adherence to Egyptian religious and social traditions that ensured support, or at least neutrality, of the priesthood.

See also: [[Ptolemaic Period]] the [[Great Egyptian Revolt]].

=== Roman/Byzantine/Coptic Period ===
Roman rule attempted to integrate Egypt into the trading system of the [[Roman empire]], utilizing the wealth and productivity of Egyptian agriculture to supply the Rome and it’s army, and became increasingly exploitative, leading [[Rome]] to maintain three legions in the country. Traditional Roman tolerance of other religions and ways of life also assisted their moves to consolidate control, but administrative reforms did not help the gradual decline brought about by over exploitation, unrest, and Rome’s problems elsewhere. The rise of [[Christianity]] led to further pressures, and by the time of the [[Arab]] invasion, Egypt had become depopulated, with most of her cities lying abandoned.

== Government ==
Throughout the Dynastic Period, Egypt was an [[absolute monarchy]], ruled by a monarch regarded as divine. Egypt was a centralized state, with the monarch having the positions of [[head of state]], [[head of government]], head of the judiciary, [[commander in chief]] of the armed forces, and high priest of every temple. The monarch had several titles, the most well known being from the Greek derived “[[Pharaoh]]” (Egyptian: pr-aA, reconstructed as Per-‘a), though the more common Egyptian title was nsw-bity (Nesu-Bity), possibly translated as “[[King of Upper and Lower Egypt]]"). Day to day administration was overseen by a [[vizier]] (Egyptian: TAty, reconstructed as Tjaty), and in some periods of Egyptian history two viziers were appointed, one for Upper and one for Lower Egypt, reflecting a duality present in much of the administration.

The treasury, likewise, reflected the natural separation of the country, though a single treasurer oversaw both “The Overseer of the Double Granaries” being a common title for this role.

From at least the New Kingdom, Egypt maintained a full time professional military force consisting of an army and naval fleet, as well as a separate police and patrol force, the mDAw (reconstructed as Medjay).

Labour for large scale state works was provided by the public under a corvee requirement. See: [[Labour in Ancient Egypt]].

== Economy ==
The economy of Ancient Egypt has sometimes been described as a command economy. There is insufficient information available to determine to exact what degree the state directed economic activity, but that it played a very large role in the economy is clear, and in keeping with the Egyptian doctrine that the land and it's resources belonged to the Pharaoh. The view of many scholars is that this position was more literally true in the Old Kingdom, and over time, as the population expanded and economy became more complex, more delegation and autonomy became necessary, and towards the end of Late Period land could be brought and sold by private individuals.

=== Agriculture ===
The bedrock of the Egyptian economy, and source of it’s wealth with irrigation assisted agriculture. The Nile valley was an almost perfect environment for agriculture to thrive, with abundant water, extremely rich and continually refreshed soil, and one of the only places where soil salinisation did not occur. The principal crops were emmer wheat, barely and flax, backed up by market gardening (onions, garlic, lettuce, cabbages etc). However a variety of luxury goods were also grown, and it is known the grapes for wine were cultivated, alongside orchards, almonds and olives, dates, and bee-keeping for honey. Animal rearing, particularly cattle ranching was also important.

=== Mining ===
Mining and quarrying were important state industries, supplying the raw material for tools and luxury goods. Egypt had abundant limestone, sandstone, granite gold and copper reserves, along with precious and semi precious gemstones. Quarrying was almost entirely a royal monopoly, but small scale private extraction by nomarchs occurred in sites nearest to the river. (see A[[ncient Egyptian Mining]])

=== Trade ===
For most of Egyptian history international trade was a royal monopoly, and was enforced through a system of border checkpoints. Merchants mostly operated by acting as agents for the state and essentially treading on their behalf, and goods in international trade were taxed. Major transactions and contracts were put in writing, and records survive. In the Ptolemaic period, a sales tax was also levied.

From the time of unification onwards Egypt traded with her immediate neighbors in Nubia and southern Palestine, and by the 2nd Dynasty royal trading expeditions traded regularly with Bybos, a key Egyptian partner in foreign affairs throughout much of the Pharaonic period. Trade with Punt, a land generally regarded as lying in the region of Eritrea was established by the 5th Dynasty, if not earlier.

== Society ==
Egyptian society was deeply conservative and hierarchical. The pyramid analogy is perhaps over used to describe Egyptian society, but nonetheless remains accurate, with the Pharaoh at the apex, above the vizier and other prominent courtiers, some with seemingly trivial titles but great influence, such as Fan Bearers, Sandal Bearers, Seal Bearers etc.

Beneath these were the Great Nobles, followed by Egypt’s large bureaucracy and officialdom. Beneath them stood the artisans and craftsmen. At the bottom of society proper, and accounting for circa. 80% of the population, the farmers. In addition to this, as in all societies, there also existed the “classless” people. Convicts, captives and the unfree, as well as the desert nomads and oasis dwellers who lives within Egypt’s area of influence, but never entirely integrated into Egyptian society.

The place of the military fluctuated, from a minor an important role in the Old Kingdom, which fielded no standing army, to a prominent role in the New Kingdom, where the 19th Dynasty bloodline is descended from military routes.

== Legacy ==
It is generally held that Pharaonic civilization left behind no direct cultural decedents. The Egyptian language survived into Coptic, and much Egyptian iconographic conventions were adopted into the Christian religion, particularly the Coptic church. Some Egyptian loan words survive today in Egyptian Arabic, which is distinctly different to other dialects, and, particularly in Upper Egypt, a few folk customs also survived at least until the early 20th century. Besides this however, there is little continuity in traditions.

Indirectly, Pharaonic culture left huge contributions to the world. Egypt was the first true nation-state, laying the foundations upon which the modern world is built. The development of bureaucratic administration based on writing, education, merit based selection, are all found in Egyptian culture. Technologically, the use of finished stone for construction, the use of paper, the art of architectural design, site surveying etc are first noted in Egypt, and possibly the disposable drill bit marks the first use of multi part disposable tools.

Academically, the science of medicine in Egypt was well understood, and the Greeks, often considered the fathers of western medicine, acknowledged the Egyptians as the finest physicians in the known world.

== Ancient Egypt in Modern Culture ==
Thanks to the distinctive and instantly recognizable style of Egyptian artwork and hieroglyphs, as well as the keen sense of aesthetic that pervaded so many aspects of the culture, Egyptian culture has a high profile and is perhaps one of the most instantly recognizable ancient cultures, even to those with very little historical knowledge. Despite this, time has not been kind to the reputation of Pharaonic Egypt, and the civilization today is sometimes perceived as tyrannical, brutal, decadent and superstitious, a view reinforced by a fog of popular mis-information, urban myths, and pseudo-archaeology (sometimes referred to as Extreme Egyptology or Alternate Egyptology) that surrounds Pharaonic culture.

Despite this, television programs covering new discoveries or examine particular aspects of Egyptian history (sometimes in a way that is itself confused or mis-informed) still attract a keen following, and the lives and achievements of the Pharaonic era continues to support he economy of modern Egypt though tourism, one of the three biggest foreign exchange sources in Egypt today.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
* David, R (1998), ''Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt'', Facts on File, New York
* Dodson, A & Hilton, D (2004), ''Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt'', Thames & Hudson, London
* Gardiner, A (1957), ''Egyptian Grammar'' (3rd edition), Griffith Institute, Oxford
* Montet, P (1964), ''Eternal Egypt'', Wiedenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, UK
* Mysliwiec, K (2000), ''The First Millennium BCE: The Twilight of Ancient Egypt'' (Trans: Lorton, D), Cornell University Press, Itaca, NY and London
* Newby, P H (1980), ''Warrior Pharaohs : The Rise and Fall of the Egyptian Empire'', Guild Publishing, London
* Shaw, I et al. (2000), ''Oxford History of Ancient Egypt'', Oxford University Press, Oxford

[[Category:Ancient Egypt]]
[[Category:Egypt]]
[[Category:History]]

Ancient Egypt

2008-12-16T00:53:43Z

FernoKlump: sp

The '''Ancient Egyptian''' civilisation flourished in the Nile Valley from the late 4th millennium BC, until it’s absorption into the [[Roman empire]] in 30BC. After this time Ancient Egyptian culture and religion continued to flourish in Egypt until a decree by the Byzantine emperor Justinian in the 6th century AD forced the closure of [[Philae]] Temple.

Pharaonic culture, statecraft, literature, law, religious belief, scientific and technological advantages left a profound legacy upon the world, in particular the [[Greek civilization]] which absorbed much Egyptian learning through the Ptolemaic metropolis of [[Alexandria]].

== Geography ==
Ancient Egypt was a culture focused around the [[Nile Valley]], and it was here the Predynastic confederacies and petty chieftains were finally united to begin the Dynastic period at the end of the forth millennium BC.

The Nile Valley had a profound impact upon Egyptian culture and thinking, and it’s natural boundaries of almost empty deserts to east and west, the first cataract in the south, and [[Mediterranean]] sea in the north fostered the early adoption of a nation-state identity. These boundaries also protected Egypt in times of strife elsewhere in the region. Despite this, Egypt was not an island, and traded with neighbours in [[Nubia]], [[Libya]] and the [[Levant]], as well as further afield.

Egypt’s climate varied over time and location, through during the Dynastic era was, as it is today, predominantly a [[desert climate]], with long, hot summers and short, relatively mild winters, with rainfall being insignificant, with a Mediterranean climate prevailing in the Delta and far north.

The inundation defined the seasons. The [[Nile]], swollen by rains in [[Ethiopia]], never failed to rise each summer, though the level of rise varied greatly. As it rose, the water spread over the flood plain, depositing large amounts of mud, silt and organic matter, laying down a nutrient rich layer, replenishing the soil and soaking it. For three months the water remained before retreating, leaving enough moisture in the ground that no further irrigation would be necessary on the first harvest. It was this inundation that would be the foundation for Egypt’s great wealth, built not on gold, but on grain.

== Chronology ==
Egyptian history is split up into distinct periods, with the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms separated from each other and the Late Period by so-called “Intermediate Periods”, times of disunity and apparent unrest, or of foreign occupation. All dates before the Late Period are circa, and when dealing with purely Egyptian issues, it is common to work only within a framework of reigns and dynasties, rather than absolute dates.

=== Old Kingdom ===
The [[Old Kingdom]] covers Dynasties 3 to 6 (circa 2800 – 2186 BC). Although it has been argued by some that it should include Dynasties 1 – 3, and by others that it should only cover Dynasties 4 – 6, though 3 to 6 is the most widely accepted, beginning as it does with the revolutionary architecture of [[Djoser]].

The Old Kingdom is in many ways the zenith of the [[Divine Kingship]], and sees Pharaonic culture at it’s most confident and powerful, expressed in this periods most famous monuments, the Giza [[Pyramids]].

During this period the Egyptian state developed an all encompassing and highly organised bureaucracy, organised into a strictly hierarchical and highly centralised structure dominated by the [[Pharaoh]], who exercised an extremely high degree of control over resources.

The Old Kingdom came to an end in circumstances that are far from clear, but seem to be linked to the extremely long rule of Pepi II, at 96 years, the longest reigning monarch in history.

Following this, Egypt lapsed into a period of national fragmentation, lasting approximately 105 years.

=== Middle Kingdom ===
The [[Middle Kingdom]] saw Egypt re-unified under the 11th Dynasty, a royal line from Thebes, following by the northern 12th Dynasty who maintained a royal capital at [[Lisht]].

The Middle Kingdom sees the Egyptian nation engage for the first time in serious warfare. Under the great military Pharaohs [[Sensuret I]] and [[Senusret III]], Egypt annexed Lower Nubia, fixing a realm of Egyptian domination that extended south of the Second Cataract for the first time in history, reinforced by a series of fortresses with an unprecedented degree of sophistication.

A similar chain of fortresses secured the [[Sinai]] peninsula and Eastern delta, known as the [[Horus Road]] and [[Walls of the Ruler]]. These secured the overland route to [[Asia]], and defended the boarder. Despite this military strength, only a single expedition into Asia itself was carried out,

The grim work of re-unification and securing the borders left an indelible mark of the ideology of the period. Literature of the time often harks back to the chaos of the 1st Intermediate Period, and the ideal of importance of loyalty to, and adoration of, the ruler is also a strong theme.

Statuary of the time shows the great Pharaohs of the period with serious, stern expressions, showing a human side that planned and fought long and hard to reunify a fractured nation and to push on to new boundaries deep into hostile territory. This signaled a break with the past, and the future, for both the [[Old Kingdom]] and all successive periods (with the exception of [[Amarna]]) showing the Pharaoh in the traditional manner, in a state of divine serenity.

The [[Middle Kingdom]] met it’s end in the mid-13th Dynasty, as foreign influence permeated the heavily defended Sinai, eventually providing the momentum for an Asiatic dynasty to seize the Delta and Middle Egypt, and hold it for approximately 100 years.

=== New Kingdom ===
The [[New Kingdom]] is often called Egypt’s “Age of Empire”. Following the war of Reunification led by the 17th Dynasty, [[Ahmose I]] finally managed to liberate and reunify Egypt, founding the [[18th Dynasty]] and the [[New Kingdom]] in approximately 1500BC.

The Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty re-invented the Egyptian military forces, adopting the most advanced weapons of the day. Egyptian tactics were also revolutionized, becoming highly innovative. Many Egyptian campaigns of this period are regarded as military genius, with [[Thutmose III]] being regarded by most as the “[[Napoleon]] of Egypt”. These campaigns ultimately created a sprawling and varied Egyptian empire, stretching from [[Gebel Barkal]] to the [[Euphrates]], and a zone of influence far beyond.

It was at the height of this time of greatness that Egypt was plunged into turmoil. The heretical ruler, [[Amunhotep IV]], changed his name to [[Akhenaten]] and embraced a corrupted form of the Solar Cult as an absolutist [[monotheistic]] belief. Traditional temples were closed, and the capital city moved to a desert plain in Middle Egypt, where a new capital was established, named [[Akhetaten]]. Akhenaten died after 17 years on the throne, and both his cult and capital both died with him.

The Egyptian empire proved resilient to such trauma, and the traditional New Kingdom capital and cults were immediately restored, and the empire remained essentially unchallenged in Asia until the time of [[Ramesses III]] in the 20th Dynasty, and maintained it’s grip on Nubia until the fall of the New Kingdom at the close of the 20th Dynasty.

=== Late Period ===
It was with a sense of irony, that the impetus for re-unifying Egypt and rebuilding her former power would come from Nubia. The 25th Dynasty advanced out of their base at [[Napata]], and secured all of [[Upper Egypt]] by a process of gradual conquest, winning recognition from local nomarchs and forming a confederacy. The Assyrians, with their vassals in the Delta, were alarmed, advanced south and sacked [[Thebes]]. However, the example had been made, and with the help of Greek mercenaries, [[Psamtik I]] of [[Sais]] freed himself from his [[Assyrian]] overlord, and reunified Egypt.

The 26th Dynasty harked back to the O[[ld Kingdom]] for it’s inspiration, in art religion and ideals of Kingship, and the period is often referred to as the “[[Saite Renaissance]]” or “Archaic Renaissance”.

The [[Late Period]] saw increased contact with the Hellenic world, with many Greek mercenaries serving in the Egyptian military, and a Greek merchants settling in the purpose built trading center of [[Naukratis]]. This ultimately proved fatal, and in 525 BC, [[Persian]] forces, with a large number of Greek mercenaries conquered Egypt following the defection of a key Egyptian mercenary commander, [[Phanes of Hallicarnassus]].

Egypt liberated herself from Perisan rule in 404BC, bringing to power the 29th and 30th Dynasties, the last sustained period of Egyptian native rule. The second Persian occupation was much more brief, lasting just over a decade from 343BC until the invasion of [[Alexander]] in 332BC.

=== Ptolemaic Period ===
Alexander put an end to the second Persian occupation in 332BC. Having secured Egypt, he traveled to the Oracle of [[Amun]] in [[Siwa]] Oasis, where the oracle pronounced him the Son of Amun, and legitimate ruler of Egypt. He also visited [[Memphis]], the traditional administrative capital of Egypt and centre of the cult of [[Ptah]]. These acts won him the respect of some of the Egyptian elite. Alexander also decided to develop a port on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast. He chose the coastal town of [[Ra-Kedet]], which would be redeveloped into the metropolis of [[Alexandria]], serving to link Egypt to his empire.

Following Alexander’s death, control of Egypt fell first of all to [[Phillip Arrhideaus]], then [[Alexander IV]], before passing to [[Ptolemy I]], a former general of Alexander. His decedents would rule Egypt with greatly varying degrees of success until the death of [[Cleopatra VII]] in 30BC. Although sometimes thought of as a period of unity equivalent to the New Kingdom, the Ptolemaic period was often highly unstable and wracked by rebellion. Ptolemaic rule became increasingly exploitative, thought the dynasty kept a superficial adherence to Egyptian religious and social traditions that ensured support, or at least neutrality, of the priesthood.

See also: [[Ptolemaic Period]] the [[Great Egyptian Revolt]].

=== Roman/Byzantine/Coptic Period ===
Roman rule attempted to integrate Egypt into the trading system of the [[Roman empire]], utilizing the wealth and productivity of Egyptian agriculture to supply the Rome and it’s army, and became increasingly exploitative, leading [[Rome]] to maintain three legions in the country. Traditional Roman tolerance of other religions and ways of life also assisted their moves to consolidate control, but administrative reforms did not help the gradual decline brought about by over exploitation, unrest, and Rome’s problems elsewhere. The rise of [[Christianity]] led to further pressures, and by the time of the [[Arab]] invasion, Egypt had become depopulated, with most of her cities lying abandoned.

== Government ==
Throughout the Dynastic Period, Egypt was an [[absolute monarchy]], ruled by a monarch regarded as divine. Egypt was a centralized state, with the monarch having the positions of [[head of state]], [[head of government]], head of the judiciary, [[commander in chief]] of the armed forces, and high priest of every temple. The monarch had several titles, the most well known being from the Greek derived “[[Pharaoh]]” (Egyptian: pr-aA, reconstructed as Per-‘a), though the more common Egyptian title was nsw-bity (Nesu-Bity), possibly translated as “[[King of Upper and Lower Egypt]]"). Day to day administration was overseen by a [[vizier]] (Egyptian: TAty, reconstructed as Tjaty), and in some periods of Egyptian history two viziers were appointed, one for Upper and one for Lower Egypt, reflecting a duality present in much of the administration.

The treasury, likewise, reflected the natural separation of the country, though a single treasurer oversaw both “The Overseer of the Double Granaries” being a common title for this role.

From at least the New Kingdom, Egypt maintained a full time professional military force consisting of an army and naval fleet, as well as a separate police and patrol force, the mDAw (reconstructed as Medjay).

Labour for large scale state works was provided by the public under a corvee requirement. See: [[Labour in Ancient Egypt]].

== Economy ==
The economy of Ancient Egypt has sometimes been described as a command economy. There is insufficient information available to determine to exact what degree the state directed economic activity, but that it played a very large role in the economy is clear, and in keeping with the Egyptian doctrine that the land and it's resources belonged to the Pharaoh. The view of many scholars is that this position was more literally true in the Old Kingdom, and over time, as the population expanded and economy became more complex, more delegation and autonomy became necessary, and towards the end of Late Period land could be brought and sold by private individuals.

=== Agriculture ===
The bedrock of the Egyptian economy, and source of it’s wealth with irrigation assisted agriculture. The Nile valley was an almost perfect environment for agriculture to thrive, with abundant water, extremely rich and continually refreshed soil, and one of the only places where soil salinisation did not occur. The principal crops were emmer wheat, barely and flax, backed up by market gardening (onions, garlic, lettuce, cabbages etc). However a variety of luxury goods were also grown, and it is known the grapes for wine were cultivated, alongside orchards, almonds and olives, dates, and bee-keeping for honey. Animal rearing, particularly cattle ranching was also important.

=== Mining ===
Mining and quarrying were important state industries, supplying the raw material for tools and luxury goods. Egypt had abundant limestone, sandstone, granite gold and copper reserves, along with precious and semi precious gemstones. Quarrying was almost entirely a royal monopoly, but small scale private extraction by nomarchs occurred in sites nearest to the river. (see A[[ncient Egyptian Mining]])

=== Trade ===
For most of Egyptian history international trade was a royal monopoly, and was enforced through a system of border checkpoints. Merchants mostly operated by acting as agents for the state and essentially treading on their behalf, and goods in international trade were taxed. Major transactions and contracts were put in writing, and records survive. In the Ptolemaic period, a sales tax was also levied.

From the time of unification onwards Egypt traded with her immediate neighbors in Nubia and southern Palestine, and by the 2nd Dynasty royal trading expeditions traded regularly with Bybos, a key Egyptian partner in foreign affairs throughout much of the Pharaonic period. Trade with Punt, a land generally regarded as lying in the region of Eritrea was established by the 5th Dynasty, if not earlier.

== Society ==
Egyptian society was deeply conservative and hierarchical. The pyramid analogy is perhaps over used to describe Egyptian society, but nonetheless remains accurate, with the Pharaoh at the apex, above the vizier and other prominent courtiers, some with seemingly trivial titles but great influence, such as Fan Bearers, Sandal Bearers, Seal Bearers etc.

Beneath these were the Great Nobles, followed by Egypt’s large bureaucracy and officialdom. Beneath them stood the artisans and craftsmen. At the bottom of society proper, and accounting for circa. 80% of the population, the farmers. In addition to this, as in all societies, there also existed the “classless” people. Convicts, captives and the unfree, as well as the desert nomads and oasis dwellers who lives within Egypt’s area of influence, but never entirely integrated into Egyptian society.

The place of the military fluctuated, from a minor an important role in the Old Kingdom, which fielded no standing army, to a prominent role in the New Kingdom, where the 19th Dynasty bloodline is descended from military routes.

== Legacy ==
It is generally held that Pharaonic civilization left behind no direct cultural decedents. The Egyptian language survived into Coptic, and much Egyptian iconographic conventions were adopted into the Christian religion, particularly the Coptic church. Some Egyptian loan words survive today in Egyptian Arabic, which is distinctly different to other dialects, and, particularly in Upper Egypt, a few folk customs also survived at least until the early 20th century. Besides this however, there is little continuity in traditions.

Indirectly, Pharaonic culture left huge contributions to the world. Egypt was the first true nation-state, laying the foundations upon which the modern world is built. The development of bureaucratic administration based on writing, education, merit based selection, are all found in Egyptian culture. Technologically, the use of finished stone for construction, the use of paper, the art of architectural design, site surveying etc are first noted in Egypt, and possibly the disposable drill bit marks the first use of multi part disposable tools.

Academically, the science of medicine in Egypt was well understood, and the Greeks, often considered the fathers of western medicine, acknowledged the Egyptians as the finest physicians in the known world.

== Ancient Egypt in Modern Culture ==
Thanks to the distinctive and instantly recognizable style of Egyptian artwork and hieroglyphs, as well as the keen sense of aesthetic that pervaded so many aspects of the culture, Egyptian culture has a high profile and is perhaps one of the most instantly recognizable ancient cultures, even to those with very little historical knowledge. Despite this, time has not been kind to the reputation of Pharaonic Egypt, and the civilization today is sometimes perceived as tyrannical, brutal, decadent and superstitious, a view reinforced by a fog of popular mis-information, urban myths, and pseudo-archaeology (sometimes referred to as Extreme Egyptology or Alternate Egyptology) that surrounds Pharaonic culture.

Despite this, television programs covering new discoveries or examine particular aspects of Egyptian history (sometimes in a way that is itself confused or mis-informed) still attract a keen following, and the lives and achievements of the Pharaonic era continues to support he economy of modern Egypt though tourism, one of the three biggest foreign exchange sources in Egypt today.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
* David, R (1998), ''Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt'', Facts on File, New York
* Dodson, A & Hilton, D (2004), ''Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt'', Thames & Hudson, London
* Gardiner, A (1957), ''Egyptian Grammar'' (3rd edition), Griffith Institute, Oxford
* Montet, P (1964), ''Eternal Egypt'', Wiedenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, UK
* Mysliwiec, K (2000), ''The First Millennium BCE: The Twilight of Ancient Egypt'' (Trans: Lorton, D), Cornell University Press, Itaca, NY and London
* Newby, P H (1980), ''Warrior Pharaohs : The Rise and Fall of the Egyptian Empire'', Guild Publishing, London
* Shaw, I et al. (2000), ''Oxford History of Ancient Egypt'', Oxford University Press, Oxford

[[Category:Ancient Egypt]]
[[Category:Egypt]]
[[Category:History]]

Ahmose I

2008-12-16T00:51:03Z

FernoKlump: sp

'''Ahmose I''', also spelt Amosis I, from the Egyptian iaHms, or "[[Iah]] is born". An Egyptian [[Pharaoh]], and founder of the [[18th Dynasty]], who completed the reunification of [[Egypt]] and the expulsion of the [[Hyksos]], ending the [[Second Intermediate period]], and beginning the [[New Kingdom]].

His reign is estimated to have been around 25 years, with approximate dates been c.1550 - 1500 BC, during which time he ended the [[Hyksos]] occupation, united the nobility, and laid the foundations for the period of Egypt's greatest period as a empire, and [[Bronze Age]] super-power, securing strategic sites in Nubia and the Levant.

The [[archaeology|archaeological]] record shows him to also have been a great builder, active through the country and deep into Nubia, and constructing the last royal [[pyramid]] complex, located in [[Abydos]].

== Family Background ==

Ahmose was descended from the [[17th dynasty]] line of Theban rulers who ruled Upper [[Egypt]] during the [[Hyksos]] occupation, and a son of [[Ta'a II]], and ultimately from the dynastic matriarch, [[Tetisheri]], reverence for whom was shown throughout the early [[18th Dynasty]], and lived into the time of Ahmose's reign.

It used to be believed the his predecessor, [[Kamose]], was his elder brother, but the current view is this may be inaccurate, and that Kamose was more likely been a brother of Ta'a II, who came to the throne when Ta'a II was killed in battle, and Ahmose too young to effectively rule at such a critical time.

He took [[Ahmose-Nefertari]], his sister, as his principal wife, and both she and his mother would be key figures during his reign, and prominent players in state affairs, being the first two holders of the post of [[God's Wife of Amun]]. Ahmose-Nefertari outlived Ahmose, and continued to play a part in the reign of their son, [[Amunhotep I]].

== Early Campaigns ==

We are left with a good account of some of the campaigns of Ahmose from the tomb of one of his military commanders, Ahmose, son of Ebana. Following his rise to the throne, there was a lull in the war, as the Hyksos also had a new ruler, [[Khamudi]], following the death of Apepi.

When hostilities resumed, Ahmose bypassed the Hyksos stronghold of [[Avaris]], pressing north to [[Heliopolis]]. Within three months had had advanced to [[Tjaru]], the Egyptian border fortress on eastern edge of the Delta. The Hyksos were now essentially cut off from their homeland and only feasible route of retreat. This done, Ahmose made his move against Avaris itself.

The battle for Avaris appears to have been a drawn out affair, with the Egyptians having to adapt to new military technologies they had only recently adopted from the Hyksos, namely the [[chariot]] and an early version of the [[composite bow]].

Ahmose son of Ebana records the initial clash being naval, with him aboard the [[warship]] "Northerner" before a ground campaign conducted with chariots and on foot, before two more naval campaigns, and a final land campaign "to the south of this town".

Classical sources say the war itself ended with a negotiated settlement upon which the Hyksos would leave Egypt, but the exact situation is unknown for certain. In either case, the Egyptian exploited the situation to the full, as event post-unification attest. Egypt was now essentially unified, but not yet at peace.

== Post Re-unification ==

Following the Hyksos expulsion, Ahmose pressed southward into [[Nubia]], where local chiefs had sided with the Hyksos as part of a an earlier Hyksos initiative to defeat the 17th Dynasty Upper Egyptian state by forcing the rulers to fight on two fronts simultaneously. The exact order of events here is unclear, and it is possible Ahmose was forced to do just this, as (possibly) at the same time his armies also advanced out into the [[Levant]], engaging in three year siege of [[Sharuhen]], which was ultimately captured. The Nubian campaign was also successful.

Possibly immediately following this, two dissident groups emerge, one under [[Aata]], in the south, and possibly again a Nubian, and an Egyptian group led by a dissident named [[Tetian]], whom Bourriau argues may well have been leading a group of northern minor Princes, who had served the Hyksos and now feared for their position. Ahmose son of Ebana writes tellingly of the seriousness with which Ahmose regarded this rebellion:

<blockquote>
Then came that foe named Tetian. He had gathered the malcontents together. His Majesty slew him; his troop was wiped out. Then I was given three persons and five arurae of land in my town
</blockquote>

Whilst the death of a rebel leader was the only acceptable punishment for such a character in Egypt, the slaying of his entire troop is extremely uncharacteristic, the norm being to conscript them into the service of the Pharaoh's army.

However, ultimately all rebellions were dealt with, and the last five years of the reign of Ahmose would be dedicated to building. Later in his reign, he also appears to have established trading relations deeper in the Levant, cut off by the Hyksos occupation, trading with [[Byblos]], an ally since the Early Dynastic period, and [[Phoenicia]].

== Monuments and Archaeology ==

Ahmose began a large number of building projects across Egypt and deep into Nubia. Activity to his reign has been recorded at [[Avaris]], [[Buhen]], [[Heliopolis]], [[Karnak]], [[Memphis]] and in particular, [[Abydos]], where he constructed the last royal pyramid, along with a valley temple and a cenotaph to his ancestor, [[Tetisheri]]. The pyramid complex was first excavated by the Egypt Exploration Fund between 1899 and 1902, with work carried out by Arthur Mace. However, a much more detailed excavation has been conducted in recent years by Steven Harvey, which has given us the first depictions of chariot warfare and horses in Egypt, imagery of archers and captives, including vividly preserved colours.

In Avaris, Ahmose demolished the Hyksos [[fortifications]] and [[palaces]], and rebuilt them, constructing a palace for himself on the same site. This palace is curious, featuring frescos of [[Minoan]] origin that indicate a deep knowledge of Minoan beliefs, leading some to speculate that Ahmose had a secondary wife who was of Minoan origin. There is no firm evidence of this, however. At present, the decorative scheme remains unexplained, though it is possible settlers from earlier periods remained in the city and served under Ahmose as artists.

The actual tomb of Ahmose has not yet been located. Though a single, well made shabti figure from his burial lies in the British Museum, it is of unknown provenance. It is widely believed he was buried in Western [[Thebes]], along with his 17th Dynasty predecessors, with the pyramid complex at Abydos acting as a cenotaph. Though Harvey has not ruled out a burial at Abydos, this seems unlikely. His mummy was discovered in the Deir El Bahri cache in 1881 in an excellent state of preservation, and now rests in the Luxor Museum, alongside some of the burial goods of Ahhotep I which contained his cartouche. However, there is some doubt over whether or not the body is actually that of Ahmose I.

== References ==

<div class="references-small">
* Borreau, J (2000), The Second Intermediate Period in: Shaw, I (Ed.), ''The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt'', OUP, Oxford
* Dodson, A and Hilton, D (2004), ''The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt'', Thames & Hudson, London
* Lichtheim, M (1976), ''Ancient Egyptian Literature Vol. II : The New Kingdom'', University of California Press, Los Angeles
* Newby, P H (1980), ''Warrior Pharaohs : The Rise and Fall of the Egyptian Empire'', Guild Publishing, London
* Harms, W (2003), Abydos: A Place With Many Stories to Tell, ''University of Chicago Chronicle'', Vol 23 #6

[[Category:Pharaohs]]

Sunni

2008-12-16T00:49:39Z

FernoKlump: sp (I hope that I didn't change British spelling to American spelling by mistake)

'''Sunnis''' (from Ahl As Sunnah W'l Jama'h) form the largest group in the [[Islamic]] [[faith]], accounting for approximately 85% of all [[Muslims]] globally, the Shia accounting for the majority of the remainder.

== Schools of Thought ==

Sunni Muslims have four schools of [[jurisprudence]] (Madhab), which are not shared with the [[Shia]] sect. Though they have different interpretations of specific points of detail, such as particular aspects of [[Syariah]], there is agreement on the major aspects of the faith. Sunni’s generally regard as schools as equally valid, and it is not generally a matter of friction between believers as to which school they follow.

=== Maliki ===

The father of the Maliki school, [[Malik Ibn Anas]] (715 – 796AD), is perhaps the only one of the founding fathers of the schools of thought to have had a major political disagreement with government of the early Islamic empire, when he was flogged then paraded through the streets of the city by the Governor of Madinah for condemning divorces made under coercion by one party over the other. The father of the Shafi’i school was, in fact, a student of his. This school is the most widely followed in Africa, with the notable exception of Egypt and the Horn of Africa region. It is the second oldest school.

Notable teachings of the Maliki school:

* Prayer is begun by starting directly with [[Al Fatiha]] (the opening chapter of the [[Qu’ran]]), without any initial supplications, as is done by almost all other Muslims.

=== Hanafi ===

Founded by [[Abu Hanifa]], originally from modern day Iraq. This school of those is most widely followed in Central and South Asia, as well as [[Turkey]] and former [[Ottoman]] areas of South Eastern [[Europe]]. It is the oldest of the four schools. A few notable aspects of Hanafi doctrine are given below:

* The Hanafi school teaches that "Faith neither increases nor decreases" and that "Actions are not a part of faith". Therefore a sinful Muslim is still just as much a Muslim as a law abiding one, though much less likely to be granted access to paradise. However they commit a serious offense by claiming that such sins are permitted within Islam.

* Travelers are not permitted to alter the times of their prayers, as in other schools.

* It is permissible to recite verses from the Qu’ran during prayer in languages other than [[Arabic]], provided one does not know the Arabic language.

=== Hanbali ===

Founded by [[Ahmad Bin Hanbal]] (780 – 855AD), a student of Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi’i. This school is the youngest, and is mostly concentrated in the [[Arabian Peninsula]], with the exception of [[Yemen]], and Sunni areas around the [[Arabian Gulf]]. Notable teachings:

* Hanbali teaching holds the opposite of Hanfi teaching, insisting that actions are NOT separate from faith.
* Explicit statement that the [[Abrahamic God]] (Arabic: [[Allah]]) is entirely separate from his creation, rejecting a [[Pantheistic]] interpretation.

=== Shafi’i ===
Founded by Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi’i (767 – 820 AD), who taught initially in what is now modern-day Iraq, but mostly in Egypt, and whom had Ahmad Bin Hanbal as one of his students. The Shafi’ite school is the second youngest of the Madhab, and is most widely followed in Egypt, the Levant, Yemen, the Horn of Africa and South East Asia, including Indonesia, the world’s most populous Islamic nation, with 0.25 billion people. This also makes it the second largest school.
The Shafi’i school is considered to be one of the most moderate and tolerant of schools, particularly in Egypt and South East Asia where Islamic beliefs have been adopted without the destruction of underlying cultural and pre-existing religious customs and traditions.

== Use of Hadeeth ==

All school founders made use of the Hadeeth in reaching their positions on matters of fiqh, and some of the schools made extensive contributions to the major hadeeth now in use, [[Sahih Bukhari]] and [[Sahih Muslim]], considered the most reliable collections by Sunni theologians today. In addition, the following Hadeeth collections are also used. The Shia sect use an entirely different collection.

* Al-Sunan al-Sughra
* Sunan Abi Dawuud
* Sunan al-Tirmidhi
* Sunan Ibn Maja / Al-Muwatta

== Differences With Shia Beliefs ==

Conflicts between Sunni and Shia sects stem from the dispute over the sucession following the death of [[Muhammed]] as head of the fledgling [[First Caliphate]] (also known as the “[[Rashidun Caliphate]]”). The Sunnis agreed that [[Abu Bakr]] should succeed to the throne, as chosen by a process of Shura (consultation), whereas the Shia position was that [[Ali]], son-in-law and cousin of Muhammad was the rightful successor, by divine ordination. The Sunnis were victorious in this dispute.

Though Ali did become the 4th Caliph (and final ruler of the First Caliphate) Shias regard him as the First Imam (and rightful successor of Muhammad). Today Shias regard that the rightful leader of the ‘Ummah (the global Islamic community, equivalent to the concept Christendom for [[Christians]]) should be the Imamah, who is a direct descendant though Muhammed’s bloodline. Two main sub-sects within the Shia community differ over who this is at present.

The Sunni and Shia differ over the nature of the [[Mahdi]], a figure whom will return to bring about a perfect and just Islamic society. Most Shia hold this will be the [[12th Imam]], [[Mohammed Al Mahdi]], and will signal the beginning of the end of humankind. Sunnis believe it will be a bloodline descendant of Mohammed, but will not bring about the end.
Shia religious practices includes many ceremonies and rituals equivalent to the Christian [[Passion Plays]] or Egyptian [[Mystery Rituals]], whereas Sunni practice tends to be more “grounded”, focusing on adherence to Islamic teachings.

Shia beliefs permit the elevation of certain mortals to a quasi-divine plane, such as the 12th Imam and other people who hold a role similar to saints in Christianity or [[Akhu]] in Egyptian religion. Sunni religion technically has no equivalent of this, though in many regions (particularly in South East Asia and North Africa) the distinctions much less clear, and indeed shrines and celebrations to such people exist throughout Sunni areas of North Africa and South East Asia, and often attract enthusiastic crowds.

== Current Sunni – Shia Relations ==

The sectarian bloodletting in Iraq that followed the invasion has greatly strained Sunni – Shia relations in general. However, for much of the 20th century, relations between the two were stable, as both Sunni states in the Middle East / North Africa and Shia Iran, but particularly Turkey, were undergoing rapid secularization. Religious conservatives of both Sunni and Shia loyalties therefore had a “common enemy”, and many Sunnis celebrated the 1979 overthrow of the secular Shah of [[Iran]] by the religious establishment, and the founding of a Shia [[Islamic Republic]]. However, underlying tensions already existed.

Those strains exploded soon after when secular but Sunni led Iraq came into direct conflict with the new Iranian government, and as secular [[Arab nationalism]] waned in importance following the collapse of the [[United Arab Republic]].

In [[Pakistan]] at the same time, an Islamisation programme led by General [[Zia Ul Haqq]]. Many Shia felt that this drive was also a way to “Sunnify” the government agenda, and Syariah laws were built upon Sunni fiqh.

[[Malaysia]], in the 1980’s embarked upon a much more modest and moderate drive to introduce Islamic principles to government, introducing Syariah family courts, again using Sunni fiqh. Malaysia ultimately went one step further, outlawing the public display of Shia religious practices and ideas, though the [[Malaysian constitution]] guarantees freedom of religion, making the enforceability of this law subject to question.

[[Iraq]], with it’s potentially explosive 60/40 Shia/Sunni population split had long been a potential internal powder-keg of religious intolerance, and matters finally came to a head in the power vacuum following the [[invasion of Iraq]] by western powers in 2003. The ensuring sectarian bloodletting has taken Sunni – Shia relations to modern low, not helped by mutual accusations of “interference” in local affairs by both Iran (Shia) and [[Syria]] (Sunni).

Underlying tensions also exist in other areas, particularly [[Lebanon]] and [[Saudi Arabia]], where an estimated 15% of the population are Shia, overwhelmingly in the east of the nation, leading the Saudi government to be cautious concerning Iranian political influence, so near it’s own sensitive regions.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
* Darul Arqam Singapore (Lecture)
* PERKIM Malaysia (Lecture)
* Al Jazeera English (Website)
* Arabs Raise a Nervous Cry Over Iranian Militancy, NYT, 21/12/92
* Neighbours cast a nervous eye on Iraq's future, Sunday Herald, 27/06/04
* The Times News Archive
* Oxford Reference Online

[[Category:Islam]]

Sunni

2008-12-16T00:47:19Z

FernoKlump: b + format

'''Sunnis''' (from Ahl As Sunnah W'l Jama'h) form the largest group in the [[Islamic]] [[faith]], accounting for approximately 85% of all [[Muslims]] globally, the Shia accounting for the majority of the remainder.

== Schools of Thought ==

Sunni Muslims have four schools of [[jurisprudence]] (Madhab), which are not shared with the [[Shia]] sect. Though they have different interpretations of specific points of detail, such as particular aspects of [[Syariah]], there is agreement on the major aspects of the faith. Sunni’s generally regard as schools as equally valid, and it is not generally a matter of friction between believers as to which school they follow.

=== Maliki ===

The father of the Maliki school, [[Malik Ibn Anas]] (715 – 796AD), is perhaps the only one of the founding fathers of the schools of thought to have had a major political disagreement with government of the early Islamic empire, when he was flogged then paraded through the streets of the city by the Governor of Madinah for condemning divorces made under coercion by one party over the other. The father of the Shafi’i school was, in fact, a student of his. This school is the most widely followed in Africa, with the notable exception of Egypt and the Horn of Africa region. It is the second oldest school.

Notable teachings of the Maliki school:

* Prayer is begun by starting directly with [[Al Fatiha]] (the opening chapter of the [[Qu’ran]]), without any initial supplications, as is done by almost all other Muslims.

=== Hanafi ===

Founded by [[Abu Hanifa]], originally from modern day Iraq. This school of those is most widely followed in Central and South Asia, as well as [[Turkey]] and former [[Ottoman]] areas of South Eastern [[Europe]]. It is the oldest of the four schools. A few notable aspects of Hanafi doctrine are given below:

* The Hanafi school teaches that "Faith neither increases nor decreases" and that "Actions are not a part of faith". Therefore a sinful Muslim is still just as much a Muslim as a law abiding one, though much less likely to be granted access to paradise. However they commit a serious offence by claiming that such sins are permitted within Islam.

* Travellers are not permitted to alter the times of their prayers, as in other schools.

* It is permissible to recite verses from the Qu’ran during prayer in languages other than [[Arabic]], provided one does not know the Arabic language.

=== Hanbali ===

Founded by [[Ahmad Bin Hanbal]] (780 – 855AD), a student of Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi’i. This school is the youngest, and is mostly concentrated in the [[Arabian Peninsula]], with the exception of [[Yemen]], and Sunni areas around the [[Arabian Gulf]]. Notable teachings:

* Hanbali teaching holds the opposite of Hanfi teaching, insisting that actions are NOT separate from faith.
* Explicit statement that the [[Abrahamic God]] (Arabic: [[Allah]]) is entirely separate from his creation, rejecting a [[Pantheistic]] interpretation.

=== Shafi’i ===
Founded by Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi’i (767 – 820 AD), who taught initially in what is now modern-day Iraq, but mostly in Egypt, and whom had Ahmad Bin Hanbal as one of his students. The Shafi’ite school is the second youngest of the Madhab, and is most widely followed in Egypt, the Levant, Yemen, the Horn of Africa and South East Asia, including Indonesia, the world’s most populous Islamic nation, with 0.25 billion people. This also makes it the second largest school.
The Shafi’i school is considered to be one of the most moderate and tolerant of schools, particularly in Egypt and South East Asia where Islamic beliefs have been adopted without the destruction of underlying cultural and pre-existing religious customs and traditions.

== Use of Hadeeth ==

All school founders made use of the Hadeeth in reaching their positions on matters of fiqh, and some of the schools made extensive contributions to the major hadeeth now in use, [[Sahih Bukhari]] and [[Sahih Muslim]], considered the most reliable collections by Sunni theologians today. In additon, the following Hadeeth collections are also used. The Shia sect use an entirely different collection.

* Al-Sunan al-Sughra
* Sunan Abi Dawuud
* Sunan al-Tirmidhi
* Sunan Ibn Maja / Al-Muwatta

== Differences With Shia Beliefs ==

Conflicts between Sunni and Shia sects stem from the dispute over the sucession following the death of [[Muhammed]] as head of the fledgling [[First Caliphate]] (also known as the “[[Rashidun Caliphate]]”). The Sunnis agreed that [[Abu Bakr]] should succeed to the throne, as chosen by a process of Shura (consultation), whereas the Shia position was that [[Ali]], son-in-law and cousin of Muhammad was the rightful successor, by divine ordination. The Sunnis were victorious in this dispute.

Though Ali did become the 4th Caliph (and final ruler of the First Caliphate) Shias regard him as the First Imam (and rightful successor of Muhammad). Today Shias regard that the rightful leder of the ‘Ummah (the global Islamic community, equivalent to the concept Christendom for [[Christians]]) should be the Imamah, who is a direct descendent though Muhammed’s bloodline. Two main sub-sects within the Shia community differ over who this is at present.

The Sunni and Shia differ over the nature of the [[Mahdi]], a figure whom will return to bring about a perfect and just Islamic society. Most Shia hold this will be the [[12th Imam]], [[Mohammed Al Mahdi]], and will signal the beginning of the end of humankind. Sunnis believe it will be a bloodline descendent of Mohammed, but will not bring about the end.
Shia religious practices includes many ceremonies and rituals equivalent to the Christian [[Passion Plays]] or Egyptian [[Mystery Rituals]], whereas Sunni practice tends to be more “grounded”, focusing on adherence to Islamic teachings.

Shia beliefs permit the elevation of certain mortals to a quasi-divine plane, such as the 12th Imam and other people who hold a role similar to saints in Christianity or [[Akhu]] in Egyptian religion. Sunni religion technically has no equivalent of this, though in many regions (particularly in South East Asia and North Africa) the distinctions much less clear, and indeed shrines and celebrations to such people exist throughout Sunni areas of North Africa and South East Asia, and often attract enthusiastic crowds.

== Current Sunni – Shia Relations ==

The sectarian bloodletting in Iraq that followed the invasion has greatly strained Sunni – Shia relations in general. However, for much of the 20th century, relations between the two were stable, as both Sunni states in the Middle East / North Africa and Shia Iran, but particularly Turkey, were undergoing rapid secularisation. Religious conservatives of both Sunni and Shia loyalties therefore had a “common enemy”, and many Sunnis celebrated the 1979 overthrow of the secular Shah of [[Iran]] by the religious establishment, and the founding of a Shia [[Islamic Republic]]. However, underlying tensions already existed.

Those strains exploded soon after when secular but Sunni led Iraq came into direct conflict with the new Iranian government, and as secular [[Arab nationalism]] waned in importance following the collapse of the [[United Arab Republic]].

In [[Pakistan]] at the same time, an Islamisation programme led by General [[Zia Ul Haqq]]. Many Shia felt that this drive was also a way to “Sunnify” the government agenda, and Syariah laws were built upon Sunni fiqh.

[[Malaysia]], in the 1980’s embarked upon a much more modest and moderate drive to introduce Islamic principles to government, introducing Syariah family courts, again using Sunni fiqh. Malaysia ultimately went one step further, outlawing the public display of Shia religious practices and ideas, though the [[Malaysian constitution]] guarantees freedom of religion, making the enforceability of this law subject to question.

[[Iraq]], with it’s potentially explosive 60/40 Shia/Sunni population split had long been a potential internal powder-keg of religious intolerance, and matters finally came to a head in the power vacuum following the [[invasion of Iraq]] by western powers in 2003. The ensuring sectarian bloodletting has taken Sunni – Shia relations to modern low, not helped by mutual accusations of “interference” in local affairs by both Iran (Shia) and [[Syria]] (Sunni).

Underlying tensions also exist in other areas, particularly [[Lebanon]] and [[Saudi Arabia]], where an estimated 15% of the population are Shia, overwhelmingly in the east of the nation, leading the Saudi government to be cautious concerning Iranian political influence, so near it’s own sensitive regions.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
* Darul Arqam Singapore (Lecture)
* PERKIM Malaysia (Lecture)
* Al Jazeera English (Website)
* Arabs Raise a Nervous Cry Over Iranian Militancy, NYT, 21/12/92
* Neighbours cast a nervous eye on Iraq's future, Sunday Herald, 27/06/04
* The Times News Archive
* Oxford Reference Online

[[Category:Islam]]

Jesus Christ

2008-12-16T00:36:59Z

FernoKlump: Undo revision 587712 by Marcopeterson (Talk) vandalism

[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|''"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."'' —Jesus (Rev. 22:13)]]
'''Jesus Christ''' is the only Son of [[God]] and prophesied [[Messiah]] who, at the appointed time, was sent by His [[God the Father|Father]] and became a man to be the payment for the penalty of sin that separated us from [[God]] and to reveal to us the loving nature of God through his human person (1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). Although He was sinless, he bore the penalty for sin upon Himself for us.

Speaking to his disciples, Jesus says,
{{cquote|'''John 14:1-15''' Believers will be in his Father's house Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. “And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus himself is the only way people can access his Father and his Father's house Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you know Jesus, you know his Father “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.}}

By the power of the [[Holy Spirit]], Jesus was conceived in the [[womb]] of the virgin [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], and became man in an event known as the [[Incarnation]], as referred to in Isaiah 7:14. Indeed, the calendar itself reflects this truth, with the traditional calculation of Jesus’ birth marking the first century A.D., that is, "''in the year of Our Lord…''." The [[John the Apostle|apostle John]] wrote in his gospel the following regarding Jesus Christ: "''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life''" (John 3:16).
{{trinity}}
When he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by [[John the Baptist]], inaugurating his ministry. Jesus of [[Nazareth]] is the Christ or Messiah, prophesied in the [[Old Testament]] (Greek: Χριστός; [[Aramaic]]: 'משיחא'). Jesus proclaimed that “[t]he time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the Gospel.”<ref>Mark 1:14-15.</ref> As signs of these truths, Jesus performed various miracles.

However, not all who heard the Lord believed in him, and, because he “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”, some sought to put him to death.<ref>John 5:18.</ref> Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor [[Pontius Pilate]] and crucified. But it was through his redemptive death, as the [[Holy Scripture|scriptures]] had foretold, that Jesus reconciled mankind with God.<ref>Romans 5:10.</ref> And so, on the third day, in a truly historical event, Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him. Indeed, his very name, ''Yeshua'' (Hebrew 'יהושע') means "[[Salvation]]" and is the concatenated form of ''Yahoshua'', ‘[[YHWH]] is salvation’. After appearing to his disciples on various occasions, Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he acts as our mediator, assuring, by his constant intercession, the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

== Jesus' Life ==
===Incarnation of the Son of God===

The Son of God, who was always with the Father before all creation, took upon himself flesh, that is, become a human being, taking the flesh of manhood from his mother Mary but without her being impregnated by any man. He was born of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John begins,<blockquote>"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... and the Word become flesh and dwelt among us"</blockquote>. There are two understandings of this. Though both hold that the Son of God, Divinity Himself, became a man, they understand differently the beginning of the Gospel of John.

The first understanding sees in the Son of God being the Word ("logos" in Greek) that He is the communication of the Father and thus in some sense the purpose of His coming was to mediate the knowledge of God to man among whom He would dwell and be one with them. But as mediator He is in no way inferior to the God He communicates because He Himself is God. The Trinity is emphasized though by implication (the word "Trinity" is of later usage to describe the phenomenon as presented by the New Testament). This understanding rests upon the use of "logos" in Philo and elsewhere meaning "reason", "word", "rationale"

The second interpretation, while in no way negating His coming to be the communication of the Father to man necessitating the incarnation and explicating the Trinity, rather says that we need to look not to Philo and the "logos" philosophy but to the Aramaic Jewish thought of the time. Doing so, we can see that the Gospel of John intends to rip away a veil, and in doing so, will show us that it was God Himself and no mediator, that leaped down to take the form of a human being, and that this is to be spoken of boldly.

Here is how this second understanding is developed:

The Hebrew text is very clear in visualizing the God of Israel in physical terms, even if meant to be understood metaphorically. But the Aramaic Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures will not allow it to be so presented, but will rather speak around it (paraphrase) or use an intermediary word between the physical description and God. In [[Genesis]] 32, [[Jacob]] is wrestling with "a man" but after the bout, Jacob says, in the original Hebrew text, "I have seen God face to face and my life has been saved". In the Aramaic translation, however, Jacob is made to say, " I have seen the ''angel of God'' face to face and my life has been saved". At times, the intermediary word is the word "Word" - in Aramaic, Memra (the root is Aleph, Mem, Resh as in the Hebrew word 'Omer). Whereas the Hebrew text (Gen. 3:8) has it, "They ([[Adam]] and [[Eve]]) heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden", the Aramaic has it, "they heard the sound of ''the Memra'' of the LORD God walking about in the garden" Apparently, walking about in the garden conjured up too much of rustling of leaves and bushes to take figuratively, and so it was the "Memra" that was heard and not the LORD God. This is the pattern in other places in Genesis. Prof. David Flusser of the Hebrew University notes that it is to this mindset that we owe our understanding of John 1:1 and not to Philo and the Alexandrian "logos" philosophy. "In the beginning was the Word (Memra) and the Word (Memra) was with God.. and the Word (Memra) was God. John 1:1 is meant to rip away the distinction between God and the Memra, so assiduously held to by contemporary Judaism, and so declare that they, the Memra and God, are in reality one, ...and this One has, indeed, come down and has become flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. John, in his epistle would later say in wonderment, " Whom we have handled, we have touched and held Him."

=== Infancy ===
The [[Gospels]] tell us that Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] of [[Judea]] to a young virgin named [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], by the [[Holy Spirit]].<ref>http://objectiveministries.org/babyj/</ref> [[Gospel of Luke|Luke's account]] of the gospel relates that the angel [[Gabriel]] visited Mary in order to announce that she had been chosen to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26–38). A survey of the [[Roman Empire]] was ordered by [[Augustus|Caesar Augustus]], which caused Mary and [[Joseph (father of Jesus)|Joseph]] to leave Nazareth and go to the home of Joseph's forebears - to the house of [[David|King David]]. After Jesus' birth, they were forced to use a [[manger]] for a crib because the town's inn was full. According to Luke 2:8–20, an [[angel]] spread word of Jesus' birth to several shepherds who came to visit the newborn. Matthew also tells of the "Magi" ([[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrian]] priests) who brought many gifts to the infant Jesus (among which were [[gold]], [[frankincense]], and [[myrrh]])<ref>Note: This has led to the incorrect assumption that there were only three Magi, whereas the actual number is not given.</ref> after following a star which they believed was an indication that the [[Messiah]], or King of the Jews, had been born.

Jesus' early home was the town of [[Nazareth]] in [[Galilee]], and except for an escape to [[Egypt]] in early childhood to avoid [[Herod the Great|Herod's]] massacre of the other male infants, all other events in the Gospels take place in ancient Israel.

====The Infancy and the Massacre of the Innocents====

Within sight of the southern suburbs of Modern Jerusalem,towards the eastern desert, is a conical hill, Herodium, made conical by the work of Herod the King. Herodium served as his fortress in the time of war and as royal residence for himself and visiting dignitaries in the time of peace. Mazada by the dead sea served him in the same way. From this bastion were sent by him his soldiers to slay all the children under the age of two of Bethlehem, in full view of Herodium looking south. This was in hopes that in the slaughter of all, he would also slay the child, indicated by the star and the Magi, as his rival to the throne and power. And so, escaping, Joseph and Mary took the child Jesus to Egypt until it was time, at the death of Herod, for him to make exodus back into the Holy Land and Nazareth. "Out of Egypt have I called My Son" The fury and the hatred for one child, thus saw the slaying of so many of the innocents of Bethlehem whose only guilt was that they were under 2. And so, we know now the Massacre of the Innocents

Beyond this slaughter of so many and hatred for the One who had come, the Book of the Revelation, Chapter 12 would see another and ancient hatred, whether understood or not, one that works behind all other slaying, behind the slaying of all infants, within and without the womb - hatred for the very Son of God, and hatred for all his seed that bear His image, hatred for the Image of God borne by the Son of God, and hatred for God Himself.

=== At Twelve Years Old ===
The account of Jesus' parents finding him in the temple impressing the "teachers" with his knowledge of the [[Old Testament|scripture]] is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life that is known.
{{cquote|'''Luke 2:41–51''' Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of the Feast; and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it, but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day’s journey; and they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem looking for Him. Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers. When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.}}

At this early age of twelve years old, there is clearly shown an inner positional or relational commitment of Jesus. Nor is there any indication that this had not been present prior to His twelfth year. His deepest belonging, that against which all other belongings were to be judged, confirmed, rejected, etc. was to the Father, the Father's House, the Father's concerns. This commitment would reverberate at later times, severing ultimate claims on Him of his closest - mother, brothers, sisters, etc. In the presence of these and to their hearing, He would ask, "Who are my mother, and brothers, and sisters? He that does the will of my Father in Heaven is ..." This, in His own life, was the moral authority to demand the same of all others, "You cannot serve two masters..." The memory of what had happened in the Temple when He was twelve, pondering it in her heart, would stand Mary in good stead, when she would see her son hanging on the cross. She also would be found with the disciples in the upper room, praying, and waiting for the coming of the Spirit which He had promised.

====From Heaven's View====
But seen from heaven, a spark had entered into the Temple's precints..

and around that the time, there was to evolve the extra biblical ceremony and practice of Judaism, which woud try to make sense of the need to be anchored into the ancient tradition of God, with the need to make new for every generation the relevance of it for each Jewish youth. And so developed the Bar Mitzvah, the "Son of the Law" ceremony and concept. At the age of 13, a Jewish boy, so it developed, would read or sing out in the synagogue, the Shabbat of his birthday, the prophetic portion (the Haftorah) for that Sabbath assigned to the Torah portion (from the 5 books of Moses, read consecutively), raining down upon him from the Women's Section (Ezrat Nashim) - the Help of Women) above or to the side, hard sweet candy signifying the hope of sweetness set before him. For at that time, the Jewish boy becomes a Jewish man, taking upon himself, the obligations for fulfilling the Law of Moses, and is no longer absolved from this responsibility by the mediation of his father's fullfilment of the Law of Moses for him.

At this time, seen from Heaven, a spark entered in, another way, sometimes seen in other young boys and girls, but in a dim way, an intense concentration on the Father above all things and people, looking and judging all surrounding him from the viewpoint of Him flooding the soul, listening, speaking, believing.
So Jesus reasoned with the rabbis, never being encompassed by them, in the house of His Father. Was it told to us showing what He was and what we could be, or at least, learn to follow in His steps, or was it shown to us to allow us to view another step in His being made perfect, growing in favor with God and Man, totally consumed with the doing of His Father's will, and thus, "being made perfect", to take our place upon the Cross, for our sakes and for our salvation?

=== Ministry ===
==== Baptism ====
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus' Baptism]]
The [[gospel of Mark]] begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

'''The meaning of Baptism for Jesus:'''

Jesus insisted over the protests of John that He be baptized at the hands of John. John's protests are natural enough as John's baptism was for those who were sinners, and implied in baptism was the understanding that the baptizer was somehow greater than the one baptized. John believed that he needed to be baptized by Jesus and not the other way around. But Jesus' understanding of His being baptized was two-fold:"Baptism" meant suffering unto death, and it implied that His impending mission was to be in behalf and in place of the real sinners, the humanity for whom He would die. Jesus would later use "baptism" in the first sense when he said to disciples, "Can you be baptized with the baptism which I will undergo?" The Spirit coming down on the Son in the form of a Dove (Yonah = "Jonah" in Hebrew), and the voice of the Father, "This is My Beloved Son" was the Divine empowerment, and authorization for Jesus' mission to come entailing His sacrificial death, three days, not in the belly of the fish, but in the bowels of the earth, and after that, resurrection. As Baptism for Jesus meant, looking forward, His joining sinful humanity to the point of bearing their sins to the death of the cross, so the later New Testament understands, looking backward, that sinners believing in Jesus are also to join Him in His death through the waters of baptism "in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" - according to the command of the Risen Christ. See [[Christianity]] for Jesus' self consciousness.

==== Temptation ====
After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and tried three times to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[Gospel of John|John]] describes three different [[passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

'''The reason behind the Temptation:'''

The Temptation occurred just as told in the Gospels. But behind the happening, another message lies revealing the identity of Jesus to a people who would understand it. At the foothill of Mt. Hermon, in between the servile Roman infatuated people of Tiberius to the south west of the Sea of Galilee, and the rabidly nationalistic, anti- Roman Zealots of Gamla to the north east, Jesus asked His disciples who He was. The Messiah, the Son of the Living God, was the answer. And Jesus explained who He was and why he had come in terms that fit their experience - not to rule and throw out the Romans, nor to uphold their ways and laws but rather something on a different plane all together - to give His life settling it on the cross.

To a later believing people, those who were not Jewish, who He was would be understood in terms fitting to who they were - He had come the Second Adam, to give His life and to provide new life to those who were not Jewish, but also including the Jews, to all the lost and wandering children of Adam.

In the Temptation, it is the those who knew the Old Testament, the physical children of Abraham primarily, who could see in the long range, and not primarily dictated to by the political passions of the moment, and who could wonder who they were and where they had gone wrong, and wonder also who would be the One to take them out. It is they, Israel, who had been in the wilderness for 40 years, and they that had succumbed to the temptations of selling out for food and drink, though they were a "Son" whom God with a strong arm and outstretched hand had taken out of the bondage of Egypt, they had turned traitor, driven by their own lust and pride. And here now, in Jesus, was One who resisted the devil in the wilderness, also "for forty", preferring the will of God as His food rather than all the world could offer, Who was He? He was Israel! The only true one left, the faithful remnant spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, the servant true to the end. As the letter to the Hebrews saw, "Though He were a Son yet learned He obedience by the things He suffered, and being made perfect, He become the author of Eternal life...". This is the understanding of the Gospel of Matthew, in interpreting a passage from Hosea which was manifestly speaking of Israel the people and applying it to Jesus who also came out of Egypt with His parents at the death of Herod, " Out of Egypt have I called my Son". Who was Jesus? He was Israel who had ''not'' failed come to redeem Israel who had, and also out of all the peoples of the world.

==== Disciples and Apostles ====
[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|thumb|left|100px|Jesus Christ (Artist's impression)]]
The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[apostles]], although all of his followers were considered [[disciples of Jesus|disciples]]. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and [[the parable of the sheep and the goats|the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.

'''Their choosing and their purpose:''' Among the many who came to Jesus, from afar and from the surrounding villages of the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, were those moved by his insight into the nature of life, or touched deeply by His seemingly knowing them from the inside, by His intimacy with the God and Father they had only known "about", or impressed by the miracles done before their very eyes, and many, by His deep compassion for the people, so evident in all that He did. Jesus would sprinkle His words upon them as seed in a path, some to take root, and some to be blown away by the wind. But to those who heard and wanted more, they would get that more, receiving explanation, and move closer to His association. Those that would not, would receive only that which was commensurate to not wanting - more parables, silence. Never the revealing of the "Secrets of the Kingdom". Yet, there was no prohibition and no limit for getting closer to Jesus. Those that did, became His "learners" - the disciples, understanding the meanings of His word by the demonstration of His life and putting them into practice. Among these were another group, some that had been with Him from early on, possibly some from the time of His baptism at the hands of John. These He would hold in His mind for an additional and different reason.

Then one night, he ascended a hill praying about them, and came down knowing who they were to be. 12 in number, chosen not because of their virtue, or even what He would do in them in the future, but rather solely chosen by His Father to be deputized, delegated, or commissioned by Jesus to be sent out for a mission. He gave them the name "Shaliach" (meaning all that), which was translated into Greek as "apostolos" and so our Apostles.

The mission of the Apostles (see "Example 5." of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]) was to do all that they saw Jesus was doing, healing the sick, raising the dead, and with all this, to tell about the fast coming Kingdom of Heaven, the rule of His Father, and urge people to repent and get ready for it. He gave them His power and authority to do all this. But it was to be 12 in number, not more and not less, that number surviving even the suicide of one of them, Judas from the village of Kyriot, requiring an "election" to bring back the number from 11 to 12. And that was because the special additional reason for their appointment was to sit on the 12 thrones of the 12 tribes of Israel (the sons of Jacob) and lead them by whatever it takes - that is the meaning of the biblical term "Judge" (Shofet)*. For the community of the "little ones"., was to be, in some sense, an Israel within Israel, or a new Israel, a sort of beachhead for the onslaught of the Kingdom of God in its invasion (or sometimes, infiltration into) into and onto the Kingdom of the unjust occupier and enemy of all Goodness, the Devil, to overthrow him and all his works. This truer and newer Israel, He called His "Called Out ones" (Eklessia=Church) against whose onslaught the Fortified city of Hell with its defensive bars to its massive gates, would not prevail. Many captives would be released. The Church, then, was the community counterpart to what was known as the "Synagogue" (Greek), meaning "gathered together ones" (Beit Knesset - house of the gathering, Hebrew). It was the Synagogue of Jesus the King and Messiah, and aligned with and the focal point of the Prophetically promised and hoped-for Kingdom of God and the rule of Heaven on Earth. And the disciples and apostles of Jesus all had their place in the unfolding of it all.

*Note: For the significance of sitting on the seat and judging, see Example 2. of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]].

==== Social Outcasts ====
Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publican ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).

Jesus showed no partiality toward outcasts, and neither did He do so to those who were in society. But being an outcast was a category beyond the reach of all others which were in society. Jesus was not for the male over against the female, the Jew over against the non Jew, townsman over against the man of the field. He was impartial and penetrating in His love for all. But all of these had a certain standing in Society, they were part of it, though all being in it, could vie for more of it as their share. But all were united, and could work in concert against what they were not - the outcast. The love of Jesus and the love of His Father through Him, could not rest lightly on any one of them, until it would reach and rest on the one beyond the fringes, the outer edges, and down below - the outcast. This demonstrated in the life of Jesus what the Cross would later show and the Apostles preach - all were outcast to the Holiness of God, and all could be loved by Him and, indeed, were.

==== Miracles ====
Throughout his ministry, Jesus performed many miracles including healing the sick and possessed, feeding 5000, and even raising from the dead.

Miracles were an intrusion of the ordinary, but the ordinary of a different and far-superior Kingdom, into the sordid and sin sick kingdoms of this world. They showed what life was really like there in that Kingdom which was coming and how weak, unstable, subject and cringing were the powers of this corrupted world, "bent" under the heel of God. That a widow should have her dead son restored to her alive, that outcasts such as lepers should be restored to the community, and as a result of their being healed, that darkness should give way to light and sight, that a woman deserving stoning find solace and forgiveness, all of these are the way things are and ought to be in the Kingdom of God because of the way He is. They were, at one and the same time, signs of the Kingdom which was coming and great works of compassion done here below which will never by surpassed or forgotten. And Jesus the Messiah was bringing them in!

Note: See Example 5 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]] for the assault and infiltration of God's Kingdom on and into the Kingdom of Satan.

==== His Preaching was Offensive to the Established Authority ====
As He preached, Jesus ran afoul of the [[Sanhedrin]], the recognized Jewish religious authorities, who were allowed to have considerable religious, political and monetary influence under Roman rule. Jesus chastised them, accusing them of making laws for the people to follow that were the laws of men, not God. The Sanhedrin tried to set traps for Jesus by asking Him questions to either discredit Him with the people or get Him in trouble with the Roman authorities, but all of their efforts failed and they gave up. They lacked the means to stop Jesus until [[Judas Iscariot]] came to them and offered to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He would tell them where Jesus would be that night so they could seize Him.

Notable among Jewish established authorities were the Pharasees, the Saduccees, and the Herodians.

The Pharisees, believing that at the time God had given to Moses the "written Torah" (Torah shebikhtav), He had also given to Moses an "Oral Torah" (Torah shebe'al peh) which would apply the written Torah to all situations and times, and that that Oral Torah had been handed down from generation to generation, finally, it itself written down, making, in the days of Jesus, the beginning of the Talmud. Thus it was necessary to be able to "fill in the rabbis" from whom the teaching came (see [[Judaism]]) - "Rabbi Tarfon says in the name of Rabbi..." But this man Jesus, goes straight to Moses, and straight to Heaven! ''"You have heard it said...but I say unto you..."'' and himself speaks as the ''Mouth of God!''

The Saduccees, not believing in an Oral Torah, and believing much of the written Torah to be irrelevant and impractical in the modern times that they lived, believed that the "blanks" and how the Torah was to be applied in these days, must be decided by the Kingdoms of the World, namely, Roman law and requirement. But this man Jesus speaks of another Kingdom and another King, and not of Rome!

The Herodians saw clearly who their enemy was and who their Savior was and wherein their safety lie - Herod the King of the Jews and all the aura and the might that he possessed. And their enemy was anyone who would claim, or live in the claim of others, that it was he that was the King of the Jews and not Herod (and the royalty after Herod) - such as was doing the man Jesus of Nazareth

Note: Judaism does not have a "unified" theory of Inspiration or practical authority of Scripture. That is, The most authoritative, and capable of being regulatory to life as "law" is the five books of Moses. After that, the Prophets. And after that, the "Writings." The Scripture of the Saduccees was just the Five books of Moses, and since there is little if anything about the resurrection from the dead and the after life in the the Five Books of Moses, they believed in neither. The Pharisees, believing in the on-going of revelation extending, though with lesser authority, to the Prophets (such as Daniel) and the Writings, believed in both.

=== Last Days of Jesus' Life ===
==== Lord's Supper ====
'''God and man at table are sat down:'''

It happened before - "Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu. and seventy elders of Israel. They saw the God of Israel...they gazed on God. They ate and they drank." Exodus 24: 9-11

It would happen after - "Now while He was with them at table, He took the bread and said the blessing, then He broke it and handed it to them. And their eyes were opened and recognized Him. But He had vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, Did not our hearts burn within us as He talked to us on the road, and explained the Scriptures to us?"Luke 24: 30-32

Eating before the Lord or with the Lord, would be used as the highest form of friendship - Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any one hears My voice and opens the door I will come in to him and share my meal with him, side by side.". Rev. 3:20.

At the [[Passover Seder]], the last meal the Lord would eat with His followers, His presence so permeated the atmosphere, and what He said and did at that special time, and especially they having received His command to do just what He was doing before them at this time, whenever they would meet together, the Apostles of the Lord and the Gospels after them could not speak of bountiful and miraculous times of the Lord's gracious giving of food feeding the multitudes, without mentioning that which otherwise would not have been mentioned - ''He took the bread, looked up to heaven blessing the bread, He broke the bread, and He gave it to them.'' That is what the Lord did before them, and that is what Hie commanded them to do after Him, and thus provided for them, and for the Church after them, the one of two universal services - the [[Lord's Supper]], or [[Eucharist]], or [[Holy Communion]].

But in addition, He gave His own particular understanding to the unleavened bread of the Passover and ceremonial cup of wine, the 3rd and "Thanksgiving cup" of wine drunk immediately after the Passover meal was eaten. In slightly varying words, the Gospels and the Church after would perpetuate that understanding by repeating what the Lord Himself said at that Last Supper - "This is My Body which is given for you... This is My blood, the blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you, and for the many, for the forgiveness of sins. Do this as my own Remembrance". And so He signified to His followers that His life would be given in sacrifice for them and for their benefit. How this benefit would be effected, would be explained by Jesus by other sayings, "Do not think that I have come in order to be served. I have not come to be served but rather to serve, and to give my life as a ransom for many."

But His presence remained with them at the continual celebration of this new Christian [[Passover]] of the Communion. Though He had vanished from their eyes as He would return to the Father, yet through the Spirit which He had promised to be in His stead, He was there with them to remain- "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I!"..." Even so, Come Lord Jesus!"

Note 1: The word Maranatha, comes from the Greek word which is translating the Aramaic which comes in two forms according to the accent given. Marana tha - "O our Lord, come!", and Maran atha - "Our Lord has come". This appears in the earliest liturgies of the Eucharist, and was used either as an invocation for the Lord to come, a sort of invite, or as an exclamation that the Lord has indeed come, just as He said He would. In either case, it was a witness to the belief that the Lord was indeed with them when they participated in the Remembrance which He had commanded.

Note 2; What the Lord said, "This is my body... This is my blood...Do this!" (the "Words of Institution", His instituting the Holy Communion until His coming again), is absent in the Gospel of John when recounting the last time of the Lord with His disciples. This is not an oversight, as the Gospel of John, from all contextual indications, has already spoken of the matter in the 6th chapter.

==== Garden of Gethsemane ====
[[Image:Jesus in Gethsemane.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jesus in Gethsamane]]
Jesus knew that His time was short and that He was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners. He had His last supper with his disciples and went with them to the [[Garden of Gethsemane]] and prayed vehemently knowing what was about to come.

Decision, certainty, from a distance is clearer and easier than when the time approaches for decision's implementation. That is because the here and now, leaves no room for imagining a rescue from all that is around us and in us. Leaving us confused or uncertain, needing assurance, or a once again revelation, of what it was that brought us to decision in the first place. John knowing from the beginning that his cousin Jesus was the promised Messiah, when years later, found himself in prison, and things not going the way he had expected, understood or hoped, required assurance that Jesus was really the One he had thought Him to be. Jesus responded forcefully and completely to that so human request - Tell John what you see, the dead are raised, the sick healed, and the poor are being told of the good news of the Kingdom of God. And it was enough.

Jesus, knowing why He had come, and that He was to mount the cross, to bear the sins of the world, knowing also what that must mean, He who had never "known" sin, now to know it in a way, that man could never know, man who all the time was in it, inured to it, accustomed to it, Jesus prayed. There was a movement in His prayer, taking on anew, the certainty and decision of old, feeling the enormity of it at close hand, and in the garden, he prayed three times, each time agonizing* dripping great drops of sweat, each time making movement in the direction from ''If there be another way, The Father knows and will show, but He would do whatever the Father wills'', towards ''being the Father's will, He would do it. There really is no other way''. And then it was done, He had settled it within Him anew, having prayed, and having received the deep silent Amen of the Father within His soul. It was enough. He was ready.

*note: "Agonize" of the text is from the Greek word "to struggle".

==== Tried before Jewish Authorities ====
Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. For the location of the Jewish trial, see Example 6 of [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==== Tried before Roman Authorities ====
As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demanded his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, and then gave the crowd a choice to either spare Jesus or a criminal called [[Barabbas]] as part of the passover tradition. The crowd chose to free Barabbas [Aramaic: "Son of a (the) Father") and Pilate washed his hands to signify that he bore no responsibility for Jesus' death before ultimately condemning Him to [[crucifixion]].<ref>Matthew 27: 15-44</ref>

==== Scourging ====
The penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging (flogging) with the Roman ''flagellum''. a short ox-hide whip knotted with pieces of zinc, lead, and bone which removed swaths of the victims' skin with every stroke. Although the Bible mentions the scourging of Jesus only very briefly, it must have been particularly brutal from the relatively short amount of time Jesus lingered on the cross after the punishment. Victims who suffered less blood loss from the scourging were known to remain alive on the cross for two or three days.

==== Death on a Cross ====
[[Image:David Christ on the Cross.jpg|right|thumb|Christ on the Cross by [[Jacques Louis David]].]]
Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit.

Behind the Cross was the sum total of all the maladies of mankind, that the Old Testament unveiled : Pesh'a - conscious and "high handed" rebellion, for which , under the Old Covenant, there was no forgiveness provided, Khet - an unintended "missing of the mark", as in the deviation from the bull's eye of the bowman, Shigi'a - the mistakes, some causing great harm to others, which come about by plain ignorance, and 'Avon "iniquity" or distortion - the inner twistedness, that causes failure and suffering, seemingly from the very structure of our persons regardless of our intent. These were the sins Godwards as well as towards man, and these are all, Scripture revealed, repugnant to the nature and standard of a Holy God.

On the Cross, in a way which is unfathomable to man, but nonetheless believable, the repugnance fell upon Jesus, the Son of God, and again in a way not fully understandable to us, but believable nonetheless, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not considering us the sinners but rather His own dear Son who had no taint upon Himself. A great transaction had taken place by the imposition of Himself of Christ in our place, absorbing, as if He were a blotter, all the reaction of a Holy God upon Himself, in our place, that we might go free. Unfair to Him, Mercy to us. Yet Jesus was not forced to do it. He did it both in His great love for us and in His obedience to the way that the Father had decided. "No one takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down...I lay down my life for the sheep". Peter would say, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." Paul would say, "He was made to be sin, He who did not "know" sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him". That was Friday.

On Saturday, when all were at Sabbath's rest, Jesus was not. His body dead, He passed in spirit to those that had died before, those in the period of Noah, and proclaimed, as Peter taught, what He had done. On Sunday, the first day of the week, He would rise from the dead.

The Cross of Christ, and the atonement He accomplished on it, is the very grounds that anyone who will be saved can be saved. The shedding of His blood brings salvation, to anyone who will respond, according to the ability that they have, that is given them. That brings forgiveness and acceptance, even welcome, to the murderer such as Paul, the adulteress such as the "woman taken in adultery", the tax-collecting extortionist, a seeker in the night turned believer, as hopefully Nicodemus proved to be, people that just know that they are sinners without any "grave sin" to specify, and also the "fetus" whose life was cut off in the womb as a "thing", and the severely retarded child banging his head in the institution he finds himself. All, according to the light given them, and repentance and turning to God given to them, will one day know just what was the basis for their salvation - the Cross of Christ. Those who reject, will also one day know the basis by which they could have been saved if they had not rejected - the Cross of Christ

=== Resurrection ===
:''See main article: [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ]]''
On the third day after his death, Jesus [[resurrection of Jesus Christ|rose bodily from the dead]].

Jesus' resurrection from the dead was no mere reassembling the molecules of His dead and disintegrating body, but it was a new union of His Spirit and body, in a way that could only be called by the Apostle Paul, in reference to ourselves, when we, in turn, following His pattern, a ''spiritual body''. Having risen from the dead, He was physical enough to eat and drink with His disciples, and we can assume to digest, as well as ingest, and to be touched and felt, having Thomas' hand thrust into His spear riven side, and yet, strangely not held by the physical laws of before, passing through the door to the room where the disciples were assembled, "Peace be upon you!", and to physically ascend, in the sight of all, from a location on the Mount of Olives into the presence of the Father In some way, even the disciples on the Road to Emmaeus, could not recognize Him, perhaps an aspect of the changed body, perhaps the power of the will of Jesus himself blinding them to the fact that It was He, until the breaking of the bread.
Jesus had risen, the stone unrolled, not to let Him out, but to let others in - to have the basis for their testimony, that He is risen indeed!
By the regaining of His life in the resurrection from the dead (Scripture asserts that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that this took place) Jesus was "certified" to the Church, and to all that would come after, that He was indeed the Son of God, that the verdict of death to Him given by men, was not so much overturned, but used in a far superior way by the Father to accomplish His will for redemption, and has given Him, at the last, ''vindication''.

And for mankind, its individuals in the millions through the centuries who had believed in Him, there came the certainty, that death was also not to be their end, that they too will arise with Jesus, that death, the annihilation of all, or a future only to be dreaded, was not to be their end, that the Presence of Jesus who had gone before them, was a welcoming one, that He had found a way, and now they would be with Him forever and ever, and with good hope for the sight of loved ones again. Death had been conquered and fear could be too.

In recent history, Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus]]. Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Ben Witherington]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]], and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>
* http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
* http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
* http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm
* http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref> In addition, much has been written defending the resurrection of Christ in the field of [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]].

=== Ascension into Heaven ===
He was lifted up while they looked on, and a cloud took him form their sight. They were still staring into the sky when suddenly two men in white were standing near them and they said, "why are you men from Galilee standing here looking into the sky. Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, this same Jesus will come back in the same way as you have seen Him go there." Acts 1:9-11

Scripture posits two purposes related to man for the ascension of Jesus: 1. it was to the right hand of the Father (showing favorable disposition of the Father to the Son to hear His requests) from which position Jesus intercedes to the Father on our behalf, and 2. Having ascended to the Father, He received from the Father the Spirit. The Father pours out the Spirit "through the Son" upon the Church. The "first Pentecost"

=== Return of Jesus from heaven to earth===
I gazed into the visions of the night and I saw coming on the clouds of heaven, One like a son of man. He came to the One of Great Age and was led into His presence. On Him was conferred sovereignty, glory and kingship. And men of all peoples, nations, and languages became His servants. His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which shall never pass away. Nor will His empire ever be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and with the voice of the Archangel and with the Horn of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are still alive remaining here will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so will we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thess. 4: 16,17

You were converted to God and became servants of the real, living God; and how you are now waiting for Jesus, His Son, whom He raised from the dead, to come from heaven to save us from the retribution which is coming. 1 Thess, 1:9,10

==Jesus' Self Consciousness==

Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancee, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?".

They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself.
[[Image:Carpaccio Christus in Emmaus.jpg|thumb|Christus in Emmaus by [[Vittore Carpaccio]]]]
Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastations of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".

A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. (This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.

This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

"No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref>

"Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref>

==Following Jesus, believing in Him==
It is sometimes said that there are two faiths in the New Testament. That of Jesus and that of Paul. Paul's religion is that of believing in Christ as Lord and Savior, and as the divine Son of God, and that of Jesus is of following Him in the sense of living and doing as He has taught. But in reality, there is only one faith and the two not in contradiction. For the Jesus of the Gospels, besides setting forth the life that He himself lived, as a pattern for all His followers, also said, "No one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son choses to reveal Him", and "I and the Father are One", and "If you see Me, you see God". .And Paul, aside, from saying that "if you believe in the Lord Jesus you shall be saved", and "therefore, being justified by Faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ", also said "work out your salvation with fear and trembling", and "Owe no man anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. And he who does not believe, shall be condemned", Jesus said. It is belief in Jesus which brings a person to the waters of baptism, and it is through the waters of baptism, that one enters into the fellowship of the Church, the people of God who are being brought, day be day, one with the other, to the life that Jesus taught about. And so his new belief and his being and living and doing are all unified under the direction of Christ and His under-shephards. And if one will not believe, of course, then it goes without saying, he will not be baptized.

== Historical Analysis ==
=== Dating Jesus' Birth ===
Modern historians generally place the actual date of Jesus' birth between 7 and 4 B.C., due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

=== Historicity of Jesus ===
Occasionally, non-historians deny the [[historicity of Jesus]] (Having to do with the question of whether Jesus was in fact a real person who had a real life on earth), but few scholars take this seriously. [[Tacitus]], a Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115,<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref> and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him.<ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref> Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'', which discusses many historical sources that mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''[[The Case for Christ]]'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Jesus' Name ==
=== ''Jesus'' ===
The bible doesn't tell us much about the meaning of the name ''Jesus'', but does tell us who gave the name, when the name was given, and a reason the name was given. Luke 2:21 tells us that his name was given (1) "by the angel," (2) and it was given "before He was conceived in the womb." The reason for naming him Jesus seems to be given in Matthew 1:21, which says, "...you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

==== Hebrew Origin ====
The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Yah, short for Yahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

=== ''Christ'' ===

== Teachings of Jesus ==

The Teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ are found in the four [[Gospels]] and other holy documents.

[http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/mount/default.asp '''Sermon on the Mount'''] This is the greatest sermon Jesus ever preached. It contains the Lord's prayer, the beatitudes, the golden rule, and practical advice for Christian living.

'''The Lord's Prayer'''

Our Father who art in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And do not lead us into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

For Yours is the kingdom

and the power

and the glory forever.

[[Amen]].

See [[The Lord's Prayer]] for the Greek and the interlineal transliterated Aramaic and Hebrew versions.

'''The golden rule:'''

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you!"

'''Prayer To Receive Him Now '''

''"Jesus, I believe You are the Son of God and the Savior of the world. Thank you for coming to Earth and dying so that I could have eternal life. Please forgive all my sins. I am going to follow You with my life now. Please fill me with Your Holy Spirit and direct my steps. In Jesus' name, [[Amen]]."'' <ref> [http://www.jesus2020.com/jesus.html Prayer To Receive Him Now]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Atonement]]
*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/default.asp Summary of the Life of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/lifescan/teachings.asp Teachings of Jesus]
* [http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/sermons/ Sermons of Jesus Christ]
* [http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
* [http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/ C. S. Lewis Society of California].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/bodily.php The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.lewissociety.org/resurrection.php Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by William Lane Craig].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justice_Jesus.htm Doing Justice to Jesus: A Response to J.D. Crossan: "What Victory? What God?", by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htm The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology, by N. T. Wright].
* [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=37 The Wright Quest for the Historical Jesus, by Ben Witherington, III].

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]

The Day the Music Died

2008-12-15T23:43:54Z

FernoKlump: sp

[[Image:BuddyRichieBopper.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The Big Bopper, Ritchie Valens, and Buddy Holly on the Winter Dance Party Tour, January, 1959]]
'''The Day the Music Died''' refers to a plane crash which took place on February 3, 1959 near Clear Lake, [[Iowa]]; killed was the pilot, Roger A. Peterson, and three pioneers of [[rock and roll]]: Jiles P. "J.P." Richardson (the "Big Bopper"), Charles Hardin Holley (Buddy Holly), and Ricardo Valenzuela (Ritchie Valens).

Don McLean's 1970 song "American Pie" uses the phrase "the day the [[music]] died" before each refrain.

==Winter Dance Party==
The Winter Dance Party Tour began January 23, 1959 in [[Milwaukee]], [[Wisconsin]], with a planned coverage of 23 additional Mid-western cities within three weeks (January 23-February 15). The headliners were Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, Dion and the Belmonts, and J.P. Richardson. Waylon Jennings and Tommy Allsup were there as backups.

Facing the singers was the weather, in the teens during the entire trip, with colder wind gusts and snow. To make things worse the tour bus they rode on had a disabled heater; as a result the mood was foul among all members when February arrived, and two members had to leave due to frostbite. Still, the singers performed to delighted and enthusiastic crowds wherever they stopped.

====Buddy Holly====
Charles Hardin Holley with his Crickets had a number one hit in 1957 with the tune ''That'll Be The Day''. ''Peggy Sue'' followed, referring to a girl he knew in Lubbock, [[Texas]]. Other songs included ''It's So Easy''; ''Oh Boy!''; ''Maybe Baby''; and ''Love's Made A Fool of You''. An appearance on the ''Ed Sullivan Show'' gave him national exposure. By 1959 Holly had moved to New York City, concentrating on songwriting, producing, and a new wife, Maria Elena Santiago. The Crickets were left behind.

"Buddy" was Charles' nickname. His last name had the "E" dropped by accident, due to a misspelling on his first contract.

====Ritchie Valens====
Born to Mexican migrant workers in California, Ricardo Valenzuela was just 16 when he was discovered singing in Pacoima by Bob Keane, a record producer for Del-Fi. A string of hits were generated in 1958: ''Come On, Let's Go''; ''Rockin' All Night''; ''That's My Little Suzie''; and a love song for a girl he knew at his high school named Donna. Although ''Donna'' was his biggest hit, it was the flip side of that .45 recording that would become closely identified with him: a [[Mexican]] fiesta dance song with a heavy beat titled ''La Bamba''.

To ensure that Ricardo was a hit with mainstream American audiences, Keane had his name Anglicized to Ritchie Valens.

====The Big Bopper====
Jiles P. Richardson was a Texas disk jockey who was known as "The Big Bopper" to his fans. His own belief in rock and roll was that it should be fun, and he would record just such a [[song]] himself with the 1958 hit ''Chantilly Lace''.

==The Crash==
Angry over the tour bus' lack of a heater, Buddy Holly chartered a plane at Clear Lake airport, a Beechcraft Bonanza (#N3794N) piloted by Roger A. Peterson, with the intention that he would meet the rest of them in Fargo, North Dakota. Running a fever was Richardson, and a coin flip determined who gave up the third seat on the aircraft. The loser, Waylon Jennings (who would go on to his own fame in country music) would get a mild retort from Holly: "Well, I hope your old bus freezes up." Jennings replied, "Well, I hope your plane crashes." The remark would haunt Jennings for the rest of his life.

Singer Tommy Allsup flipped for the remaining seat and lost to Valens. The plane took off just after 1 a.m. on February 3, and crashed a few minutes later. The plane was not discovered until the following morning, its mangled remains resting in a cornfield. The three singers' bodies were ejected from the plane; the pilot's was still strapped to his seat. A gun was found nearby, belonging to Holly, leading to speculation that an accidental shooting of the pilot led to the crash. A more reasonable explanation for the crash was a "whiteout", in which snow conditions were such that all the pilot could see was white, and without depending on instruments he may have flown the plane into the ground.

==Aftermath==
The loss of Holly, Valens, and Richardson marked the end of a period of innocence for rock music; from that point on the 1960's saw the evolution of folk rock by such artists as [[Bob Dylan]] and [[Joan Baez]], and hard rock and heavy metal by groups [[Deep Purple]], [[Black Sabbath]], [[Jimi Hendrix]], and the [[Rolling Stones]]. Drug use and American involvement in the [[Vietnam War]] were major themes, as were as activist issues during that period. Although considered founders of rock music, all three musicians were essentially forgotton until Don McLean released his ballad ''American Pie'' in 1970. An anthology, ''American Pie'' was McLean's answer to the loss that changed his own life, as well as a major hit on its own that reached platinum.

Buddy Holly was married for only six months when he died; his pregnant wife had a miscarrage soon after. Brought back in the spotlight by ''American Pie'', his songs would be remade by [[Linda Ronstadt]] in the 1970's; a hit movie would follow starring Gary Busey in 1978. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1986.

Ritchie Valens would get his own movie biography in 1988, ''La Bamba''. starring Lou Diamond Philips. He inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001.

Jiles P. Richardson Jr. was born a short time after the death of his father; wanting to know who he was became an obsession. In March of 2007 he had his father's body exhumed, hoping to put to rest the theories of the gunshot. J.P. Jr. also performed at the Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake on the 40th anniversary of the last concert.

Tommy Allsup would leave performing and run his own bar which he called the "Head's Up Saloon", in reference to the coin toss he made at Clear Lake.

Waylon Jennings would achieve a string of country hits over the years; his best known ballad was ''Just the Good Ol'Boys'', the title hit from the ''Dukes of Hazard'' television series.

==References==
*[http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/buddy-holly Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (Buddy Holly)]
*[http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/ritchie-valens Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (Ritchie Valens)]
*[http://www.ritchievalens.com/ Official website for Ritchie Valens]
*[http://www.buddyholly.com/ Official website for Buddy Holly]
*[http://www.buddyhollyonline.com/mainwdp.html Buddy Holly Online; Winter Dance Party phot gallery]
*[http://www.fiftiesweb.com/coroner.htm Coroner's report on the crash]
*[http://www.fiftiesweb.com/amerpie-1.htm Annotated lyrics to Don McLean's ''American Pie'']
*[http://www.iowarocknroll.com/ballrooms.php?pid=surf The Surf Ballroom, Clear Lake, Iowa]

==Video links==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjv5th5Few4 ''Buddy Holly: The Final Day'', documentary uploaded to YouTube]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r4_8pjJPxo&feature=related Tommy Allsup tells of his coin toss with Ritchie Valens]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur92TaR4wm0&feature=related Interview with the real Peggy Sue and Donna remembering Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko0qw3nHwdU&feature=related ''Peggy Sue'', by Buddy Holly]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko0qw3nHwdU&feature=related ''Oh Boy!'', by Buddy Holly]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pribHw93OPc&feature=related ''That'll Be The Day'', by Buddy Holly]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfN2_Odurts ''Chantilly Lace'', by the Big Bopper]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU7EKsZqUZQ ''Ooh My Head'', by Ritchie Valens (clip from the film ''Go, Johnnie, Go'' (1958)]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFAHKSkZVAw ''Come On, Let's Go!'', by Ritchie Valens]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHkT2YfqHE4 ''American Pie'', by Don McLean]

[[Category:music]]
[[Category:History]]

The Day the Music Died

2008-12-15T23:43:18Z

FernoKlump: /* The crash */

[[Image:BuddyRichieBopper.jpg|thumb|300px|right|The Big Bopper, Ritchie Valens, and Buddy Holly on the Winter Dance Party Tour, January, 1959]]
'''The Day the Music Died''' refers to a plane crash which took place on February 3, 1959 near Clear Lake, [[Iowa]]; killed was the pilot, Roger A. Peterson, and three pioneers of [[rock and roll]]: Jiles P. "J.P." Richardson (the "Big Bopper"), Charles Hardin Holley (Buddy Holly), and Ricardo Valenzuela (Ritchie Valens).

Don McLean's 1970 song "American Pie" uses the phrase "the day the [[music]] died" before each refrain.

==Winter Dance Party==
The Winter Dance Party Tour began January 23, 1959 in [[Milwaukee]], [[Wisconsin]], with a planned coverage of 23 additional Mid-western cities within three weeks (January 23-February 15). The headliners were Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, Dion and the Belmonts, and J.P. Richardson. Waylon Jennings and Tommy Allsup were there as backups.

Facing the singers was the weather, in the teens during the entire trip, with colder wind gusts and snow. To make things worse the tour bus they rode on had a disabled heater; as a result the mood was foul among all members when February arrived, and two members had to leave due to frostbite. Still, the singers performed to delighted and enthusiatic crowds wherever they stopped.

====Buddy Holly====
Charles Hardin Holley with his Crickets had a number one hit in 1957 with the tune ''That'll Be The Day''. ''Peggy Sue'' followed, referring to a girl he knew in Lubbock, [[Texas]]. Other songs included ''It's So Easy''; ''Oh Boy!''; ''Maybe Baby''; and ''Love's Made A Fool of You''. An appearance on the ''Ed Sullivan Show'' gave him national exposure. By 1959 Holly had moved to New York City, concentrating on songwriting, producing, and a new wife, Maria Elena Santiago. The Crickets were left behind.

"Buddy" was Charles' nickname. His last name had the "E" dropped by accident, due to a misspelling on his first contract.

====Ritchie Valens====
Born to Mexican migrant workers in California, Ricardo Valenzuela was just 16 when he was discovered singing in Pacoima by Bob Keane, a record producer for Del-Fi. A string of hits were generated in 1958: ''Come On, Let's Go''; ''Rockin' All Night''; ''That's My Little Suzie''; and a love song for a girl he knew at his high school named Donna. Although ''Donna'' was his biggest hit, it was the flip side of that .45 recording that would become closely identified with him: a [[Mexican]] fiesta dance song with a heavy beat titled ''La Bamba''.

To ensure that Ricardo was a hit with mainstream American audiences, Keane had his name Anglicized to Ritchie Valens.

====The Big Bopper====
Jiles P. Richardson was a Texas disk jockey who was known as "The Big Bopper" to his fans. His own belief in rock and roll was that it should be fun, and he would record just such a [[song]] himself with the 1958 hit ''Chantilly Lace''.

==The Crash==
Angry over the tour bus' lack of a heater, Buddy Holly chartered a plane at Clear Lake airport, a Beechcraft Bonanza (#N3794N) piloted by Roger A. Peterson, with the intention that he would meet the rest of them in Fargo, North Dakota. Running a fever was Richardson, and a coin flip determined who gave up the third seat on the aircraft. The loser, Waylon Jennings (who would go on to his own fame in country music) would get a mild retort from Holly: "Well, I hope your old bus freezes up." Jennings replied, "Well, I hope your plane crashes." The remark would haunt Jennings for the rest of his life.

Singer Tommy Allsup flipped for the remaining seat and lost to Valens. The plane took off just after 1 a.m. on February 3, and crashed a few minutes later. The plane was not discovered until the following morning, its mangled remains resting in a cornfield. The three singers' bodies were ejected from the plane; the pilot's was still strapped to his seat. A gun was found nearby, belonging to Holly, leading to speculation that an accidental shooting of the pilot led to the crash. A more reasonable explanation for the crash was a "whiteout", in which snow conditions were such that all the pilot could see was white, and without depending on instruments he may have flown the plane into the ground.

==Aftermath==
The loss of Holly, Valens, and Richardson marked the end of a period of innocence for rock music; from that point on the 1960's saw the evolution of folk rock by such artists as [[Bob Dylan]] and [[Joan Baez]], and hard rock and heavy metal by groups [[Deep Purple]], [[Black Sabbath]], [[Jimi Hendrix]], and the [[Rolling Stones]]. Drug use and American involvement in the [[Vietnam War]] were major themes, as were as activist issues during that period. Although considered founders of rock music, all three musicians were essentially forgotton until Don McLean released his ballad ''American Pie'' in 1970. An anthology, ''American Pie'' was McLean's answer to the loss that changed his own life, as well as a major hit on its own that reached platinum.

Buddy Holly was married for only six months when he died; his pregnant wife had a miscarrage soon after. Brought back in the spotlight by ''American Pie'', his songs would be remade by [[Linda Ronstadt]] in the 1970's; a hit movie would follow starring Gary Busey in 1978. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1986.

Ritchie Valens would get his own movie biography in 1988, ''La Bamba''. starring Lou Diamond Philips. He inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001.

Jiles P. Richardson Jr. was born a short time after the death of his father; wanting to know who he was became an obsession. In March of 2007 he had his father's body exhumed, hoping to put to rest the theories of the gunshot. J.P. Jr. also performed at the Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake on the 40th anniversary of the last concert.

Tommy Allsup would leave performing and run his own bar which he called the "Head's Up Saloon", in reference to the coin toss he made at Clear Lake.

Waylon Jennings would achieve a string of country hits over the years; his best known ballad was ''Just the Good Ol'Boys'', the title hit from the ''Dukes of Hazard'' television series.

==References==
*[http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/buddy-holly Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (Buddy Holly)]
*[http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/ritchie-valens Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (Ritchie Valens)]
*[http://www.ritchievalens.com/ Official website for Ritchie Valens]
*[http://www.buddyholly.com/ Official website for Buddy Holly]
*[http://www.buddyhollyonline.com/mainwdp.html Buddy Holly Online; Winter Dance Party phot gallery]
*[http://www.fiftiesweb.com/coroner.htm Coroner's report on the crash]
*[http://www.fiftiesweb.com/amerpie-1.htm Annotated lyrics to Don McLean's ''American Pie'']
*[http://www.iowarocknroll.com/ballrooms.php?pid=surf The Surf Ballroom, Clear Lake, Iowa]

==Video links==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjv5th5Few4 ''Buddy Holly: The Final Day'', documentary uploaded to YouTube]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r4_8pjJPxo&feature=related Tommy Allsup tells of his coin toss with Ritchie Valens]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur92TaR4wm0&feature=related Interview with the real Peggy Sue and Donna remembering Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko0qw3nHwdU&feature=related ''Peggy Sue'', by Buddy Holly]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko0qw3nHwdU&feature=related ''Oh Boy!'', by Buddy Holly]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pribHw93OPc&feature=related ''That'll Be The Day'', by Buddy Holly]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfN2_Odurts ''Chantilly Lace'', by the Big Bopper]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU7EKsZqUZQ ''Ooh My Head'', by Ritchie Valens (clip from the film ''Go, Johnnie, Go'' (1958)]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFAHKSkZVAw ''Come On, Let's Go!'', by Ritchie Valens]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHkT2YfqHE4 ''American Pie'', by Don McLean]

[[Category:music]]
[[Category:History]]

Rohan

2008-12-13T23:00:03Z

FernoKlump: Redirecting to Middle-earth locations

#redirect [[Middle-earth locations]]

Bush derangement syndrome

2008-12-13T20:09:10Z

FernoKlump: Redirecting to Bush Derangement Syndrome

#REDIRECT [[Bush Derangement Syndrome]]

History of the Soviet Union

2008-12-13T19:55:51Z

FernoKlump: sp

{{Country
|name =''Союз Советских Социалистических Республик Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik''
|map =Soviet union rel 1986.jpg
|flag =600px-Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png
|arms =Arms of the Soviet Union.png
|capital =Moscow
|government =Communist
|language =Russian (de facto)
|president =Ivan Silayev (last, 1991)
|area =8,649,538 sq. mi. (1991)
|pop =293,047,571 (1991)
|pop-basis =
}}
The '''[[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]]''' was established in December 1922 by the leaders of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) on territory generally corresponding to that of the old Russian Empire, which had collapsed in 1917. A communist empire would be created by [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] in its place, and during the next seven decades would spawn failed harvests, famine, political and social repression, religious persecution, and mass murder within; place neighboring nations under its heel; and on at least two occasions bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.

==Revolutions and civil war==
===The February Revolution===
By early 1917, the existing order in [[Russia]] verged on collapse. The country's involvement in [[World War I]] had already cost millions of lives and caused severe disruption in Russia's backward economy. In an effort to reverse the steadily worsening military situation, Emperor Nicholas II commanded Russian forces at the front, abandoning the conduct of government in Petrograd (St. Petersburg before 1914; Leningrad after 1924) to his unpopular wife and a series of incompetent ministers. As a consequence of these conditions, the morale of the people rapidly deteriorated.

The spark to the events that ended tsarist rule was ignited on the streets of Petrograd in February 1917 (according to the old Julian calendar then in use in Russia). Provoked by shortages of food and fuel, crowds of hungry citizens and striking workers began spontaneous rioting and demonstrations on March 7 (February 23, according to the Julian calendar). Local reserve troops, called in to suppress the riots, refused to fire on the crowds, and some soldiers joined the workers and other rioters. On March 12, with tsarist authority in Petrograd rapidly disintegrating, two separate bodies emerged, each claiming to represent the Russian people. One was the Executive Committee of the Duma, which the Duma had established in defiance of the tsar's orders of March 11. The other body was the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, founded on the model of the St. Petersburg Soviet of 1905. With the consent of the Petrograd Soviet, the Executive Committee of the Duma organized the Provisional Government on March 15. Delegates of the new government met Nicholas that evening at Pskov, where rebellious railroad workers had stopped the imperial train as the tsar attempted to return to the capital. Advised by his generals that he lacked the support of the country, Nicholas informed the delegates that he was abdicating in favor of his brother, Grand Duke Michael. When Michael in turn refused the throne on March 16 (March 3), the rule of tsars and emperors in Russia came to an end.

===Period of Dual Power===
The collapse of the monarchy left two rival political institutions - the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet - to share administrative authority over the country. The Petrograd Soviet, drawing its membership from socialist deputies elected in factories and regiments, coordinated the activities of other soviets that sprang up across Russia at this time. The Petrograd Soviet was dominated by moderate socialists of the Socialist Revolutionary Party and by the Menshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. The Bolshevik faction of the latter party provided the opposition. While representing the interests of Russia's working classes, the Petrograd Soviet at first did not seek to undermine the Provisional Government's authority directly. Nevertheless, the Petrograd Soviet's "Order No. 1" of March 14 (March 1) instructed soldiers and sailors to obey their officers and the government only if their orders did not contradict the decrees of the Petrograd Soviet, thereby effectively limiting the Provisional Government's control over the armed forces.

The Provisional Government, in contrast to the socialist Petrograd Soviet, chiefly represented the propertied classes. Headed by ministers of a moderate or liberal bent, the new government pledged to convene a constituent assembly that would usher in a new era of bourgeois democracy. In the meantime, the government granted unprecedented rights - full freedom of speech, press, and religion, as well as legal equality - to all citizens. The government did not take up the matter of land redistribution, however, leaving it for the constituent assembly. Even more damaging, the ministers favored keeping Russia's military commitments to its allies, a position that became increasingly unpopular as the war dragged on. The government suffered its first crisis in the "April Days," when demonstrations against the government's annexationist war aims forced two ministers to resign, leading to the appointment of moderate socialist Aleksandr Kerensky as war minister. Kerensky, quickly assuming de facto leadership of the government, ordered the army to launch a major offensive in June, which, after early successes, turned into a full-scale retreat in July.

While the Provisional Government grappled with foreign foes, the Bolsheviks, who were opposed to bourgeois democracy, gained new strength. Lenin, the Bolshevik leader, returned to Petrograd in April 1917 from his wartime residence in Switzerland. Although he had been born into a noble family, from his youth Lenin espoused the cause of the common workers. A committed revolutionary and pragmatic Marxist thinker, Lenin astounded the Bolsheviks already in Petrograd by his April Theses, boldly calling for the overthrow of the Provisional Government, the transfer of "all power to the soviets," and the expropriation of factories by workers and of land belonging to the church, the nobility, and the gentry by peasants. Lenin's dynamic presence quickly won the other Bolshevik leaders to his position, and the radicalized orientation of the Bolshevik faction attracted new members. Inspired by Lenin's slogans, crowds of workers, soldiers, and sailors took to the streets of Petrograd in July to wrest power from the Provisional Government. But the spontaneity of the "July Days" caught the Bolshevik leaders by surprise, and the Petrograd Soviet, controlled by moderate Mensheviks, refused to take power or enforce Bolshevik demands. After the uprising died down, the Provisional Government outlawed the Bolsheviks and jailed [[Leon Trotsky]] (Lev Trotskii, originally Lev Bronstein), an active Bolshevik leader. Lenin fled to Finland.

In the aftermath of the "July Days," conservatives sought to reassert order in society. The army's commander in chief, General Lavr Kornilov, who protested the influence of the soviets on both the army and the government, appeared as a counterrevolutionary threat to Kerensky, now prime minister. Kerensky dismissed Kornilov from his command, but Kornilov, disobeying the order, launched an extemporaneous revolt on September 10 (August 28). To defend the capital, Kerensky sought help from all quarters and relaxed his ban on Bolshevik activities. Railroad workers sympathetic to the Bolsheviks halted Kornilov's troop trains, and Kornilov soon surrendered, ending the only serious challenge to the Provisional Government from the right.

===The Bolshevik Revolution===
Although the Provisional Government survived the Kornilov revolt, popular support for the government faded rapidly as the national mood swung to the left in the fall of 1917. Workers took control of their factories through elected committees; peasants expropriated lands belonging to the state, church, nobility, and gentry; and armies melted away as peasant soldiers deserted to take part in the land seizures. The Bolsheviks, skillfully exploiting these popular trends in their propaganda, dominated the Petrograd Soviet and the Moscow Soviet by September, with Trotsky, freed from prison after the Kornilov revolt, now chairman of the Petrograd Soviet.

Realizing that the time was ripe for seizing power by armed force, Lenin returned to Petrograd in October and convinced a majority of the Bolshevik Central Committee, which had hoped to take power legally, to accept armed uprising in principle. Trotsky won the Petrograd garrison over to Soviet authority, depriving the Provisional Government of its main military support in Petrograd.

The actual insurrection - the Bolshevik Revolution - began on the morning of November 6 (October 24) when Kerensky ordered the Bolshevik press closed. Interpreting this action as a counterrevolutionary move, the Bolsheviks called on their supporters to defend the Petrograd Soviet. By evening the Bolsheviks controlled utilities and most government buildings in Petrograd, allowing Lenin to proclaim the downfall of the Provisional Government on the morning of November 7 (October 25). The Bolsheviks captured the Provisional Government's cabinet at its Winter Palace headquarters that night with hardly a shot fired in the government's defense. Kerensky left Petrograd to organize resistance, but his countercoup failed and he fled Russia. Bolshevik uprisings soon took place elsewhere; the Bolsheviks gained control of Moscow by November 15 (November 2). The Second Congress of Soviets, meeting in Petrograd on November 7 (October 25), ratified the Bolshevik takeover after moderate deputies (mainly Mensheviks and right-wing members of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, or SRs) quit the session. The remaining Bolsheviks and left-wing SRs declared the soviets the governing bodies of Russia and named the Council of People's Commissars (''Sovet narodnykh kommissarov-Sovnarkom'') to serve as the cabinet. Lenin became chairman of this council. Trotsky took the post of commissar of foreign affairs; Stalin, a Georgian, became commissar of nationalities. By acting decisively while their opponents vacillated, the Bolsheviks succeeded in effecting their coup d'état.

On coming to power, the Bolsheviks issued a series of revolutionary decrees that ratified peasants' seizures of land and workers' control of industry; abolished legal class privileges; nationalized the banks; and set up revolutionary tribunals in place of the courts. At the same time, the revolutionaries now constituting the regime worked to secure power inside and outside the government. Deeming Western forms of parliamentary democracy irrelevant, Lenin argued for a dictatorship of the proletariat (see Glossary) based on one-party Bolshevik rule, although for a time left-wing SRs also participated in the Sovnarkom. The Soviet government created a secret police, the Vecheka to persecute enemies of the state (including bourgeois liberals and moderate socialists). Having convened the Constituent Assembly, which had been elected in November with the Bolsheviks winning only a quarter of the seats, the Soviet government dissolved the assembly in January after a one-day session, ending a short-lived experiment in parliamentary democracy in Russia.

In foreign affairs, the Soviet government, seeking to disengage Russia from the world war, called on the belligerent powers for an armistice and peace without annexations. The Allied Powers rejected this appeal, but [[Germany]] and its allies agreed to a cease-fire and began negotiations in December 1917. After dictating harsh terms that the Soviet government would not accept, however, Germany resumed its offensive in February 1918, meeting scant resistance from disintegrating Russian armies. Lenin, after bitter debate with leading Bolsheviks who favored prolonging the war in hopes of precipitating class warfare in Germany, persuaded a slim majority of the Bolshevik Central Committee that peace must be made at any cost. On March 3, Soviet government officials signed the [[Treaty of Brest-Litovsk]], relinquishing [[Poland]], the [[Baltic States]], [[Finland]], and [[Ukraine]] to German control and giving up a portion of the Caucasus region to [[Turkey]]. With the new border dangerously close to Petrograd, the government was soon transferred to Moscow. An enormous part of the population and resources of the Russian Empire was lost by this treaty, but Lenin understood that no alternative could ensure the survival of the fledgling Soviet state.

===Civil War and War Communism===
Soon after buying peace with Germany, the Soviet state found itself under attack from other quarters. By the spring of 1918, elements dissatisfied with the Communists (as the Bolsheviks started calling themselves, conforming with the name change from Russian Social Democratic Labor Party to Russian Communist Party [Bolshevik] in March) established centers of resistance in southern and Siberian Russia against the Communist-controlled area. Anti-Communists, often led by former officers of the tsarist army, clashed with the Red Army, founded and organized by Trotsky, now serving as commissar of war. A civil war to determine the future of Russia had begun.

The White armies enjoyed, to varying degrees, the support of the Allied Powers. Desiring to defeat Germany in any way possible, [[Britain]], [[France]], and the [[United States]] landed troops in Russia and provided logistical support to the Whites, whom the Allies trusted to resume Russia's struggle against Germany after overthrowing the Communist regime. ([[Japan]] also sent troops, but with the intention of seizing territory in [[Siberia]].) After the Allies defeated Germany in November 1918, they opted to continue their intervention in the Russian Civil War against the Communists in the interests of averting world socialist revolution.

During the Civil War, the Soviet regime also had to deal with struggles for independence in regions that it had given up under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (which the regime immediately repudiated after Germany's defeat by the Allies in November 1918). By force of arms, the Communists established Soviet republics in [[Belarus|Belorussia]] (January 1919), Ukraine (March 1919), [[Azerbaijan]] (April 1920), [[Armenia]] (November 1920), and [[Republic of Georgia|Georgia]] (March 1921), but they were unable to win back the Baltic region, where the independent states of [[Estonia]], [[Latvia]], and [[Lithuania]] had been founded shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. In December 1917, during a civil war between Finnish Reds and Whites, the Soviet government recognized the independence of Finland but was disappointed when that country became a parliamentary republic in 1918. Poland, reborn after World War I, fought a [[Polish-Soviet War|successful war with Soviet Russia]] from April 1920 to March 1921 over the location of the frontier between the two states.

During its struggle for survival, the Soviet state placed great hopes on revolution's breaking out in the industrialized countries. To coordinate the socialist movement under Soviet auspices, Lenin founded the Communist International (Comintern) in March 1919. Although no successful socialist revolutions occurred elsewhere immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution, the Comintern provided the Communist leadership with the means through which they later controlled foreign communist parties. By the end of 1920, the Communists had clearly triumphed in the Civil War. Although in 1919 Soviet Russia had shrunk to the size of sixteenth-century Muscovy, the Red Army had the advantage of defending the heartland with Moscow at its center. The White armies, divided geographically and without a clearly defined cause, went down in defeat one by one. The monarchical cause was effectively killed when Communists shot the imperial family in July 1918. The Allied governments, lacking support for intervention from their war-weary citizenry, withdrew most of their forces by 1920. The last foreign troops departed Siberia in 1922, leaving the Soviet state unchallenged from abroad.

During the Civil War, the Communist regime took increasingly repressive measures against its opponents within the country. The Soviet constitution of 1918 deprived members of the former "exploiting classes"--nobles, priests, and capitalists--of civil rights. Left-wing SRs, formerly partners of the Bolsheviks, became targets for persecution during the Red Terror that followed an attempt on Lenin's life in August 1918. In those desperate times, both Reds and Whites murdered and executed without trial large numbers of suspected enemies. The party also took measures to ensure greater discipline among its members by tightening its organization and creating specialized administrative organs.

In the economic life of the country, too, the Communist regime sought to exert control through a series of drastic measures that came to be known as war communism. To coordinate what remained of Russia's economic resources after years of war, in 1918 the government nationalized industry and subordinated it to central administrations in Moscow. Rejecting workers' control of factories as inefficient, the regime brought in expert managers to run the factories and organized and directed the factory workers as in a military mobilization. To feed the urban population, the Soviet government carried out mass requisitions of grain from the peasantry.

The results of war communism were unsatisfactory. Industrial production continued to fall. Workers received wages in kind because inflation had made the ruble practically worthless. In the countryside, peasants rebelled against payments in valueless money by curtailing or consuming their agricultural production. In late 1920, strikes broke out in the industrial centers, and peasant uprisings sprang up across the land as famine ravaged the countryside. To the Soviet government, however, the most disquieting manifestation of dissatisfaction with war communism was the rebellion in March 1921 of sailors at the naval base at Kronshtadt (near Petrograd), which had earlier won renown as a bastion of the Bolshevik Revolution. Although Trotsky and the Red Army succeeded in putting down the mutiny, the rebellion signaled to the party leadership that the austere policies of war communism had to be abolished. The harsh legacy of the Civil War period, however, would have a profound influence on the future development of the country.

==Era of the New Economic Policy==
===Lenin's Leadership===
While the Kronshtadt base rebelled against the severe policies of war communism, the Tenth Party Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) met in March 1921 to hear Lenin argue for a new course in Soviet policy. Lenin realized that the radical approach to communism was unsuited to existing conditions and jeopardized the survival of his regime. Now the Soviet leader proposed a tactical retreat, convincing the congress to adopt a temporary compromise with capitalism under the program that came to be known as the New Economic Policy (NEP). Under NEP, market forces and the monetary system regained their importance. The state scrapped its policy of grain requisitioning in favor of taxation, permitting peasants to dispose of their produce as they pleased. NEP also denationalized service enterprises and much small-scale industry, leaving the "commanding heights" of the economy--large-scale industry, transportation, and foreign trade--under state control. Under the mixed economy of NEP, agriculture and industry staged recoveries, with most branches of the economy attaining prewar levels of production by the late 1920s. In general, standards of living improved during this time, and the "NEP man" - the independent private trader - became a symbol of the era.

About the time that the party sanctioned partial decentralization of the economy, it also approved a quasi-federal structure for the state. During the Civil War years, the non-Russian Soviet republics on the periphery of Russia were theoretically independent, but in fact they were controlled by Moscow through the party and the Red Army. Some Communists favored a centralized Soviet state, while nationalists wanted autonomy for the borderlands. A compromise between the two positions was reached in December 1922 by the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The constituent republics of this Soviet Union (the Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian, and Transcaucasian republics) exercised a degree of cultural and linguistic autonomy, while the Communist, predominantly Russian, leadership in Moscow retained political authority over the entire country.

The party consolidated its authority throughout the country, becoming a monolithic presence in state and society. Potential rivals outside the party, including prominent members of the abolished Menshevik faction and the Socialist Revolutionary Party, were exiled. Within the party, Lenin denounced the formation of factions, particularly by radical-left party members. Central party organs subordinated local soviets under their authority. Purges of party members periodically removed the less committed from the rosters. The Politburo created the new post of general secretary for supervising personnel matters and assigned Stalin to this office in April 1922. Stalin, a minor member of the Central Committee at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, was thought to be a rather lackluster personality and therefore well suited to the routine work required of the general secretary.

From the time of the Bolshevik Revolution and into the early NEP years, the actual leader of the Soviet state was Lenin. Although a collective of prominent Communists nominally guided the party and the Soviet Union, Lenin commanded such prestige and authority that even such brilliant theoreticians as Trotsky and Nikolai I. Bukharin generally yielded to his will. But when Lenin became temporarily incapacitated after a stroke in May 1922, the unity of the Politburo fractured, and a troika (triumvirate) formed by Stalin, Lev B. Kamenev, and Grigorii V. Zinov'ev assumed leadership in opposition to Trotsky. Lenin recovered late in 1922 and found fault with the troika, and particularly with Stalin. Stalin, in Lenin's view, had used coercion to force non-Russian republics to join the Soviet Union; he was "rude"; and he was accumulating too much power through his office of general secretary. Although Lenin recommended that Stalin be removed from that position, the Politburo decided not to take action, and Stalin remained general secretary when Lenin died in January 1924.

As important as Lenin's activities were to the foundation of the Soviet Union, his legacy to the Soviet future was perhaps even more significant. By willingly changing his policies to suit new situations, Lenin had developed a pragmatic interpretation of Marxism (later called Marxism-Leninism) that implied that the party should follow any course that would ultimately lead to communism. His party, while still permitting intraorganizational debate, insisted that its members adhere to its decisions once they were adopted, in accordance with the principle of democratic centralism. Finally, because his party embodied the dictatorship of the proletariat, organized opposition could not be tolerated, and adversaries would be prosecuted. Thus, although the Soviet regime was not totalitarian when he died, Lenin had nonetheless laid the foundations upon which such a tyranny might later arise.

===Stalin's Rise to Power===
After Lenin's death, two conflicting schools of thought regarding the future of the Soviet Union arose in party debates. Left-wing Communists believed that world revolution was essential for the survival of socialism in the economically backward Soviet Union. Trotsky, one of the primary proponents of this position, called for Soviet support for permanent revolution around the world. As for domestic policy, the left wing advocated the rapid development of the economy and the creation of a socialist society. In contrast with these militant Communists, the right wing of the party, recognizing that world revolution was unlikely in the immediate future, favored the gradual development of the Soviet Union through NEP programs. Yet even Bukharin, one of the major right-wing theoreticians, believed that socialism could not triumph in the Soviet Union without assistance from more economically advanced socialist countries.

Against this backdrop of contrasting perceptions of the Soviet future, the leading figures of the All-Union Communist Party - the new name of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) as of December 1925 - competed for influence. The Kamenev-Zinov'ev-Stalin troika, supporting the militant international program, successfully maneuvered against Trotsky and engineered his removal as commissar of war in 1925. In the meantime, Stalin gradually consolidated his power base and, when he had sufficient strength, broke with Kamenev and Zinov'ev. Belatedly recognizing Stalin's political power, Kamenev and Zinov'ev made amends with Trotsky to join against their former partner. But Stalin countered their attacks on his position with his well-timed formulation of the theory of "socialism in one country." This doctrine, calling for construction of a socialist society in the Soviet Union regardless of the international situation, distanced Stalin from the left and won support from Bukharin and the party's right wing. With this support, Stalin ousted the leaders of the "Left Opposition" from their positions in 1926 and 1927 and forced Trotsky into exile. By the end of the NEP era, free debate within the party thus became progressively limited as Stalin gradually eliminated his opponents.

===Foreign Policy, 1921-28===
In the 1920s, as the new Soviet state temporarily retreated from the revolutionary path to socialism, the party also adopted a less ideological approach in its relations with the rest of the world. Lenin, ever the practical leader, having become convinced that socialist revolution would not break out in other countries in the near future, realized that his government required normal relations with the Western world for it to survive. Not only were good relations important for national security, but the economy also required trade with the industrial countries. Blocking Soviet attainment of these desires were lingering suspicions of communism on the part of the Western powers and concern over the foreign debts incurred by the tsarist government that the Soviet government had unilaterally canceled. In April 1922, the Soviet commissar of foreign affairs, Georgii Chicherin, circumvented these difficulties by achieving an understanding with Germany, the other pariah state of [[Europe]], at Rapallo, [[Italy]]. In the Treaty of Rapallo, Germany and Russia agreed on mutual recognition, cancellation of debt claims, normalization of trade relations, and secret cooperation in military development. After concluding the treaty, the Soviet Union soon obtained diplomatic recognition from other major powers, beginning with Britain in February 1924. Although the United States withheld recognition until 1933, private American firms began to extend technological assistance and develop commercial links beginning in the 1920s.

Toward the non-Western world, the Soviet leadership limited its policy to promoting opposition among the indigenous populations against imperialist exploitation. Moscow did pursue an active policy in [[China]], aiding the rise of the Nationalist Party, a non-Marxist organization committed to reform and national sovereignty. After the triumph of the Nationalists, a debate developed among Soviet leaders concerning the future status of relations with China. Stalin wanted the Chinese Communist Party to join the Nationalists and infiltrate the government from within, while Trotsky proposed an armed communist uprising and forcible imposition of socialism in that country. Although Stalin's plan was finally accepted, it came to nought when in 1926 the Nationalist leader [[Chiang Kai-shek]] ordered the Chinese communists massacred and Soviet advisers expelled.

===Society and Culture in the 1920s===
In many respects, the NEP period was a time of relative freedom and experimentation for the social and cultural life of the Soviet Union. The government tolerated a variety of trends in these fields, provided they were not overtly hostile to the regime. In art and literature, numerous schools, some traditional and others radically experimental, proliferated. Communist writers Maksim Gorky and Vladimir Maiakovskii were active during this time, but other authors, many of whose works were later repressed, published work lacking socialist political content. Film, as a means of influencing a largely illiterate society, received encouragement from the state; much of cinematographer Sergei Eisenstein's best work dates from this period.

Education, under Commissar Anatolii Lunacharskii, entered a phase of experimentation based on progressive theories of learning. At the same time, the state expanded the primary and secondary school system and introduced night schools for working adults. The quality of higher education suffered, however, because admissions policies preferred entrants from the proletarian class over those of bourgeois backgrounds, regardless of the applicants' qualifications.

Under NEP the state eased its active persecution of religion begun during war communism but continued to agitate on behalf of atheism. The party supported the Living Church reform movement within the Russian Orthodox Church in hopes that it would undermine faith in the church, but the movement died out in the late 1920s.

In family life, attitudes generally became more permissive. The state legalized abortion, and it made divorce progressively easier to obtain. In general, traditional attitudes toward such institutions as marriage were subtly undermined by the party's promotion of revolutionary ideals.

==Transformation and Terror==
===Industrialization and Collectivization===
At the end of the 1920s, a dramatic new phase in economic development began when Stalin decided to carry out a program of intensive socialist construction. To some extent, Stalin chose to advocate accelerated economic development at this point as a political maneuver to eliminate rivals within the party. Because Bukharin and some other party members would not give up the gradualistic NEP in favor of radical development, Stalin branded them as "right-wing deviationists" and used the party organization to remove them from influential positions in 1929 and 1930. Yet Stalin's break with NEP also revealed that his doctrine of building "socialism in one country" paralleled the line that Trotsky had originally supported early in the 1920s. Marxism supplied no basis for Stalin's model of a planned economy, although the centralized economic controls of the war communism years seemingly furnished a Leninist precedent. Nonetheless, between 1927 and 1929 the State Planning Commission (''Gosplan'') worked out the First Five-Year Plan for intensive economic growth; Stalin began to implement this plan, his "revolution from above", in 1928.

The First Five-Year Plan called for rapid industrialization of the economy, with particular growth in heavy industry. The economy was centralized: small-scale industry and services were nationalized, managers strove to fulfill Gosplan's output quotas, and the trade unions were converted into mechanisms for increasing worker productivity. But because Stalin insisted on unrealistic production targets, serious problems soon arose. With the greatest share of investment put into heavy industry, widespread shortages of consumer goods occurred, and inflation grew.

To satisfy the state's need for increased food supplies, the First Five-Year Plan called for the organization of the peasantry into collective units that the authorities could easily control. This collectivization program entailed compounding the peasants' lands and animals into collective farms and state farms and restricting the peasants' movements from these farms, thus in effect reintroducing a kind of serfdom into the countryside. Although the program was designed to affect all peasants, Stalin in particular sought to liquidate the wealthiest peasants, the kulaks. Generally speaking, the kulaks were only marginally better off than other peasants, but the party claimed that the kulaks ensnared the rest of the peasantry in capitalistic relationships. Yet collectivization met widespread resistance not only from kulaks but from poorer peasants as well, and a desperate struggle of the peasantry against the authorities ensued. Peasants slaughtered their cows and pigs rather than turn them over to the collective farms, with the result that livestock resources remained below the 1929 level for years afterward. The state in turn forcibly collectivized reluctant peasants and deported kulaks and active rebels to Siberia. Within the collective farms, the authorities in many instances exacted such high levels of procurements that starvation was widespread. In some places, famine was allowed to run its course; millions of peasants in the Ukrainian Republic starved to death when the state deliberately withheld food shipments.

By 1932 Stalin realized that both the economy and society were seriously overstrained. Although industry failed to meet its production targets and agriculture actually lost ground in comparison with 1928 yields, Stalin declared that the First Five-Year Plan had successfully met its goals in four years. He then proceeded to set more realistic goals. Under the Second Five-Year Plan (1933-37), the state devoted attention to consumer goods, and the factories built during the first plan helped increase industrial output in general. The Third Five-Year Plan, begun in 1938, produced poorer results because of a sudden shift of emphasis to armaments production in response to the worsening international climate. All in all, however, the Soviet economy had become industrialized by the end of the 1930s. Agriculture, which had been exploited to finance the industrialization drive, continued to show poor returns throughout the decade.

===Period of the Purges===
The complete subjugation of the party to Stalin, its leader, paralleled the subordination of industry and agriculture to the state. After squelching Bukharin and the "right-wing deviationists" in 1929 and 1930, Stalin's position was assured. To secure his absolute control over the party, however, Stalin began to purge from party ranks those leaders and their followers whose loyalty he doubted.

The period of Stalin's purges began in December 1934 when [[Sergei Kirov]], a popular Leningrad party chief who advocated a moderate policy toward the peasants, was assassinated. Although details remain murky, many Western historians believe that Stalin instigated the murder to rid himself of a potential opponent. In any event, in the resultant mass purge of the local Leningrad party, thousands were deported to camps in Siberia. Zinov'ev and Kamenev, Stalin's former political partners, received prison sentences for their alleged role in Kirov's murder. At the same time, the NKVD (secret police) stepped up surveillance through its agents and informers and claimed to uncover anti-Soviet conspiracies among prominent long-term party members. At three publicized show trials held in Moscow between 1936 and 1938, dozens of these Old Bolsheviks, including Zinov'ev, Kamenev, and Bukharin, confessed to improbable crimes against the Soviet state and were executed. (The last of Stalin's old enemies, Trotsky, who had supposedly masterminded the conspiracies against Stalin from abroad, was murdered in Mexico in 1940, presumably by the NKVD.) Coincident with the show trials against the original leadership of the party, unpublicized purges swept through the ranks of younger leaders in party, government, industrial management, and cultural affairs. Party purges in the non-Russian republics were particularly severe. The Ezhovshchina ("era of Ezhov," named for NKVD chief Nikolai Ezhov) ravaged the military as well, leading to the execution or incarceration of about half the entire military officer corps. The secret police also terrorized the general populace, with untold numbers of common people punished for spurious crimes. By the time the purges subsided in 1938, millions of Soviet leaders, officials, and other citizens had been executed, imprisoned, or exiled.

The reasons for this period of widespread purges remain unclear. Western historians variously hypothesize that Stalin created the terror out of a desire to goad the population to carry out his intensive modernization program, or to atomize society to preclude dissent, or simply out of brutal paranoia. Whatever the causes, the purges must be viewed as a counterproductive episode that weakened the Soviet state.

In 1936, just as the purges were intensifying the Great Terror, Stalin approved a new Soviet constitution to replace that of 1924. Hailed as "the most democratic constitution in the world," the 1936 document stipulated free and secret elections based on universal suffrage and guaranteed the citizenry a range of civil and economic rights. But in practice the freedoms implied by these rights were denied by provisions elsewhere in the constitution that indicated that the basic structure of Soviet society could not be changed and that the party retained all political power.

The power of the party, in turn, now was concentrated in the persons of Stalin and his handpicked Politburo. Symbolic of the lack of influence of the party rank and file, party congresses (see Glossary) met less and less frequently. State power, far from "withering away" after the revolution as Karl Marx had predicted, instead grew in strength. Stalin's personal dictatorship found reflection in the adulation that surrounded him; the reverence accorded Stalin in Soviet society gradually eclipsed that given to Lenin.

===Mobilization of Society===
Concomitant with industrialization and collectivization, society also experienced wide-ranging regimentation. Collective enterprises replaced individualistic efforts across the board: not only did the regime abolish private farms and businesses, but it collectivized scientific and literary endeavors as well. As the 1930s progressed, the revolutionary experimentation that had characterized many facets of cultural and social life gave way to conservative norms.

Considerations of order and discipline dominated social policy, which became an instrument for the modernization effort. Workers came under strict labor codes demanding punctuality and discipline, and labor unions served as extensions of the industrial ministries. At the same time, higher pay and privileges accrued to productive workers and labor brigades. To provide greater social stability, the state aimed to strengthen the family by restricting divorce and abolishing abortion.

Literature and the arts came under direct party control during the 1930s as mandatory membership in unions of writers, musicians, and other artists entailed adherence to established standards. After 1934, the party dictated that creative works had to express socialistic spirit through traditional forms. This officially sanctioned doctrine, called socialist realism, applied to all fields of artistic endeavor. The state repressed works that were stylistically innovative or lacked appropriate content.

The party also subjected science and the liberal arts to its scrutiny. Development of scientific theory in a number of fields had to be based upon the party's understanding of the Marxist dialectic, which derailed serious research in certain disciplines. The party took a more active role in directing work in the social sciences. In the writing of history, the orthodox Marxist interpretation employed in the late 1920s was modified to include nationalistic themes and to stress the role of great leaders to foster legitimacy for Stalin's dictatorship.

Education returned to traditional forms as the party discarded the experimental programs of Lunacharskii after 1929. Admission procedures underwent modification: candidates for higher education now were selected by their academic records, rather than by class origins.

Religion suffered from a state policy of increased repression, starting with the closure of numerous churches in 1929. Persecution of clergy was particularly severe during the purges of the late 1930s, when many of the faithful went underground.

===Foreign Policy, 1928-39===
Soviet foreign policy underwent a series of changes during the first decade of Stalin's rule. Soon after assuming control of the party, Stalin oversaw a radicalization of Soviet foreign policy that complemented his strenuous domestic policies. To heighten the urgency of his demands for modernization, Stalin portrayed the Western powers, particularly France, as warmongers eager to attack the Soviet Union. The diplomatic isolation practiced by the Soviet Union in the early 1930s seemed ideologically justified by the Great Depression; world capitalism appeared destined for destruction. To aid the triumph of communism, Stalin resolved to weaken the moderate social democrats of Europe, the communists' rivals for working-class support. Conversely, the Comintern ordered the Communist Party of Germany to aid the anti-Soviet National Socialist German Workers' Party ([[Nazi Party]]) in its bid for power in the hopes that a Nazi regime would exacerbate social tensions and produce conditions that would lead to a communist revolution in Germany. Stalin thus shares responsibility for Hitler's rise to power in 1933 and its tragic consequences for the Soviet Union and the rest of the world.

The dynamics of Soviet foreign relations changed drastically after Stalin recognized the danger posed by Nazi Germany. From 1934 through 1937, the Soviet Union tried to restrain German militarism by building coalitions hostile to fascism. In the international communist movement, the Comintern adopted the popular front policy of cooperation with socialists and liberals against fascism, thus reversing its line of the early 1930s. In 1934 the Soviet Union joined the [[League of Nations]], where Maksim M. Litvinov, the commissar of foreign affairs, advocated disarmament and collective security against fascist aggression. In 1935 the Soviet Union concluded defensive military alliances with France and [[Czechoslovakia]], and from 1936 to 1939 it gave assistance to antifascists in the [[Spanish Civil War]]. The menace of fascist militarism to the Soviet Union increased when Germany and Japan (itself a threat to Soviet Far Eastern territory in the 1930s) signed the Anti-Comintern Pact in 1936. But the West proved unwilling to counter German provocative behavior, and after France and Britain acquiesced to Hitler's demands for Czechoslovak territory at Munich in 1938, Stalin abandoned his efforts to forge a collective security agreement with the West.

Convinced now that the West would not fight Hitler, Stalin decided to come to an understanding with Germany. Signaling a shift in foreign policy, Viacheslav Molotov, Stalin's loyal assistant, replaced Litvinov (who was Jewish) as commissar of foreign affairs in May 1939. Hitler, who had decided to attack Poland despite the guarantees of Britain and France to defend that country, soon responded to the changed Soviet stance. While Britain and France dilatorily attempted to induce the Soviet Union to join them in pledging to protect Poland, the Soviet Union and Germany engaged in intensive negotiations. The product of the talks between the former ideological foes--the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact of August 23, 1939--shocked the world. The open provisions of the agreement pledged absolute neutrality in the event one of the parties should become involved in war, while a secret protocol partitioned Poland between the parties and assigned Romanian territory as well as Estonia and Latvia (and later Lithuania) to the Soviet sphere of influence. With his eastern flank thus secured, Hitler began the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939; Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later. [[World War II]] had begun.

==War Years==
===Prelude to War===
When German troops invaded Poland, the Soviet Union was ill prepared to enter a major war. Although military expenditures had increased dramatically during the 1930s and the standing army was expanded in 1939, Soviet weaponry was inferior to that of the German army. More important, the purges had deprived the armed services of many capable leaders, resulting in diminished morale and effectiveness. The time gained through the pact with the Nazis was therefore critical to the development of Soviet defenses, particularly after Hitler's forces had overrun much of western Europe, against little resistance, by the summer of 1940. To strengthen its western frontier, the Soviet Union quickly secured the territory located in its sphere of interest. Soviet forces seized eastern Poland in September 1939; entered Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (which were later converted into Soviet republics) in October 1939; and seized the Romanian territories of Bessarabia (later incorporated into the Moldavian Republic) and northern Bukovina (later added to the Ukrainian Republic) in June 1940. Only Finland resisted Stalin's program of expansion, first by refusing to cede territory and then by putting up a determined defense when the Red Army invaded in November 1939. Although the Soviet Union finally won its original demands in March 1940, the Soviet-Finnish War (also known as the Winter War) pointed out grave deficiencies in Soviet military capabilities, which Hitler undoubtedly noted.

As the European war continued and the theaters of the conflict widened, Hitler began to chafe under his pact with the Soviet Union. The German dictator refused to grant Stalin a free hand in the Balkans and instead moved the German forces deeper into eastern Europe and strengthened his ties with Finland. Hitler thus prepared for war against the Soviet Union under a plan that he officially approved in December 1940. Stalin, however, apparently believed that the Soviet Union could avert war by not offending Germany. The Soviet Union continued its regular shipments of resources to Germany and maintained its armed forces at a low stage of readiness. But despite Stalin's efforts to mollify Hitler, Germany declared war on the Soviet Union just as 180 German divisions swept across the border early on the morning of June 22, 1941.

===The Great Patriotic War===
The German blitzkrieg nearly succeeded in defeating the Soviet Union within the first months. The Soviet forces, caught unprepared, lost whole armies and vast quantities of equipment to the German onslaught in the first weeks of the war. By November the German army had seized the Ukrainian Republic, begun its siege of Leningrad, and threatened the security of Moscow itself. The Great Patriotic War, as the Soviet Union calls the phase of World War II involving that country, thus began inauspiciously for the Soviet Union.

By the end of 1941, however, the German forces had lost their momentum. Harsh winter weather, attacks from bands of partisans, and difficulties in obtaining supplies over long distances restricted German movements. At the same time the Red Army, after recovering from the initial blow, launched its first counterattacks against the invaders in December. To ensure the army's ability to fight the war, the Soviet authorities evacuated thousands of factories and key personnel from the war zone to the interior of the country, where the plants began producing war matériel. Finally, the country was bolstered by the prospect of receiving assistance from Britain and the United States.

After a lull in active hostilities during the winter of 1941-42, the German army renewed its offensive, scoring a number of victories in the Ukrainian Republic, Crimea, and southern Russia in the first half of 1942. Then, in an effort to gain control of the lower Volga River region, the German forces attempted to capture the city of Stalingrad (present-day Volgograd) on the west bank of the river. Here, Soviet forces put up fierce resistance even after Hitler's determined actions to take the city had reduced it to rubble. Finally, Soviet forces led by General Georgii K. Zhukov surrounded the German attackers and forced their surrender in February 1943. The Soviet victory at Stalingrad proved decisive; after losing this battle the Germans lacked the strength to sustain their offensive operations against the Soviet Union.

After Stalingrad, the Soviet Union held the initiative for the rest of the war. By the end of 1943, the Red Army had broken through the German siege of Leningrad and recaptured much of the Ukrainian Republic. By the end of 1944, the front had moved beyond the 1939 Soviet frontiers into eastern Europe. With a decisive superiority in troops and weaponry, Soviet forces drove into eastern Germany, capturing Berlin in May 1945. The war with Germany thus ended triumphantly for the Soviet Union.

In gaining the victory, the Soviet government had to rely on the support of the people. To increase popular enthusiasm for the war, Stalin changed his domestic policies to heighten patriotic spirit. Nationalistic slogans replaced much of the communist rhetoric in official pronouncements and the mass media. Active persecution of religion ceased, and in 1943 Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to name a patriarch after the office had stood vacant for nearly two decades. In the countryside, authorities permitted greater freedom on the collective farms. Harsh German rule in the occupied territories also aided the Soviet cause. Nazi administrators of conquered Soviet territories made little attempt to exploit the population's dissatisfaction with Soviet political and economic policies. Instead, the Nazis preserved the collective-farm system, systematically carried out genocidal policies against Jews, and deported others (mainly Ukrainians) to work in Germany. Under these circumstances, the great majority of the Soviet people fought and worked on their country's behalf, thus ensuring the regime's survival.

The war with Germany also brought about a temporary alliance with the two greatest powers in the "imperialist camp," namely, Britain and the United States. Despite deep-seated mistrust between the Western democracies and the Soviet state, the demands of war made cooperation critical. The Soviet Union benefited from shipments of weaponry and equipment from the Western Allies; during the course of the war the United States alone furnished supplies worth over US$11 billion. At the same time, by engaging considerable German resources, the Soviet Union gave the United States and Britain time to prepare to invade German-occupied western Europe. Relations began to sour, however, when the war turned in the Allies' favor. The postponement of the European invasion to June 1944 became a source of irritation to Stalin, whose country meanwhile bore the brunt of the struggle with Germany. Then, as Soviet armies pushed into eastern Europe, the question of the postwar order increased the friction within the coalition. At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, Stalin clashed with President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and Prime Minister [[Winston Churchill]] over his plans to extend Soviet influence to Poland after the war. At the same time, however, Stalin promised to join the war against Japan ninety days after Germany had been defeated. Breaking the neutrality pact that the Soviet Union had concluded with Japan in April 1941, the Red Army entered the war in East Asia several days before Japan surrendered in August 1945. Now, with all common enemies defeated, little remained to preserve the alliance between the Western democracies and the Soviet Union.

The end of World War II saw the Soviet Union emerge as one of the world's two great military powers. Its battle-tested forces occupied most of postwar Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union won island holdings from Japan and further concessions from Finland (which had joined in the German invasion in 1941) in addition to the territories the Soviet Union had seized as a consequence of the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. But these achievements had been bought at a high cost. An estimated 20 million Soviet soldiers and civilians perished in the war, the heaviest loss of life of any of the combatant countries. The war also inflicted severe material losses throughout the vast territory that had been included in the war zone. The suffering and losses resulting from the war made a lasting impression on the Soviet people and leaders that cannot be overlooked.

==Reconstruction and Cold War==
===Reconstruction Years===
Although the Soviet Union was victorious in World War II, its economy had been devastated in the struggle. Roughly a quarter of the country's capital resources had been destroyed, and industrial and agricultural output in 1945 fell far short of prewar levels. To help rebuild the country, the Soviet government obtained limited credits from Britain and [[Sweden]] but refused economic assistance proposed by the United States under the [[Marshall Plan]]. Instead, the Soviet Union compelled Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe to supply machinery and raw materials. Germany and former Nazi satellites (including Finland) made reparations to the Soviet Union. The Soviet people bore much of the cost of rebuilding because the reconstruction program emphasized heavy industry while neglecting agriculture and consumer goods. By the time of Stalin's death in 1953, steel production was twice its 1940 level, but the production of many consumer goods and foodstuffs was lower than it had been in the late 1920s.

During the postwar reconstruction period, Stalin tightened domestic controls, justifying the repression by playing up the threat of war with the West. Many repatriated Soviet citizens who had lived abroad during the war, whether as prisoners of war, forced laborers, or defectors, were executed or sent to prison camps. The limited freedoms granted in wartime to the church and to collective farmers were revoked. The party tightened its admission standards and purged many who had become party members during the war.

In 1946 Andrei Zhdanov, a close associate of Stalin, helped launch an ideological campaign designed to demonstrate the superiority of socialism over capitalism in all fields. This campaign, colloquially known as the Zhdanovshchina ("era of Zhdanov"), attacked writers, composers, economists, historians, and scientists whose work allegedly manifested Western influence. Although Zhdanov died in 1948, the cultural purge continued for several years afterward, stifling Soviet intellectual development. Another campaign, related to the Zhdanovshchina, lauded the real or purported achievements of past and present Russian inventors and scientists. In this intellectual climate, the genetic theories of biologist Trofim D. Lysenko, which were supposedly derived from Marxist principles but lacked scientific bases, were imposed upon Soviet science to the detriment of research and agricultural development. The anticosmopolitan trends of these years adversely affected Jewish cultural and scientific figures in particular. In general, a pronounced sense of Russian nationalism, as opposed to socialist consciousness, pervaded Soviet society.

===The Cold War===
After World War II, the Soviet Union and its Western allies soon parted ways as mutual suspicions of the other's intentions and actions flourished. Eager to consolidate influence over a number of countries near the Soviet Union, Stalin pursued aggressive policies after World War II that provoked strong Western reaction. The United States worked to contain Soviet expansion in this period of international relations that has come to be known as the Cold War.

Mindful of the numerous invasions of Russia and the Soviet Union from the West throughout history, Stalin sought to create a buffer zone of subservient East European countries, most of which the Red Army (known as the Soviet army after 1946) had occupied in the course of the war. Taking advantage of its military occupation of these countries, the Soviet Union actively assisted local communist parties in coming to power. By 1948 seven East European countries had communist governments. The Soviet Union initially maintained control behind the "iron curtain" (to use Churchill's phrase) through troops, security police, and its diplomatic service. Unequal trade agreements with the East European countries permitted the Soviet Union access to valued resources.

Soviet actions in Eastern Europe helped produce Western hostility toward their former ally, but the Western powers could do nothing to halt consolidation of Soviet authority in that region short of going to war. However, the United States and its allies had greater success in halting Soviet expansion in areas where Soviet influence was more tenuous. British and American diplomatic support for Iran forced the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops from the northeastern part of that country in 1946. Soviet efforts to acquire territory from Turkey and establish a communist government in Greece were stymied when the United States extended military and economic support to those countries under the Truman Doctrine in 1947. Later that year, the United States introduced the Marshall Plan for the economic recovery of other countries of Europe. The Soviet Union forbade the countries it dominated from taking part in the program, and the Marshall Plan contributed to reducing Soviet influence in the participating West European nations.

Tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union became especially strained over the issue of Germany. At the Potsdam Conference of July-August 1945, the Allied Powers confirmed their decision to divide Germany and the city of Berlin into zones of occupation (with the eastern sectors placed under Soviet administration) until such time as the Allies would permit Germany to establish a central government. Disagreements between the Soviet Union and the Western Allies soon arose over their respective occupation policies and the matter of reparations. In June 1948, the Soviet Union cut off the West's land access to the American, British, and French sectors of Berlin in retaliation for steps taken by the United States and Britain to unite Germany. Britain and the United States thereupon sponsored an airlift to keep the beleaguered sectors provisioned until the Soviet Union lifted the blockade in May 1949. Following the Berlin blockade, the West and the Soviet Union divided Germany into two countries, one oriented to the West, the other to the East. The crisis also provided the catalyst for the Western countries in 1949 to form the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), a collective security system designed to use conventional armies and nuclear weapons to offset Soviet forces.

While the Soviet Union gained a new satellite nation in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), it lost its influence in Yugoslavia. The local communists in [[Yugoslavia]] had come into power without Soviet assistance, and their leader, Josip Broz Tito, refused to subordinate the country to Stalin's control. Tito's defiance led the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform; founded in 1947 to partially replace the Comintern, which had been abolished in 1943) to expel the Yugoslav party from the international communist movement in 1948. To guard against the rise of other independent leaders, Stalin purged many of the chief communists in other East European states.

In Asia, the Chinese Communists, headed by Mao Zedong and assisted by the Soviet Union, achieved victory over the Nationalists in 1949. Several months afterward, in 1950, China and the Soviet Union concluded a mutual defense treaty against Japan and the United States. Hard negotiations over concessions and aid between the two communist countries served as an indication that China, with its independent party and enormous population, would not become a Soviet satellite, although for a time their relations appeared particularly close. Elsewhere in Asia, the Soviet Union pursued a vigorous policy of support for national liberation movements, especially in Malaya and Indochina, which were still colonies of Britain and France, respectively. Thinking that the West would not defend the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Stalin allowed or encouraged the Soviet-equipped forces of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) to invade South Korea in 1950. But forces from the United States and other members of the United Nations came to the aid of South Korea, leading China to intervene militarily on behalf of North Korea, probably on Soviet instigation. Although the Soviet Union avoided direct participation in the conflict (which would end in 1953), the Korean War inspired the United States to strengthen its military capability and to conclude a peace treaty and security pact with Japan. Chinese participation in the war also strengthened China's independent position in relation to the Soviet Union.

===Death of Stalin===
In the early 1950s, Stalin, now an old man, apparently permitted his subordinates in the Politburo (enlarged and called the Presidium by the Nineteenth Party Congress in October 1952) greater powers of action within their spheres. (Also at the Nineteenth Party Congress, the name of the party was changed from the All-Union Communist Party [Bolshevik] to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.) Indicative of the Soviet leader's waning strength, Secretary Georgii M. Malenkov delivered the political report to the Nineteenth Party Congress in place of Stalin. Although the general secretary took a smaller part in the day-to-day administration of party affairs, he maintained his animosity toward potential enemies. In January 1953, the party newspaper announced that a group of predominantly Jewish doctors had murdered high Soviet officials, including Zhdanov. Western historians speculate that the disclosure of this "doctors' plot" may have been a prelude to an intended purge directed against Malenkov, Molotov, and secret police chief Lavrenty Beria. In any case, when Stalin died on March 5, 1953 (under circumstances that are still unclear), his inner circle, which had feared him for years, secretly rejoiced.

During his quarter-century of dictatorial control, Stalin had overseen impressive development in the Soviet Union. From a comparatively backward agricultural society, the country had been transformed into a powerful industrial state. But in the course of that transformation, millions of people had been killed, and Stalin's use of repressive controls had become an integral function of his regime. How Stalin's system would be maintained or altered would be a question of vital concern to Soviet leaders for years after him.

==The Khrushchev Era==
===Collective Leadership and the Rise of Khrushchev===
Stalin died without naming an heir, and none of his associates had the power to immediately claim supreme leadership. The deceased dictator's colleagues initially tried to rule jointly through a collective leadership, with Malenkov holding the top positions of prime minister (chairman of the Council of Ministers; the name changed from Council of People's Commissars in 1946) and general secretary (the latter office for only two weeks). The arrangement was first challenged in 1953 when Beria, the powerful head of the security forces, plotted a coup. Beria's associates in the Presidium, however, ordered Marshal Zhukov to arrest him, and he was secretly executed. With Beria's death came the end of the inordinate power of the secret police; the party has maintained strict control over the state security organs ever since.

After the elimination of Beria, the succession struggle became more subtle. Malenkov found a formidable rival in [[Nikita S. Khrushchev]], whom the Presidium elected first secretary (Stalin's title of general secretary was abolished) in September. Of peasant background, Khrushchev had served as head of the Ukrainian party organization during and after World War II and was a member of the Soviet political elite during the Stalin period. The rivalry between Malenkov and Khrushchev surfaced publicly through Malenkov's support for increased production of consumer goods, while Khrushchev conservatively stood for development of heavy industry. After a poor showing by light industry and agriculture, Malenkov resigned as prime minister in February 1955. The new prime minister, Nikolai A. Bulganin, had little influence or real power; Khrushchev was now the most important figure within the collective leadership.

At the Twentieth Party Congress, held in February 1956, Khrushchev further advanced his position within the party by denouncing Stalin's crimes in a dramatic "secret speech." Khrushchev revealed that Stalin had arbitrarily liquidated thousands of party members and military leaders (thereby contributing to the initial Soviet defeats in World War II) and had established a pernicious cult of personality (see Glossary). With this speech Khrushchev not only distanced himself from Stalin and from Stalin's close associates, Molotov, Malenkov, and Lazar M. Kaganovich, but also abjured the dictator's policies of terror. As a direct result of the "de-Stalinization" campaign launched by the speech, the release of political prisoners, which had begun in 1953, was stepped up, and some of Stalin's victims were posthumously rehabilitated. Khrushchev later intensified his campaign against Stalin at the Twenty-Second Party Congress in 1961, winning approval to remove Stalin's body from the Lenin Mausoleum, where it had originally been interred. De-Stalinization encouraged many in artistic and intellectual circles to speak out against the abuses of the former regime. Although Khrushchev's tolerance of critical creative works vacillated during his years of leadership, the new cultural period - known as the "thaw" - represented a clear break with the repression of the arts under Stalin.

After the Twentieth Party Congress, Khrushchev continued to expand his influence, although he still faced opposition. Khrushchev's rivals in the Presidium, spurred by reversals in Soviet foreign policy in Eastern Europe in 1956, potentially threatening economic reforms, and the de-Stalinization campaign, united to vote him out of office in June 1957. Khrushchev, however, demanded that the question be put to the Central Committee of the CPSU, where he enjoyed strong support. The Central Committee overturned the Presidium's decision and expelled Khrushchev's opponents (Malenkov, Molotov, and Kaganovich), whom Khrushchev labeled the "anti-party group." In a departure from Stalinist procedure, Khrushchev did not order the imprisonment or execution of his defeated rivals but instead placed them in relatively minor offices. Khrushchev moved to consolidate his power further in the ensuring months. In October he removed Marshal Zhukov (who had helped Khrushchev squelch the "anti-party group") from the office of defense minister, presumably because he feared Zhukov's influence in the armed forces. Khrushchev became prime minister in March 1958 when Bulganin resigned, thus formally confirming his predominant position in the state as well as in the party.

Despite his rank, Khrushchev never exercised the dictatorial authority of Stalin, nor did he ever completely control the party even at the peak of his power. His attacks on members of the "anti-party group" at the Twenty-First Party Congress in 1959 and the Twenty-Second Party Congress in 1961 suggest that his opponents still retained support within the party. Khrushchev's relative political insecurity probably accounted for some of his grandiose pronouncements (for example, his 1961 promise that the Soviet Union would attain communism by 1980). His desire to undermine opposition and mollify critics explained the nature of many of his domestic reforms and the vacillations in his foreign policy toward the West.

===Foreign Policy under Khrushchev===
Almost immediately after Stalin died, the collective leadership began altering the conduct of Soviet foreign policy to permit better relations with the West and new approaches to the nonaligned countries. Malenkov introduced a change in tone by speaking out against nuclear war as a threat to civilization. Khrushchev initially contradicted this position, saying capitalism alone would be destroyed in a nuclear war, but he adopted Malenkov's view after securing his preeminent position. In 1955, to ease tensions between East and West, Khrushchev recognized permanent neutrality for Austria. Meeting President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] in Geneva, [[Switzerland]], later that year, Khrushchev confirmed Soviet commitment to "peaceful coexistence" with capitalism. Regarding the developing nations, Khrushchev tried to win the goodwill of their national leaders, instead of following the established Soviet policy of shunning the governments while supporting local communist parties. Soviet influence in the international alignments of [[India]] and [[Egypt]], as well as of other Third World countries, began in the middle of the 1950s. [[Cuba]]'s entry into the socialist camp in 1961 was a coup for the Soviet Union.

With the gains of the new diplomacy came reversals as well. By conceding the independence of Yugoslavia in 1955 as well as by his de-Stalinization campaign, Khrushchev provoked unrest in Eastern Europe, where the policies of the Stalin era weighed heavily. In Poland, riots brought about a change in communist party leadership, which the Soviet Union reluctantly recognized in October 1956. A popular uprising against Soviet control then broke out in [[Hungary]], where the local communist leaders, headed by Imre Nagy, called for a multiparty political system and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact, the defensive alliance founded by the Soviet Union and its East European satellites in 1955. The Soviet army crushed the revolt early in November 1956, causing numerous casualities. Although the Hungarian Revolution hurt Soviet standing in world opinion, it demonstrated that the Soviet Union would use force if necessary to maintain control over its satellite states in Eastern Europe.

Outside the Soviet sphere of control, China grew increasingly restive under Chinese Communist Party chairman [[Mao Zedong]]. Chinese discontent with the new Soviet leadership stemmed from low levels of Soviet aid, feeble Soviet support for China in its disputes with Taiwan and India, and the new Soviet doctrine of peaceful coexistence with the West (which Mao viewed as a betrayal of Marxism-Leninism). Against Khrushchev's wishes, China embarked on a nuclear arms program, declaring in 1960 that nuclear war could defeat imperialism. The dispute between militant China and the more moderate Soviet Union escalated into a schism in the world communist movement after 1960. Albania left the Soviet camp and became an ally of China, Romania distanced itself from the Soviet Union in international affairs, and communist parties around the world split over orientation to Moscow or Beijing. The monolithic bloc of world communism had shattered.

Soviet relations with the West, especially the United States, seesawed between moments of relative relaxation and periods of tension and crisis. For his part, Khrushchev wanted peaceful coexistence with the West, not only to avoid nuclear war but also to permit the Soviet Union to develop its economy. Khrushchev's meetings with President Eisenhower in 1955 and President [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1961 and his tour of the United States in 1959 demonstrated the Soviet leader's desire for fundamentally smooth relations between the West and the Soviet Union and its allies. Yet Khrushchev also needed to demonstrate to Soviet conservatives and militant Chinese that the Soviet Union was a firm defender of the socialist camp. Thus in 1958 Khrushchev challenged the status of [[Berlin]]; when the West would not yield to his demands that the western sectors be incorporated into East Germany, he approved the erection of the [[Berlin Wall]] around those sectors in 1961. To maintain national prestige, Khrushchev canceled a summit meeting with Eisenhower in 1960 after Soviet air defense troops shot down a United States U-2 reconnaissance aircraft over Soviet territory. Finally, mistrust over military intentions hobbled East-West relations during this time. The West feared the Soviet lead in space technology and saw in the buildup of the Soviet military an emerging "missile gap" in the Soviet Union's favor. By contrast, the Soviet Union felt threatened by a rearmed Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), by the United States alliance system encircling the Soviet Union, and by the West's superior strategic and economic strength. To offset the United States military advantage and thereby improve the Soviet negotiating position, Khrushchev in 1962 tried to install nuclear missiles in Cuba, but he agreed to withdraw them after Kennedy ordered a blockade around the island nation. After coming close to war in the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], the Soviet Union and the United States took steps to reduce the nuclear threat. In 1963 the two countries established the "hot line" between Washington and Moscow to reduce the likelihood of accidental nuclear war. In the same year, the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty, which forbade testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.

===Khrushchev's Reforms and Fall===
Throughout his years of leadership, Khrushchev attempted to carry out reform in a range of fields. The problems of Soviet agriculture, a major concern of Khrushchev's, had earlier attracted the attention of the collective leadership, which introduced important innovations in this area of the Soviet economy. The state encouraged peasants to grow more on their private plots, increased payments for crops grown on the collective farms, and invested more heavily in agriculture. In his dramatic virgin land campaign in the mid-1950s, Khrushchev opened to farming vast tracts of land in the northern part of the Kazakh Republic and neighboring areas of the Russian Republic. These new farmlands turned out to be susceptible to droughts, but in some years they produced excellent harvests. Later innovations by Khrushchev, however, proved counterproductive. His plans for growing maize and increasing meat and dairy production failed miserably, and his reorganization of collective farms into larger units produced confusion in the countryside.

Khrushchev's reforms in industry and administrative organization created even greater problems. In a politically motivated move to weaken the central state bureaucracy, in 1957 Khrushchev did away with the industrial ministries in Moscow and replaced them with regional economic councils. Although Khrushchev intended these economic councils to be more responsive to local needs, the decentralization of industry led to disruption and inefficiency. Connected with this decentralization was Khrushchev's decision in 1962 to reorganize party organizations along economic, rather than administrative, lines. The resulting bifurcation of the party apparatus into industrial and agricultural sectors at the ''oblast'' level and below contributed to the disarray and alienated many party officials at all levels. Symptomatic of the country's economic difficulties was the abandonment in 1963 of Khrushchev's special seven-year economic plan (1959-65) two years short of its completion.

By 1964 Khrushchev's prestige had been injured in a number of areas. Industrial growth slowed, while agriculture showed no new progress. Abroad, the split with China, the Berlin crisis, and the Cuban fiasco hurt the Soviet Union's international stature, and Khrushchev's efforts to improve relations with the West antagonized many in the military. Lastly, the 1962 party reorganization caused turmoil throughout the Soviet political chain of command. In October 1964, while Khrushchev was vacationing in Crimea, the Presidium voted him out of office and refused to permit him to take his case to the Central Committee. Khrushchev retired as a private citizen after his successors denounced him for his "hare-brained schemes, half-baked conclusions, and hasty decisions." Yet along with his failed policies, Khrushchev must also be remembered for his public disavowal of Stalinism and the cult of personality.

==The Brezhnev Era==
===Collective Leadership and the Rise of Brezhnev===
After removing Khrushchev from power, the leaders of the Politburo (as the Presidium was renamed in 1966 by the Twenty-Third Party Congress) and Secretariat again established a collective leadership. As was the case following Stalin's death, several individuals, including Aleksei N. Kosygin, Nikolai V. Podgornyi, and [[Leonid I. Brezhnev]], contended for power behind a facade of unity. Kosygin accepted the position of prime minister, which he held until his retirement in 1980. Brezhnev, who took the post of first secretary, may have originally been viewed as an interim appointment by his fellows.

Born to a Russian worker's family in 1906, Brezhnev became a protege of Khrushchev early in his career and through his influence rose to membership in the Presidium. As his own power grew, Brezhnev built up a coterie of followers whom he, as first secretary (the title reverted to general secretary after April 1966), gradually maneuvered into powerful positions. At the same time, Brezhnev slowly demoted or isolated possible contenders for his office. He succeeded in elevating Podgornyi to the ceremonial position of chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, the highest legislative organization in the government, in December 1965, thus eliminating him as a rival. But Brezhnev's rise was very gradual; only in 1971, when Brezhnev succeeded in appointing four close associates to the Politburo, did it become clear that his was the most influential voice in the collective leadership. After several more personnel changes, Brezhnev assumed the chairmanship of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet in 1977, confirming his primacy in both party and state.

The years after Khrushchev were notable for the stability of cadres in the party and state apparatus. By introducing the slogan "Trust in Cadres" in 1965, Brezhnev won the support of many bureaucrats wary of the constant reorganizations of the Khrushchev era and eager for security in established hierarchies. As an example of the new stability, nearly half of the Central Committee members in 1981 were holdovers from fifteen years earlier. The corollary to this stability was the aging of Soviet leaders; the average age of Politburo members rose from fifty-five in 1966 to sixty-eight in 1982. The Soviet leadership (or the "gerontocracy," as it was referred to in the West) became increasingly conservative and ossified.

Conservative policies characterized the regime's agenda in the years after Khrushchev. Upon assuming power, the collective leadership not only reversed such policies of Khrushchev's as the bifurcation of the party but also halted de-Stalinization, and positive references to the dead dictator began to appear. The Soviet Constitution of 1977, although differing in certain respects from the 1936 Stalin document, retains the general thrust of the latter. In contrast to the relative cultural freedom tolerated during the early Khrushchev years, Brezhnev and his colleagues continued the more restrictive line of the later Khrushchev era. The leadership was unwilling or unable to employ Stalinist means to control Soviet society; instead, it opted to exert repressive tactics against political dissidents even after the Soviet Union acceded to the Helsinki Accords in 1975. Dissidents persecuted during this time included writers and activists in outlawed religious, nationalist, and human rights movements. In the latter part of the Brezhnev era, the regime tolerated popular expressions of antisemitism. Under conditions of "developed socialism" (the historical stage that the Soviet Union attained in 1977 according to the CPSU), the study of Marxism-Leninism served as a means to bolster the authority of the regime rather than as a tool for revolutionary action.

===Foreign Policy of a Superpower===
A major concern of Khrushchev's successors was to reestablish Soviet primacy in the community of communist states by undermining the influence of China. Although the new leaders originally approached China without hostility, Mao's condemnation of Soviet foreign policy as "revisionist" and his competition for influence in the Third World soon led to a worsening of relations between the two countries. Sino-Soviet relations reached a low point in 1969 when clashes broke out along the disputed Ussuri River in the Far East. Later the Chinese, intimidated by Soviet military strength, agreed not to patrol the border area claimed by the Soviet Union; but strained relations between the two countries continued into the early 1980s.

Under the collective leadership, the Soviet Union again used force in Eastern Europe, this time in Czechoslovakia. In 1968 reform-minded elements of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia rapidly began to liberalize their rule, loosen censorship, and strengthen Western ties. In response, Soviet and other Warsaw Pact troops entered Czechoslovakia and installed a new regime. Out of these events arose the so-called Brezhnev Doctrine, which warned that the Soviet Union would act to maintain its hegemony in Eastern Europe. Soviet suppression of the reform movement reduced blatant gestures of defiance on the part of Romania and served as a threatening example to the Polish Solidarity trade union movement in 1980. But it also helped disillusion communist parties in Western Europe to the extent that by 1977 most of the leading parties embraced Eurocommunism, which freed them to pursue political programs independent of Moscow's dictates.

Soviet influence in the developing world expanded somewhat during this period. New communist or Marxist governments having close relations with the Soviet Union rose to power in several countries, including [[Vietnam]], [[Ethiopia]], and [[Nicaragua]]. In the Middle East, the Soviet Union vied for influence by backing the Arabs in their dispute with [[Israel]]. After the June 1967 War, the Soviet Union rebuilt the defeated Syrian and Egyptian armies, but it suffered a setback when Egypt expelled Soviet advisers from the country in 1972 and subsequently entered a closer relationship with the United States. The Soviet Union retained ties with Syria and supported Palestinian claims for their right to an independent state. But Soviet prestige among moderate Muslim states suffered in the 1980s as a result of Soviet military activities in [[Afghanistan]]. Attempting to shore up a communist government in that country, Brezhnev sent in Soviet armed forces in December 1979, but a large part of the Afghan population resisted both the occupiers and the Marxist Afghan regime. The resulting war in Afghanistan continued to be an unresolved problem for the Soviet Union at the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982.

Soviet relations with the West first improved, then deteriorated in the years after Khrushchev. The gradual winding down of the United States commitment to the war in Vietnam after 1968 opened the way for negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on the subject of nuclear arms. After the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons was signed in July 1968, the two countries began the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in 1969. At the Moscow Summit of May 1972, Brezhnev and President [[Richard M. Nixon]] signed Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Interim Agreement on the limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. Both agreements essentially froze the deployment of strategic defensive and offensive weapons. A period of détente, or relaxation of tensions, between the two superpowers emerged, with a further agreement concluded to establish ceilings on the number of offensive weapons on both sides in 1974. The crowning achievement of the era of détente was the signing in 1975 of the Helsinki Accords, which ratified the postwar status quo in Europe and bound the signatories to respect basic principles of human rights. But even during the period of détente, the Soviet Union increased weapons deployments, with the result that by the end of the 1970s it achieved parity or even superiority in strength compared with the United States. The Soviet Union also heightened its condemnation of the NATO alliance in an attempt to weaken Western unity. Although SALT a second agreement was signed by Brezhnev and President Jimmy Carter in Vienna in 1979, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the Carter administration withdrew the agreement from consideration by the United States Senate, and détente effectively came to an end. In reaction to the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, the United States imposed a grain embargo on the Soviet Union and boycotted the Summer Olympics in Moscow in 1980. Tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union continued up to Brezhnev's death.

===The Economy===
Despite Khrushchev's tinkerings with economic planning, the economic system remained dependent on central plans drawn up with no reference to market mechanisms. Reformers, of whom the economist Evsei Liberman was most noteworthy, advocated greater freedom for individual enterprises (see Glossary) from outside controls and sought to turn the enterprises' economic objectives toward making a profit. Prime Minister Kosygin championed Liberman's proposals and succeeded in incorporating them into a general economic reform program approved in September 1965. This reform included scrapping Khrushchev's regional economic councils in favor of resurrecting the central industrial ministries of the Stalin era. Opposition from party conservatives and cautious managers, however, soon stalled the Liberman reforms, forcing the state to abandon them.

After this short-lived attempt at revamping the economic system, planners reverted to drafting comprehensive centralized plans of the type first developed under Stalin. In industry, plans stressed the heavy and defense-related branches, with the light consumer-goods branches slighted. As a developed industrial country, the Soviet Union by the 1970s found it increasingly difficult to maintain the high rates of growth in the industrial sector that it had sustained in earlier years. Increasingly large investment and labor inputs were required for growth, but these inputs were becoming more difficult to obtain. Although the planned goals of the five-year plans of the 1970s had been scaled down from previous plans, the targets remained largely unmet. The industrial shortfalls were felt most sharply in the sphere of consumer goods, where the public steadily demanded improved quality and increased quantity. Agricultural development continued to lag in the Brezhnev years. Despite steadily higher investments in agriculture, growth under Brezhnev fell below that attained under Khrushchev. Droughts occurring irregularly throughout the 1970s forced the Soviet Union to import large quantities of grain from the West, including the United States. In the countryside, Brezhnev continued the trend toward converting collective farms into state farms and raised the incomes of all farm workers. Despite the wage raises, peasants still devoted much time and effort to their private plots, which provided the Soviet Union with an inordinate share of its agricultural goods.

The standard of living in the Soviet Union presented a problem to the Brezhnev leadership after improvements made in the late 1960s gradually leveled off at a position well below that of many Western industrial (and some East European) countries. Although certain goods and appliances became more accessible during the 1960s and 1970s, improvements in housing and food supply were slight. Shortages of consumer goods abetted pilferage of government property and growth of the black market. Vodka, however, remained readily available, and alcoholism was an important factor in both the declining life expectancy and the rising infant mortality that the Soviet Union experienced in the later Brezhnev years.

===Culture and the Arts===
Progress in developing the education system was mixed during the Brezhnev years. In the 1960s and 1970s, the percentage of working-age people with secondary and higher education steadily increased. Yet at the same time, access to higher education grew more difficult. By 1980 the percentage of secondary school graduates admitted to universities had dropped to only two-thirds of the 1960 figure. Students accepted into the universities increasingly came from professional families rather than from worker or peasant households. This trend toward the perpetuation of the educated elite was not only a function of the superior cultural background of elite families but was also, in many cases, a result of their power to influence the admissions procedures.

Progress in science also enjoyed varied success under Brezhnev. In the most visible test of its ability - the race with the United States to put a man on the moon - the Soviet Union failed, but through persistence the Soviet space program continued to make headway in other areas. In general, despite leads in such fields as metallurgy and thermonuclear fusion, Soviet science lagged behind that of the West, hampered in part by the slow development of computer technology.

In literature and the arts, a greater variety of creative works became accessible to the public than had previously been available. True, the state continued to determine what could be legally published or performed, punishing persistent offenders with exile or prison. Nonetheless, greater experimentation in art forms became permissible in the 1970s, with the result that more sophisticated and subtly critical work began to be produced. The regime loosened the strictures of socialist realism; thus, for instance, many protagonists of the novels of author Iurii Trifonov concerned themselves with problems of daily life rather than with building socialism. In music, although the state continued to frown on such Western phenomena as jazz and rock, it began to permit Western musical ensembles specializing in these genres to make limited appearances. But the native balladeer Vladimir Vysotskii, widely popular in the Soviet Union, was denied official recognition because of his iconoclastic lyrics.

In the religious life of the Soviet Union, a resurgence in popular devotion to the major faiths became apparent in the late 1970s despite continued de facto disapproval on the part of the authorities. This revival may have been connected with the generally growing interest of Soviet citizens in their respective national traditions.

===Death of Brezhnev===
Shortly after his cult of personality began to take root in the mid-1970s, Brezhnev began to experience periods of ill health. After Brezhnev's first stroke in 1975, Politburo members Mikhail A. Suslov and Andrei P. Kirilenko assumed some of Brezhnev's functions for a time. Then, after another bout of poor health in 1978, Brezhnev delegated more of his responsibilities to Konstantin U. Chernenko, a long-time associate who soon began to be regarded as the heir apparent. His prospects of succeeding Brezhnev, however, were hurt by problems plaguing the general secretary in the early 1980s. Not only had economic failures hurt Brezhnev's prestige, but scandals involving his family and political allies also damaged his stature. Meanwhile, Iurii V. Andropov, chief of the secret police, the Committee for State Security (Komitet gosudarstvennoi bezopasnosti--KGB), apparently also began a campaign to discredit Brezhnev. Andropov took over Suslov's functions after Suslov died in 1982, and he used his position to advance himself as the next CPSU general secretary. Brezhnev himself, despite ill health following another stroke in March, would not relinquish his office. Soon after reviewing the traditional Bolshevik Revolution parade in November 1982, Brezhnev died.

Ultimately, the Soviet Union paid a high price for the stability that prevailed during the years of the Brezhnev regime. By avoiding necessary political and economic change, the Brezhnev leadership ensured the economic and political decline that the country experienced during the 1980s. This deterioration of power and prestige stood in sharp contrast to the dynamism that marked the Soviet Union's revolutionary beginnings.

==Tensions with the West==
===Yuri Andropov===
===The Shootdown of KAL 007===
Considered by many as the second or third most critical single incident of the Cold War (after the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] of 1962 and [[Able Archer 83]]), the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] on Sept. 1, 1983 would signal a change in the relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union prompted by the subsequent deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles in [[West Germany]] just 6 minutes from launch to Moscow. A civilian passenger jet carrying 269 passengers on a flight from Anchorage, Alaska to South Korea, it had strayed into Soviet airspace and was shot down near Sakhalin Island just as it re-entered international waters. [http://www.rescue007.org/].

===Konstantin Chernenko===

==The Gorbachev Era==
===Mikhail Gorbachev===

===''Glasnost'' and ''Perestroika''===

===Chernobyl===

===Fall of Communism===

===Coup attempt against Gorbachev===

==Collapse of the Soviet Union==

[[Category:Soviet Union]]

Taft-Hartley

2008-12-13T19:43:08Z

FernoKlump: Redirecting to Taft-Hartley Act

#REDIRECT [[Taft-Hartley Act]]

Robert A. Taft

2008-12-13T19:40:37Z

FernoKlump: Redirecting to Robert Taft

#REDIRECT [[Robert Taft]]

Harry Truman

2008-12-13T19:38:30Z

FernoKlump: sp + gr

{{President|
|name=Harry S. Truman
|image=HTruman.jpg
|country=the United States
|seq=33
|party=Democratic
|term_start=April 12, 1945
|term_end=January 20, 1953<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~sharonday7/Presidents/AP060301.htm</ref>
|vp=None
|vp_dates=1945-1949
|2vp=Alben Barkley
|2vp_dates=1949-1953
|previous=Franklin D. Roosevelt
|next=Dwight D. Eisenhower
|seq2=34
|office2=vice
|party2=
|term2_start=January 20, 1945
|term2_end=April 12, 1945
|pres2=Franklin D. Roosevelt
|previous2=Henry A. Wallace
|next2=Alben W. Barkley
|birth_date=May 8, 1884
|birth_place=Lamar, MO
|death_date=December 26, 1972
|death_place=Kansas City, MO
|spouse=Bess Wallace Truman
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Baptist]]
}}

'''Harry S. Truman,''' (1884-1972) a [[liberal]] [[Democrat]] from [[Missouri]], was the president of the United States from 1945-1953, taking over when [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] died in April 1945. He took the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to force Japan's surrender. Angered at the Soviet Union's seizure of eastern Europe, he moved away from FDR's [[détente]] to a policy of [[containment]], reinforced by the Truman Plan (1947) to resist Communist subversion, the [[Marshall Plan]] (1948-51) to rebuild and modernize western Europe's economies, and the [[NATO]] military alliance of 1949. Truman, advised by [[Dean Acheson]] and the State Department, set the policies to oppose the Soviet Union as the [[Cold War]] began.

Ignoring Asia, he later saw America's close ally China fall to the anti-American Communists under [[Mao Zedong]] in 1949; the US and China fought each other to a draw during the undeclared [[Korean War]], 1950-53. Truman fired his top general, [[Douglas MacArthur]], during this conflict and saw his popularity plunge.

As the war ended, the massive problem of reconverting the 45% of the economy devoted to war production baffled Truman. Listening to liberal advisers, he refused to end extremely unpopular price controls, and was unable to stop a massive wave of strikes in major industries in 1945-46. Voter dissatisfaction to the Republican capture of Congress in 1946; with Senator [[Robert A. Taft]] as the conservative Republican spokesman, Congress repealed many of the wartime restrictions on business and lowered taxes. Taft rewrote the labor laws in the [[Taft-Hartley Act of 1947]], balancing the rights of unions, management and the public interest; it became law over Truman's signature and remains in effect.

Truman began with very high popularity ratings, but they plunged to the lowest on record. Democrats were unable to stop his renomination in 1948, but the far left nominated FDR's vice president [[Henry A. Wallace]], and southern conservative Democrats nominated Dixiecrat [[J. Strom Thurmond]]. Observers almost unanimously expected victory for the Republican candidate, Governor [[Thomas E. Dewey]], liberal from New York. Total astonishment greeted Truman's stunning election victory, as he reassembled the [[New Deal Coalition]] for the fifth consecutive victory, pulling in on his coattails a Democratic Congress.

Although the Democrats organized Congress in 1949, the [[Conservative Coalition]] of Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats was in control, and Truman was to pass any of his liberal [[Fair Deal|Fair Deal program]]. Nevertheless he he pursued civil rights through executive orders, especially a 1948 order to end racial discrimination in the military. Blacks remained in segregated units, but were to receive equal treatment. Truman's failures to deal with "Korea, Communism and Corruption" forced him to withdraw from reelection in 1952 and gave the Republicans an opportunity to crusade against him and elect [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] in 1952.

Overshadowed at first by his predecessor, [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], Truman established a reputation as a blunt, unsophisticated fighter for the common man, who took responsibility for his actions because, he said, "the buck stops here." His stunning reelection victory in 1948 baffled the experts and has inspired underdogs ever since. He is more popular in 2008 than ever. His policy positions make him a heroic icon for liberals.

==Early life==

Truman was born on a farm near Lamar, in western Missouri, and grew up on a farm near Independence, Missouri. His grandparents had been Confederate sympathizers who had been rounded up by the Union army in the Civil War.<ref> His middle initial, S, does not stand for anything, but was chosen because his parents could not decide whether to name him for his grandfather Shippe or for his grandfather Solomon.</ref> After graduating from high school in Independence, with good skills in history and music, he decided against college and became a bank clerk in Kansas City. Always a joiner, he was active in the Missouri National Guard. From 1906 to 1917 he managed his father's 600-acre farm at [[Grandview, Missouri]]. During World War I his National Guard regiment was mobilized in 1917, he entered the Field Artillery School at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, sailing for France in 1917 as a lieutenant. Truman was soon promoted to captain in Battery D, 129 Field Artillery Battalion, 35th Division, A.E.F., and returned to the United States a major in 1919, after combat at St. Mihiel and in the Argonne offensive. He was in an artillery unit, and learned about gas warfare; he was never wounded, He married Elizabeth "Bess" Wallace on June 28, 1919; they had one daughter, Margaret, who married a ''New York Times'' editor. With an army buddy he invested his savings in a Kansas City haberdashery, but this venture was a failure.

==Pendergast machine==
Discouraged by his lack of business success and without funds, Truman sought the help of friends. His farm background, his war record, his Masonic connections, his Baptist Church affiliations, and his genial personality recommended him to [[Thomas J. Pendergast]], the Democratic political boss of Kansas City and much of western Missouri. Pendergast, an Irish Catholic, had a strong base among the Irish Catholics and used Truman to reach out to Protestants, farmers and veterans. He made Truman the overseer of highways for Jackson County.

In 1922 Truman was elected a county judge; needing some legal knowledge he studied nights for two years at Kansas City Law School; it was his only education beyond high school, although he read history. In the 1924 GOP landslide he was defeated for reelection, but in 1926 he was returned to office as presiding judge of the court, the duties of which also involved administrative supervision of many county expenditures, including $60 million for public works. He almost joined the [[Ku Klux Klan]], but withdrew his application when he realized his Irish Catholic allies bitterly opposed the KKK; Truman then campaigned against the Klan.
==Senate==
In 1934 Pendergast arranged for Truman's nomination as United States Senator on the Democratic ticket; he was elected in the democratic landslide as a supporter of Roosevelt and the New deal. His first term in office was uneventful, except for a failed effort to prevent the renomination of Maurice Milligan for U.S. District Attorney for the Western District of Missouri; Milligan had obtained the conviction of 35 Pendergast "ward leaders" for vote frauds.

===World War II===
He was re-elected in 1940 after a terrific battle against [[Lloyd Stark]], Truman became nationally infamous as chairman of the "Truman Committee". Ostensibly for the purpose of investigating waste, fraud and inefficiency in government contracts, the committee allowed Truman and his associates to interfere in many aspects of Executive policy on the prosecution of the war. The committee frequently tampered with or even canceled contracts with legitimate suppliers of essential war materials when they would not deal with Truman's Kansas City patrons, the Pendergasts. Its formal name was the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program. Nevertheless, he was an energetic and forthright supporter of the [[New Deal]] and won widespread party favor for his attacks on business malfeasance in war production. He forced changes in the aircraft and ship construction programs, and worked well with other border state Democrats, especially [[Alben Barkley]] of Kentucky, the Majority Leader.

===FDR picks a new vice president===
In 1944, after Vice-President [[Henry A. Wallace]] had been rejected by leading Democrats as too far to the left, Truman supported his friend former senator [[James F. Byrnes]] of South Carolina for that office. Catholics vetoed Byrnes, who had left that faith. Truman himself became Roosevelt's choice as a compromise vice presidential candidate, and the two were elected.

Roosevelt had been in ill-health since his return from the [[Teheran conference]]. At the 1944 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, DNC Chairman Bob Hannegan went for instructions to President Roosevelt's private railway car just before the July convention officially began. Roosevelt had decided to dump incumbent Vice-President [[Henry Wallace]]. Worried over dissension on the choice of a successor, Roosevelt told Hannegan: "Go on down there and nominate Truman before there's any more trouble. And clear everything with Sidney." <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,791619,00.html "Clear everything with Sidney"], [[Time magazine]], Sep. 25, 1944.</ref> The President could not make the selection of Truman until [[Sidney Hillman]] <ref>''The Roosevelt Myth'', John T. Flynn, Fox and Wilkes, 1948, Book 2, Ch. 8, [http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/book/fdrmyth_Chapter_Eight___The_Shock_Troops.htm ''The Shock Troops of the Third New Deal'']</ref>, Director of the Political Action Committee for the Congress on Industrial Organizations (CIO) approved it. <ref> ''Roosevelt Myth'', Book 3, Ch. 10, [http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/book/fdrmyth_Chapter_Ten___Politics__Disease_.htm ''Politics, Disease and History''], Flynn, 1948.</ref> When Harry Truman walked into the smoke-filled room <ref>[http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/index_print.asp?ProgramID=1109 ''Truman''], Interview with David McCullough, C-Span Booknotes, July 19, 1992. Retrieved August 6, 2007.</ref> of DNC at headquarters at the Stevens Hotel in Chicago, Soviet spies [[John Abt]], [[Lee Pressman]], and [[Nathan Witt]], were on hand." <ref>''The Yalta Betrayal'', Felix Wittmer, Claxton Printers, 1953, pg. 75.</ref>

==Presidency==
Roosevelt ignored Truman between the election in November 1944 and the inauguration in January; even as Vice president Truman was not consulted on national policies, and not informed of major decisions, nor of the atomic bomb. Although he realized Roosevelt's health was failing rapidly, he made no preparations for assuming the presidency and did not even build up a staff of advisors. Truman succeeded to the Presidency upon the death of FDR on April 12, 1945.

President Truman pledged that in office he would carry on the liberal domestic policies of Roosevelt. He distrusted most of FDR's cabinet and set about to assemble his own team.

===Winning World War II===

During his term as President, he presided over the conclusion of [[World War II]] in both [[Europe]] and [[Japan]].
On April 25 his telephoned speech opened the San Francisco Conference establishing the [[United Nations]]. A week later Germany surrendered, and from July 17 to August 2, 1945, Truman attended the [[Potsdam Conference]] with Britain's [[Winston Churchill]] (soon replaced by the new prime minister [[Clement Attlee]]) and [[Joseph Stalin]] of the Soviet Union.

===Atomic bomb===
The alternative Truman faced was to order use of the atomic bomb which might shock the Japanese into surrender, or order the planned invasion of Japan's home islands; casualty estimates for Americans ranged very widely. Casualty estimates for Japan ranged into the millions. Secretary of War [[Henry Stimson]] made the real decision: to drop atomic bombs on [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki]]. Japan immediately surrendered on terms that allowed Emperor [[Hirohito]] to stay on the throne and not be tried as a war criminal. Truman put General [[Douglas MacArthur]] in charge of occupying and controlling Japan; MacArthur remained in charge until the peace treaty was finally signed in 1951.

Truman kept control of the bomb in civilian hands—the Air Force and State Department did not even know how many bombs existed until 1948, when only eight had been built. The postwar military strategy was not built around nuclear weapons.

====Debating the decision====

=====Conservatives and liberals=====

In general, conservatives and liberals alike have applauded and supported the a-bomb decision because it shortened the war, and prevented hundreds of thousands or millions of casualties. The New Left or "revisionist" interpretation argues that the bomb was not necessary to end the war and that no invasion was necessary. They have no evidence to support that argument. They do have fragments of evidence that give weak support to the argument that one American goal was to intimidate the Soviet Union. The revisionists believe the US should have stayed friends with the Soviets, and that Truman was guilty for starting the Cold War (which they consider a bad thing). Morally the revisionists assume the USA was no better or worse than the Soviets—admitting to Soviet atrocities, they argue that socialism was morally superior to capitalism, which itself was a great evil the US intended to spread. In terms of the bomb, Secretary of State James Byrnes did make some offhand references to influencing Moscow, but his comments did not reflect the policy of the State Department or White House, and certainly not those of Stimson, who was by far the most important decision-maker.
Vice President Truman had been kept uninformed about the atomic bomb; he had little interest in military affairs and his chief military aide, General Harry Vaughan, was a drinking buddy likewise unfamiliar with what was happening in the war. Truman therefore relied entirely on his Secretary of War, [[Henry Stimson]]. At Potsdam he approved the atomic bomb targets selected by Stimson and, on the way home, he authorized the bombing of Hiroshima, Japan, August 6, 1945, and Nagasaki three days later.

====How the decision was made====
The decision to drop the atomic bomb has been the focus of one of the most heated debates among both scholars and the public since 1945. After 1945 the debate was dominated by "traditionalist" scholars, who argued that the U.S. had no choice but to drop the bomb as a way to bring World War II to an end. The traditionalists were succeeded in the 1960s by "revisionists," who asserted that the dropping of the bomb was done to intimidate Stalin, not end the war. The leading revisionist historians emerged from the "new left" movement of the 1960s and rejected any notion of the moral superiority of America or capitalism to the Soviet Union. They thought the Cold War and containment were poor policies and generally favored détente, along the lines proposed by Henry Wallace. They include Gar Alperovitz, Barton J. Bernstein, Kai Bird, Diane Shaver Clemens, Bruce Cumings, Richard Freeland, Lloyd Gardner, Gabriel Kolko, Walter LaFeber, Thomas Paterson, Harvard Sitkoff, Ronald Steel, Athan Theoharis, and William A. Williams (the leader of the "Wisconsin School"). The revisionists are not monolithic, but they usually agree that Truman and his advisers were wrong whether the issue is the Cold War, Korea, or the atomic bomb. Revisionists had argued that Truman's goal at Potsdam was to prevent Soviet entry into the war against Japan, and the atomic bomb was used to scare them off. However in 1983 archivists discovered a letter Truman wrote to his wife from Potsdam on July 18, 1945: "I've gotten what I came for-- Stalin goes to war August 15 with no strings on it . . . I'll say that we'll end the war a year sooner now, and think of the kids who won't be killed! That's the important thing."<ref>''New York Times'' March 14, 1983. </ref>

In the 1990s, a more nuanced historical approach emerged searching for a middle ground, offering a number of more credible studies, essentially arguing that neither the traditional nor the revisionist interpretations were entirely satisfactory.<ref>J. Samuel Walker, "Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: a Search for Middle Ground." ''Diplomatic History'' 2005 29(2): 311-334. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref>

==Domestic affairs==
===Reconversion of the economy to peacetime===
The process of reconversion to peacetime was rocky. It was impossible to bring soldiers home fast enough, and they and their families protected loudly. All war contract were canceled, shutting down munitions plants and throwing millions of workers (many of them women) out of jobs, just as the 12 million service members were coming home. Truman sought to retain price controls against the vehement opposition of business but yielded somewhat in the face of bitter popular opposition. Large-scale strikes disrupted the economy, especially a coal miners strike and a threatened nationwide strike by railroad workers. He threatened to draft the railroad workers and the strike was called off; unions began to oppose him but he regained union support by his later attempts to veto or repeal the [[Taft-Hartley]] labor relations law. Truman's opposition to tax cuts, his insistence on price controls, and his lack of aggressive support of labor programs weakened his party. To voters frustrated with shortages and controls, Truman seemed indecisive and inconsistent; his efforts to deal with a postwar wave of strikes managed to alienate both organized labor and those who wanted more restraints on unions. Voters who normally supported liberal and labor candidates stayed home, resulting in a Republican landslide in 1946, giving the GOP a majority in both houses of Congress. Ohio Senator [[Robert A. Taft]] became the main GOP spokesman in Congress, tangling often with Truman.
===Moving left===
Gradually Truman created his own administration, using the '''''Fair Deal''''' label to express its goals in domestic affairs. Truman systematically removed the Roosevelt cabinet and inner circle of advisers. The most dramatic episode was firing [[Henry A. Wallace]] in 1946 because of his outspoken criticism of the administration's foreign policy as too harsh on the Soviet Union. Liberals saw themselves in a struggle with conservatives for Truman's soul after the 1946 election. Linked to the President through top aide [[Clark Clifford]], these liberals included Oscar Ewing, former party official and director of the Federal Security Agency, Leon Keyserling, member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and David Morse, assistant secretary of labor. They embraced the memo plotting 1948 campaign strategy written by former Roosevelt adviser James Rowe, which urged Truman to "move to the left and focus on building a coalition of groups that centered on organized labor, liberals, and northern urban African Americans."<ref> The memo until 1991 was mis-attributed to Clifford, who passed it along to Truman.</ref> Liberals had national support from the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), led by [[Walter Reuther]], [[Eleanor Roosevelt]], Joseph Rauh, James Rowe, [[Reinhold Niebuhr]], [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]], [[Hubert Humphrey]], and [[Ronald Reagan]]<ref> Reagan was an energetic liberal supporter of Truman. He moved to the right in the late 1950s.</ref> . The ADA was hostile to the Soviet Union, battled American Communists and fellow travelers like Wallace, and supported the purge of Communists from the [[CIO]] labor unions. Truman agreed with the ADA and moved left after 1946.<ref> Steven M. Gillon, ''Politics and Vision: the ADA and American Liberalism, 1947-1985'' (1987).</ref>

However he could not tolerate [[Henry A. Wallace]] and the far left, which had considerable Communist support. When Wallace, then Secretary of Commerce, in 1946 denounced Truman's tough stand against Stalin, Truman fired Wallace.

In 1947 Truman asked Congress for stand-by price controls, rationing, and bank and consumer credit control as parts of an anti-inflation program, but his ideas were ignored by the Republicans who controlled Congress. In his state of the union message of Jan. 7, 1948, Truman called for rent control, increased social security benefits, universal military training, national health insurance, and other social legislation. The next week he again asked for passage of his anti-inflation measures. In February 1948 he asked for civil-rights legislation, including a federal anti-lynching law, a federal fair employment practices commission, a permanent civil rights commission, and abolition of the poll tax--measures that enraged many Southern Democrats. None of his proposals became law. More successful was Truman's drive to increase the efficiency of the executive branch; he appointed a commission headed by former President [[Herbert Hoover]] which recommended numerous changes, including unification of the armed services.

===Civil Rights===
Disgusted by violence against black veterans in the deep South, Truman called for the extension of the wartime [[FEPC]] program that called for fair employment practices, but Congress refused and it ended. He created the Presidential Commission on Civil Rights in 1946 by executive order (with no congressional approval needed); it recommended desegregation of local public facilities and the removal of restrictive covenants that prevented blacks and Jews from purchasing houses in restricted neighborhoods. The Commission generated attention but no action.<ref> Steven F. Lawson, ed. ''To Secure These Rights: The Report of Harry S. Truman's Committee on Civil Rights.'' (2004)</ref> Indeed, Congress refused to pass any civil rights legislation before 1957. Truman therefore decided to use his executive powers, and focused on guaranteeing equal opportunity in the military and the civil service. The Army and Navy operated segregated units, and refused to be part of a "social experiment" in integration.<ref> Bernard C. Nalty, ''Strength For the Fight: A History of Black Americans in the Military'' (1986)</ref> The Air Force, however, was much more willing. Between 1941 and 1951 it went from a segregated force to the first truly integrated service. Key generals became convinced that segregation was a drag on efficiency, and the Air Force decided to integrate in April 1948. before Truman issued his famous Executive Order 9981 on July 26, 1948, calling for equal opportunity in all the armed services. It allowed segregation but called for "equality of treatment and opportunity." In the face of opposition from some high-ranking officers, the Air Force moved cautiously, but by 1951 the last black unit was dissolved and the Air Force was completely integrated.<ref> Alan L. Gropman, ''The Air Force Integrates, 1945-1964.'' (2nd ed 1998) [http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/Annotations/gropmanintegrates.htm online edition]. </ref> Order 9981 created the Fahy Committee to implement the new policy. Truman's order did not actually integrate the Army--it used segregated units during the Korean War--but it opened the way for integration in the early 1950s.<ref> Richard M. Dalfiume, ''Desegregation of the U.S. Armed Forces: Fighting on Two Fronts, 1939-1953.'' (1969)</ref> Public opinion was generally favorable except in the deep South (which voted against Truman in 1948).

==1948 election==
As the presidential election of 1948 approached, no one thought Truman could be reelected. Truman's policies had alienated left right and center, but the party had no real alternative. Neither Roosevelt nor Truman had groomed a likely successor. Party leaders considered asking [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] to run, but he refused. Liberals led by Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota inserted a strong civil rights plank in the platform, causing a walkout of the deep South. Truman was renominated by default, with Barkley as the vice-presidential candidate. Truman thrilled the convention by announcing his plan to call the Republican-controlled Congress back into special session to "ask them to pass the laws to halt rising prices, to meet the housing crisis--which they say they are for in their platform." When this special session accomplished little, as Truman expected, it gave the president a chance to attack the "Do Nothing" Congress.

Both the left and right wings of the party split off and ran their own candidates. Henry Wallace, the candidate of the Progressive Party, was expected to divert labor, leftist and black votes, while [[J. Strom Thurmond]] was the "Dixiecrat" candidate whose supporters controlled the Democratic party in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.<ref> Thurmond received only 15% of the vote in the other Southern states. Kari Frederickson, ''The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932-1968.'' (2001) </ref> Truman exploited his multiple opponents, driving a wedge between the liberals and the Communists who controlled the Wallace movement, and holding the line in the outer South. Most of all he exploited the difference between the conservative Republicans who controlled Congress, and the liberal Republican candidate [[Tom Dewey]]. Truman crusaded against the Republicans as evil rich men, blasting them as fascists and denouncing the 80th Congress for its failure to help the average citizen.<ref>''Time'' magazine reported that "His irresponsible implication that a vote for Thomas Dewey was a vote for fascism horrified his soberer followers." ''Time'' Jan 3, 1949 at [http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/personoftheyear/archive/stories/1948.html]</ref> "Give 'em hell" fury delivered in 275 speeches over 21,928 train-miles had more impact that Truman's promises of more money for federal housing, higher social security and unemployment benefits, free medical care for everyone, the continued subsidy of farm prices, and a fair deal for minorities. The pollsters misjudged the election, as did all the traditional pundits. Truman rallied enough of the [[New Deal Coalition]] to win by 2.2 million votes, and carry in a Democratic Congress on his coattails. The key farm states of the farm states of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio that Dewey had carried in 1944 now switched to Truman, giving a solid victory in the electoral college of 303 for Truman, 189 for Dewey, 39 for Thurmond, and none for Wallace.<ref> Harold I. Gullan, ''The Upset That Wasn't: Harry S. Truman and the Crucial Election of 1948'' (1998); Gary A. Donaldson, ''Truman Defeats Dewey'' (1998) </ref>

==Second Term: Fair Deal==
During Truman's second term as president, he pressed for civil rights legislation, compulsory national health insurance, and other domestic measures that he called his "Fair Deal" program. Almost nothing was passed by Congress, which was controlled by the [[Conservative Coalition]]. His seizure of the steel industry to prevent a strike was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

In foreign affairs, Truman brought in [[Dean Acheson]] as Secretary of State, and promoted the Point Four program of aid to underdeveloped countries. The policy of containing Communism was set into operation by the 1949 creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to oversee the integration of the military forces of its member nations in Western Europe and North America. A further step was taken in 1951 with the establishment of the Mutual Security Agency to coordinate U.S. economic, technical and military aid abroad.
===Agriculture===
Truman won the farm vote in 1948 by charging the GOP shoved "a pitchfork in the farmer's back", but was unable to get new farm programs passed. His second secretary of agriculture, Charles F. Brannan promoted the Brannan Plan, intended to bring widespread changes to farm policy. Brannan proposed to replace market price supports with direct income payments to farmers. His plan set ceilings on the amount a farmer could receive and limited the program to farmers who did not exceed a set production mark. The Brannan Plan was supposed to foster the "family-sized farm" while providing affordable food for consumers. While Brannan could count on support from the left, especially the National Farmers Union (which was small), labor unions (which were powerful), and consumer groups (which were weak), he was opposed by leading farm economists and the national Farm Bureau (which was large) and the national Chamber of Commerce (representing business). The head of the Farm Bureau decried the plan as intrusive, a form of "creeping socialism," and expensive. The Farm Bureau, dominated by conservatives, resisted any curbs on full agricultural production. A bloc of Midwestern Republican and southern Democratic congressmen opposed replacing market mechanisms with outright government payments to farmers and setting limits on supports to individual farms. The Brannan Plan went nowhere and instead, the conservative farm bloc passed the Agricultural Act of 1949 with high price supports.<ref> See Dean (2006)</ref>

==National Security==
===Truman Doctrine and origins of Cold War===
In early 1947 the British government, which was socialist but anti-Communist, secretly told Washington its treasury was empty and it could no longer give military and economic aid to Greece or Turkey, requested the U.S. take over. Acheson convinced Truman to act quickly lest Greece be taken over by its communist partisans who were at the time strongly supported by the Soviet government working through the communist Bulgarian and Yugoslav governments. If Greece fell, Turkey would be helpless and soon the eastern Mediterranean would fall under Stalin’s control. In a dramatic message to Congress on March 12, 1947, President Truman said that the U. S. must take immediate and resolute action to support Greece and Turkey.<ref> Turkey did not have an insurrection, but it was such a bitter rival of Greece that it had to get money if Greece did.</ref> The Republican Congress, after extensive hearings, approved this historic change in U. S. foreign policy in a bill signed May 22, 1947. Thus was born the “Truman Doctrine.” Greece suppressed the insurgents; both Greece and Turkey joined NATO.<ref>
Joseph C. Satterthwaite, "The Truman Doctrine: Turkey," ''Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,'' Vol. 401, (May, 1972), pp. 74-84 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1039114 in JSTOR]</ref>
===Recognition of Israel===
Truman usually followed the advice of the State Department in national security matters, largely ignoring the Pentagon and Congress. In the case of recognition of the independent state of Israel in 1948, however, he overruled the urgent pleas of the State Department and immediately recognized Israel. State had warned that recognition would anger the Arabs in the Middle East; Truman, however, was more responsive to domestic politics, where support for Israel was widespread.<ref> Michael T. Benson, ''Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/Harry-S-Truman-Founding-Israel/dp/0275958078/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221429694&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]; for the State Department perspective see Evan M. Wilson, "The American Interest in the Palestine Question and the Establishment of Israel," ''Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,'' Vol. 401, (May, 1972), pp. 64-73 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1039113 in JSTOR]</ref>

===Religion===
Truman, a Southern Baptist, sought religious allies in the Cold War. He tried to unite the world's religions in a spiritual crusade against communism, sending his personal representative to Pope [[Pius XII]] to coordinate not only with the Vatican but also with the heads of the Anglican, Lutheran, and Greek Orthodox churches. "If I can mobilize the people who believe in a moral world against the Bolshevik materialists," Truman wrote in 1947, "we can win this fight." Since the [[Roman Catholic Church]] was his strongest religious ally in the moral battle against international communism, Truman put Rome first in his global strategy, even trying to confer formal diplomatic recognition on the Vatican. At home, he received solid support from Catholics, who were a major element of the [[New Deal Coalition]], but overwhelming resistance from Protestants, especially Southern Baptists who rejected anything "popish." Truman's political-diplomatic effort to formalize a public, faith-driven, ecumenical international campaign failed.<ref> Elizabeth Edwards Spalding, "True Believers" ''Wilson Quarterly'' 2006 30(2): 40-44, 46-48. Issn: 0363-3276 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref>

===Loss of China===
[[Chiang Kai-shek]], America's wartime ally and head of the Nationalist forces in China, was caught between two wars—a war on China by [[Japan]] and a war with [[Mao Zedong]] and the Chinese Communists. The U.S. policy was to avoid a civil war and to threaten to withhold additional aid to the Nationalists unless they worked out a compromise. No compromise was possible, and Truman refused to send in combat troops to fight the civil war. General [[George Marshall]], who spent a year in China as Truman's emissary, testified that combat aid might have prevented a Communist victory, but General David Barr's military mission to China was specifically instructed not to supply this kind of assistance. <ref>Military Situation in the Far East, Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 82nd Congress (Washington, 1951), p. 558.</ref> General [[Albert C. Wedemeyer]] recommended this approach in his report on his 1947 fact-finding mission, but Marshall personally suppressed the report. <ref>Tang Tsou, ''America's Failure in China, 1941-1945'', Chicago 1964, pg. 457.</ref> Chiang believed that the [[Truman Doctrine]] to [[Containment|contain]] the spread of [[International Communism]] directed from Moscow would be extended to China, and ordered an offensive as soon as word of the new policy reached him. <ref>Richard C. Thornton, ''China: A Political History, 1917-1980'', Boulder CO 1982, pg. 208.</ref>

[[Dean Rusk]], Assistant Secretary of State in charge of the Far Eastern Division, said on May 18,1951 what the critics had been saying,
{{Cquote|The independence of China is gravely threatened. In the Communist world there is room for only one master. . . . How many Chinese in one community after another are being destroyed because they love China more than they love [[Soviet Russia]]? The freedoms of the Chinese people are disappearing. Trial by mob, [[democide|mass slaughter]], banishment to [[slavery|forced labor]] in [[Manchuria]] and Siberia. . . . The peace and security of China are being sacrificed by the ambitions of the Chinese conspiracy. China has been driven by foreign masters into an adventure in foreign aggression.}}
John T. Flynn observes that critics of the [[FDR]] and Truman Administrations who had been saying this earlier were denounced as “[[Fascists]].”<ref>''While You Slept: Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pg. 161] pdf.</ref> Rusk continued,
{{Cquote|We do not recognize the authorities in [[Peiping]] for what they pretend to be. It is not the government of China. It does not pass the first test. It is not Chinese. . . . We recognize the [[Kuomintang|Nationalist government of the Republic of China]] even though the territory under its control is severely restricted. <ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations (also known as the Mac Arthur Inquiry), June 2, 1951.</ref>…we believe it more authoritatively represents the views of the great body of the people of China, particularly their demand for independence from foreign control….That government will continue to receive important aid and assistance from the United States.}}

===Risks in Korea===
Conditions inviting the North Korean attack were created by the [[United Nations]] which issued a resolution for withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops. Troops began withdrawing September 15, 1948, leaving only about 7500 Americans lightly armed. This left in South Korea 16,000 Koreans and 7500 Americans, both groups lightly armed, against 150,000 fully armed North Korean Communists. General Roberts, head of the U. S. Military Mission said the South Koreans were not permitted to arm adequately.
The Korean part of Wedemeyer's report was suppressed. Wedemeyer said:
{{Cquote|American and Soviet forces . . . are approximately equal, less than 50,000 troops each, [but] the Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean People's (Communist) Army of approximately 125,000 is vastly superior to the United States-organized constabulary of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. The North Korean People's Army constitutes a potential military threat to [[South Korea]], since there is strong possibility that the Soviets will withdraw their occupation forces and thus induce our own withdrawal."<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>}}

Wedemeyer warned that this would take place as soon as "they can be sure that the [[North Korea]]n [[puppet government]] and its armed forces . . . are strong enough . . . to be relied upon to carry out Soviet objectives without the actual presence of Soviet troops."
===Communists inside US===
The bipartisan statutory [[Moynihan Secrecy Commission]] concluded, "President Truman was almost willfully obtuse as regards American Communism." <ref>Report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. Senate Document 105-2. 103rd Congress. Washington, D.C. United States Government Printing Office. 1997. [http://www.gpo.gov/congress/commissions/secrecy/pdf/04dpm.pdf Chairman's Forward, pg. XL] pdf.</ref>
===Foreign policy: détente to containment===
Truman had no knowledge or interest in foreign policy before becoming president, and depended on the State Department for foreign policy advice.<ref> By 1946 he had two valuable aides Clark Clifford and George Elsey.</ref> Truman shifted from FDR's détente to [[containment]] as soon as [[Dean Acheson]] convinced him the Soviet Union was a long-term threat to American interests. They viewed communism as a secular, millennial religion that informed the Kremlin's worldview and actions and made it the chief threat to American security, liberty, and world peace. They rejected the moral equivalence of democratic and Communist governments and concluded that until the regime in Moscow changed only American and Allied strength could curb the Soviets. Following Acheson's advice, Truman in 1947 announced the [[Truman Doctrine]] of containing Communist expansion by furnishing military and economic American aid to Europe and Asia, and particularly to Greece and Turkey. He followed up with the [[Marshall Plan]], which was enacted into law as the European Recovery Program (ERP) and led ultimately to [[NATO]], the North Atlantic Alliance for military defense, signed in 1949. On May 14, 1948, Truman announced recognition of the new state of [[Israel]], making the United States the first major power to do so.

==Korean War==
The [[Korean War]] began at the end of June 1950 when North Korea, a Communist country, invaded South Korea, which was under U.S. protection. Without consulting Congress Truman ordered General [[Douglas MacArthur]] to use all American forces to resist the invasion. Truman then received approval from the United Nations, which the Soviets were boycotting. UN forces managed to cling to a toehold in Korea, as the North Koreans outran their supply system. A counterattack at Inchon destroyed the invasion army, and the UN forces captured most of North Korea on their way to the Yalu River, Korea's northern border with China. Truman defined the war goal as [[rollback]] of Communism and reunification of the country under UN auspices. China intervened unexpectedly, drove the UN forces all the way back to South Korea. The fighting stabilized close to the original 38th parallel that had divided North and South. MacArthur wanted to continue the rollback strategy but Truman arrived at a new policy of containment, allowing North Korea to persist. Truman's dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur in April 1951 sparked a violent debate on U.S. Far Eastern policy, as Truman took the blame for a high-cost stalemate with 37,000 Americans killed and over 100,000 wounded.

Truman fired his ineffective defense secretary Louis Johnson, and brought back [[George Marshall]].
===NSC-68===
The top-secret [[NSC-68]] policy paper was the grounds for escalating the Cold War, especially in terms of spending on rearmament and building the hydrogen bomb. The integration of European defense was given new impetus by continued U.S. support of NATO, under the command of General Eisenhower. Truman committed the US to contain Communist expansion in Vietnam, where the Communists under [[Ho Chi Minh]] were trying to overthrow the French colonial regime. The State Department insisted that France give more autonomy to the Vietnamese. The US paid for about 80% of the French war costs. The problem was that the French were more interested in preserving their grandiose empire, and less interested in stopping Communism, while the US opposed colonial empires and saw Communism as the great threat to world peace and stability.

Following NSC-68, Truman's last four budgets saw expenditures on national security quadruple from $13 billion in 1950 to $50 billion in 1953.

===1952 election===
On the political front, revelation of scandals in the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, in the Bureau of Internal Revenue and even the White House<ref> Truman's wife accepted an expensive deep freeze appliance in 1945; with General Vaughan as the fixer, the donor was given special privileges in Europe. </ref> opened the administration to attack.

Truman sought reelection in 1952 despite his dismal showing in the polls. He was defeated in the New Hampshire primary by Senator [[Estes Kefauver]] of Tennessee, and withdrew. Truman supported Illinois Governor [[Adlai Stevenson]]. Eisenhower won the GOP nomination and crusading against the Truman administration's failures regarding "Korea, Communism and Corruption," was elected in a landslide, ending 20 years of Democratic control of the presidency.

==Retirement==
Truman returned to his home in Independence, Missouri. He devoted himself to creating the Truman Library there; it was dedicated in July 1957 and is a part of the National Archives. With a staff of assistants he wrote his memoirs in two well-received volumes, gave many interviews, and intervened occasionally in Democratic national politics on behalf of liberal candidates such as [[Adlai Stevenson]].

He died on December 26, 1972.

==Evaluations==
Already by the 1960s he had become a hero to liberals and Democrats, nostalgic over the successes of the [[New Deal Coalition]] that sputtered and collapsed in the 1960s. Even Republicans came to forget the nasty days and celebrated Truman as the hero of the underdogs and the man who rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan and stood up to Communism through NATO.

Truman's reputation among scholars has gone from very low when he left office, to high after 1990. He is now widely considered to have been a tough-minded, decisive, and effective leader who ably guided the nation through the perilous waters of the early Cold War and whose policy of containment essentially laid the foundations for American "victory" in that prolonged conflict in 1989. For many historians, the down-to-earth Midwesterner now merits consideration as one of the greatest American presidents. In recent years presidential aspirants of both parties have claimed Truman as their own, especially if their election chances seem as hopeless as Truman's did in 1948. His reputation has been bolstered by scholarly biographies by Ferrell (1994), Hamby (1995), and especially McCullough's Pulitzer prize-winning popular biography (1992). The in-depth analysis by Leffler (1992), cautiously praised the Truman administration's essential wisdom in handling a myriad of problems.

While Truman's public image was headed up, his reputation among scholars declined in the 1970s. Kirkendall concluded in 1974 that negative appraisals of Truman and his administration "may in fact have become the dominant interpretation, at least among the younger scholars."<ref> Kirkendall, ''Truman Period as a Research Field: A Reappraisal 1972'' (1974) p 6</ref> In terms of foreign policy a strong negative view comes from Offner (2002) who argues that Truman was a "parochial nationalist" whose "uncritical belief in the superiority of American values and political-economic interests," conviction that "the Soviet Union and Communism were the root cause of international strife," and "inability to comprehend Asian politics and nationalism" intensified the postwar conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, precipitated the division of Europe, and set Sino-American relations on a path of long-term animosity. Rather than being a great statesman who carefully weighed various policy alternatives, Offner asserts that Truman's myopia "created a rigid framework in which the United States waged long-term, extremely costly global cold war". As his title suggests, the Cold War was at best a Pyrrhic victory for the United States.<ref> Quotes from Offner (2002) p. xii</ref>

Truman became the model of the underdog who fights back and wins when the experts unanimously predict defeat. Gerald Ford, who had bitterly denounced Truman as a young Congressman proudly proclaimed the Missourian as his hero and conspicuously displayed a bust of Truman in the oval office after Ford became president in 1974. In the 1976 campaign both Ford and his Democratic rival, [[Jimmy Carter]], outdid one another in claiming to be cast from the Truman mold. By 1980 when the Gallup Poll asked "Of all the Presidents we've ever had, who do you wish were President?", Harry Truman finished an impressive third behind Kennedy and FDR.

====notes====

==Further reading: basic books and articles==
* Burnes, Brian. ''Harry S. Truman: His Life and Times'' (2003), popular biography [http://www.amazon.com/Harry-S-Truman-Life-Times/dp/0974000930/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193347436&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Dallek, Robert. ''Harry Truman'' (2008) short, popular biography by scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Truman-Presidents-President-1945-1953/dp/0805069380/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221386001&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Donovan, Robert J. ''Conflict and Crisis: The Presidency of Harry S. Truman, 1945-1948'' (1977); ''Tumultuous Years: 1949-1953'' (1982) detailed 2-vol political history by well-informed journalist; well balanced
* Fleming, Thomas J. ''Harry S. Truman, President'' (1993) for middle school audience.
* Graff, Henry F., ed. ''The Presidents: A Reference History''. 2nd ed. 1996, 443–458. ISBN 0-684-80471-9; by leading scholar
* Hamby, Alonzo L. ''Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman'' (1995), the best scholarly biography; written by conservative historian who likes HST
* Hamby, Alonzo L. "An American Democrat: A Reevaluation of the Personality of Harry S. Truman," ''Political Science Quarterly,'' Vol. 106, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 33-55 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2152173 in JSTOR]
* Hamby, Alonzo L. "Truman, Harry S."; [http://www.anb.org/articles/07/07-00307.html; ''American National Biography'' Online Feb. 2000] by a leading conservative historian
* Kirkendall, Richard S. ''Harry S. Truman Encyclopedia'' (1990), very useful articles on people, events and policies in HST's career
* Kirkendall Richard S. "Harry S Truman a Missouri Farmer in the Golden Age," ''Agricultural History,'' Vol. 48, No. 4 (Oct., 1974), pp. 467-483 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3741384 in JSTOR]
* McCullough, David. ''Truman''. (1993), 1120 pp ISBN 0-671-86920-5 best-selling biography; moderate in tone; Pulitzer Prize [http://www.amazon.com/Truman-David-McCullough/dp/0671869205/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193347436&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* McCullough, David. ''Harry S. Truman'', short essay [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/essays/truman.html online edition]
* Offner, Arnold A. ''Another Such Victory: President Truman and the Cold War.'' (2002) 640pp, New Left and hostile to HST; [http://books.google.com/books?id=P5tbHSsBS-AC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:another+intitle:victory+inauthor:offner&num=30&as_brr=0&sig=pWo43stsPrIrtTfZXJicvWB3zCY excerpts and text search]
* [http://www.amazon.com/American-Experience-Truman/dp/B000BYRCG0/ref=pd_bbs_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1193347436&sr=8-4 ''American Experience: Truman'' (2006), from PBS]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Classic-President-Harry-Truman-Films/dp/B000JD7MV8/ref=sr_1_14/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1193347436&sr=8-14 "Classic President Harry S Truman Films: 1945-1965'' (2006) 40 newsreels, 101 minutes]

==Advanced bibliography==
These are secondary source by scholars; unless noted they are generally liberal and supportive of Truman.
===Biographies===
* Burnes, Brian. ''Harry S. Truman: His Life and Times'' (2003); popular biography; [http://www.amazon.com/Harry-S-Truman-Life-Times/dp/0974000930/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193347436&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Cochran, Bert. ''Harry S. Truman and the Crisis Presidency'' (19730, 432 pages; portrays a cynical courthouse politician
* Donovan, Robert J. ''Conflict and Crisis: The Presidency of Harry S. Truman, 1945-1948'' (1977); ''Tumultuous Years: 1949-1953'' (1982), good, detailed 2-vol political history by well-informed journalist
* Ferrell, Robert H. ''Harry S. Truman: A Life'' (1994), brief overview
* Fleming, Thomas J. ''Harry S. Truman, President'' (1993) for middle school audience.
* Gosnell, Harold Foote. ''Truman's Crises: A Political Biography of Harry S. Truman'' (1980)
* Graff, Henry F., ed. ''The Presidents: A Reference History''. 2nd ed. 1996, 443–458. ISBN 0-684-80471-9
* Hamby, Alonzo L. ''Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman'' (1995), very well received scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Man-People-Truman-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0195124979/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193438333&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hamby, Alonzo L. "The Liberals, Truman, and the FDR as Symbol and Myth," ''Journal of American History,'' Vol. 56, No. 4 (Mar., 1970), pp. 859-867 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1917522 in JSTOR]
* Hamby, Alonzo L. "Truman, Harry S."; [http://www.anb.org/articles/07/07-00307.html; ''American National Biography'' Online Feb. 2000]
* Kirkendall, Richard S. ''Harry S. Truman Encyclopedia'' (1990)
* McCullough, David. ''Truman''. . ISBN 0-671-86920-5 best-selling biography; Pulitzer Prize [http://www.amazon.com/Truman-David-McCullough/dp/0671869205/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193347436&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Miller, Richard Lawrence. ''Truman: The Rise to Power'' (2002), critical evaluation emphasizing corruption of Pendergast machine

===Foreign policy===
* Appleman, Roy E. ''South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu (June-November 1950)'' (United States Army in the Korean War) (1960); official U.S. Army history, [http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/korea/20-2-1/toc.htm online version]
* Beisner, Robert L. ''Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War'' (2006), 800pp; a standard scholarly biography; covers 1945-53 only
* Benson, Michael T. ''Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/read/15103137 online edition]
* Berger, Henry. "Bipartisanship, Senator Taft, and the Truman Administration," ''Political Science Quarterly,'' Vol. 90, No. 2 (Summer, 1975), pp. 221-237 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2148235 in JSTOR]
* Bernstein Barton J. "Roosevelt, Truman, and the Atomic Bomb, 1941-1945: A Reinterpretation," ''Political Science Quarterly,'' Vol. 90, No. 1 (Spring, 1975), pp. 23-69 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2148698 in JSTOR], influential New left essay
* Blair, Clay ''The Forgotten War: America in Korea, 1950-1953'', Naval Institute Press (2003) revisionist study that attacks Truman and top Army leaders for near-criminal incompetence
* Divine, Robert A. "The Cold War and the Election of 1948," ''The Journal of American History,'' Vol. 59, No. 1 (Jun., 1972), pp. 90-110 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723%28197206%2959%3A1%3C90%3ATCWATE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C in JSTOR]
* Frazier, Robert. "Acheson and the Formulation of the Truman Doctrine" ''Journal of Modern Greek Studies'' 17#2 (1999), pp. 229-251 online at [[Project Muse]]
* Gaddis, John Lewis. "Reconsiderations: Was the Truman Doctrine a Real Turning Point?" ''Foreign Affairs'' 1974 52(2): 386-402. ISSN 0015-7120
* Giangreco, D. M. "'A Score of Bloody Okinawas and Iwo Jimas': President Truman and Casualty Estimates for the Invasion of Japan," ''Pacific Historical Review,'' Vol. 72, No. 1 (Feb., 2003), pp. 93-132 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3642102 in JSTOR] shows Truman was indeed by very high invasion casualties
* Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. ''Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan.'' (2005). 382 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674016939/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193349212&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hogan, Michael J. ''A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State, 1945-1954'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Cross-Iron-National-Security-19451954/dp/0521795370/ref=sr_1_34/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193347927&sr=8-34 excerpt and text search]
* Ivie, Robert L. "Fire, Flood, and Red Fever: Motivating Metaphors of Global Emergency in the Truman Doctrine Speech." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 1999 29(3): 570-591. ISSN 0360-4918 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001303753 online edition]
* Lacey, Michael J. ed. ''The Truman Presidency'' (1989), major essays by scholars
* Matray, James I. "Truman's Plan for Victory: National Self-Determination and the Thirty-Eighth Parallel Decision in Korea," ''Journal of American History,'' Vol. 66, No. 2 (Sep., 1979), pp. 314-333 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1900879 in JSTOR] Truman planned rollback of Communism in North Korea
* Merrill, Dennis. "The Truman Doctrine: Containing Communism and Modernity" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(1): 27-37. ISSN 0360-4918
* Offner, Arnold A. "'Another Such Victory': President Truman, American Foreign Policy, and the Cold War." ''Diplomatic History'' 1999 23(2): 127-155. ISSN 0145-2096
* Ojserkis, Raymond P. ''Beginnings of the Cold War Arms Race: The Truman Administration and the U.S. Arms Build-Up'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/read/102018810 online edition]
* Pelz, Stephen. "When the Kitchen Gets Hot, Pass the Buck: Truman and Korea in 1950," ''Reviews in American History'' 6 (December 1978), 548-55. Online at Project MUSE
* Pierpaoli, Paul G. Jr.; ''Truman and Korea: The Political Culture of the Early Cold War.'' University of Missouri Press, 1999 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108668070 online edition]
* Smith, Geoffrey S. "'Harry, We Hardly Know You': Revisionism, Politics and Diplomacy, 1945-1954," ''American Political Science Review'' 70 (June 1976), 560-82. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554(197606)70%3A2%3C560%3A%22WHKYR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23 in JSTOR]
* Spalding, Elizabeth Edwards. ''The First Cold Warrior: Harry Truman, Containment, And the Remaking of Liberal Internationalism'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/First-Cold-Warrior-Containment-Internationalism/dp/0813123925/ref=sr_1_22/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193347812&sr=8-22 excerpt and text search]
* Wainstock, Dennis D. ''Truman, MacArthur, and the Korean War'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23387043 online edition]
* Walker, J. Samuel. ''Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=35245486 online complete edition]; [http://www.amazon.com/Prompt-Utter-Destruction-Truman-Against/dp/080785607X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193348187&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Walker, J. Samuel. "Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground" ''Diplomatic History'' April 2005 - Vol. 29 Issue 2 Pp 311-334 fulltext in [[EBSCO]]

===Domestic policy and politics===
* Bernstein Barton J. "The Truman Administration and the Steel Strike of 1946," ''Journal of American History,'' Vol. 52, No. 4 (Mar., 1966), pp. 791-803 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1894347 in JSTOR]
* Billington, Monroe. "Civil Rights, President Truman and the South," ''Journal of Negro History,'' Vol. 58, No. 2 (Apr., 1973), pp. 127-139 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2716825 in JSTOR]
* Dean, Virgil W. "Charles F. Brannan and the Rise and Fall of Truman's 'Fair Deal' for Farmers." ''Agricultural History'' 1995 69(1): 28-53. Issn: 0002-1482
* Dean, Virgil W. ''An Opportunity Lost: The Truman Administration and the Farm Policy Debate.'' 2006. 275 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Opportunity-Lost-Truman-Administration-Policy/dp/0826216501/ref=sr_1_10/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193434622&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Derickson, Alan. "'Take Health from the List of Luxuries': Labor and the Right to Health Care, 1915-1949." ''Labor History'' 2000 41(2): 171-187. Issn: 0023-656x Fulltext: in Taylor and Francis, Swetswise, Ingenta, and [[Ebsco]]
* Donaldson, Gary A. ''Truman Defeats Dewey'' (1998)
* Farhang, Sean, and Ira Katznelson. "The Southern Imposition: Congress and Labor in the New Deal and Fair Deal," ''Studies in American Political Development'' (2005), 19: 1-30; [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=324401 online edition]
* Freeland, Richard M. ''The Truman Doctrine and the Origins of McCarthyism: Foreign Policy, Domestic Policy, and Internal Security, 1946-48'' (1989), revisionist; New left attack on Truman for being too anti-Communist
* Fried, Richard M. ''Nightmare in Red: The McCarthy Era in Perspective.'' 1990. [http://www.questia.com/read/79027083 online complete edition]; [http://www.amazon.com/Nightmare-Red-McCarthy-Era-Perspective/dp/0195043618/ref=sr_1_11/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193514847&sr=8-11 excerpt and text search]
* Gardner, Michael R. ''Harry Truman and Civil Rights: Moral Courage and Political Risks.'' (2002) 296 pp.[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105233906 online edition]
* Hamby, Alonzo. ''Beyond the New Deal: Harry S. Truman and American Liberalism'' (1973), the most sophisticated biography; by a prominent conservative historian
* Hartmann, Susan M. ''Truman and the 80th Congress'' (1971) [http://www.questia.com/read/77360404 online edition]
* Heller, Francis H. ''Economics and the Truman Administration'' (1982) [http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Truman-Administration-Francis-Heller/dp/0700602178/ref=sr_1_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193434622&sr=1-9 excerpt and text search]
* Karabell, Zachary. ''The Last Campaign: How Harry Truman Won the 1948 Election'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Last-Campaign-Harry-Truman-Election/dp/0375700773/ref=sr_1_24/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=11973347812&sr=8-24 excerpt and text search]
* Koenig, Louis W. ''The Truman Administration: Its Principles and Practice'' (1956) [http://www.questia.com/read/8522614 online edition]
* Komarek de Luna, Phyllis. ''Public versus Private Power during the Truman Administration: A Study of Fair Deal Liberalism.'' Peter Lang, 1997. 253 pp.
* Lacey, Michael J. ed. ''The Truman Presidency'' (1989), major essays by scholars
* Lee, R. Alton. ''Truman and Taft-Hartley: A Question of Mandate.'' (1966) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99000111 online edition]
* Leuchtenburg, William E. ''The White House Looks South: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson.'' (2005). 668 pp.
* Levantrosser, William F. ed. ''Harry S. Truman: The Man from Independence'' (1986). 25 essays by scholars and Truman aides. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23428395 online edition]
* McCoy, Donald. ''The Presidency of Harry S. Truman'' (1984), standard scholarly survey by conservative historian; [http://www.amazon.com/Presidency-Harry-S-Truman-American/dp/0700602550/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193514606&sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]
* Marcus, Maeva ''Truman and the Steel Seizure Case: The Limits of Presidential Power'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/read/22816992 online edition]
* Phillips, Cabel. ''The Truman Presidency: The History of a Triumphant Succession'' (1966), by a journalist who interviewed many key players
* Pierpaoli, Paul G. Jr. ''Truman and Korea: The Political Culture of the Early Cold War.'' (1997). ISBN 0-8262-1206-9. focus on the homefront [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=16627966265512 online review]
* Ryan, Halford R. ''Harry S. Truman: Presidential Rhetoric'' (1993) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=27994601 online edition]
* Sitkoff, Harvard. "Harry Truman and the Election of 1948: The Coming of Age of Civil Rights in American Politics," ''Journal of Southern History,'' Vol. 37, No. 4 (Nov., 1971), pp. 597-616 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2206548 in JSTOR]
* Theoharis, Athan. "The Truman Administration and the Decline of Civil Liberties: The FBI's Success in Securing Authorization for a Preventive Detention Program," ''Journal of American History,'' Vol. 64, No. 4 (Mar., 1978), pp. 1010-1030 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1890734 in JSTOR], leftwing attack on Truman for being too harsh on possible subversives
* Theoharis, Athan. ''The Truman Presidency: The Origins of the Imperial Presidency and the National Security State'' (1979), revisionist, New left attack on HST
* Theoharis, Athan. ''Seeds of Repression: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of McCarthyism'' (1977), New Left attack on HST for being so hostile to domestic Communists
* Thompson, Francis H. ''The Frustration of Politics: Truman, Congress, and the Loyalty Issue, 1945-1953.'' 1979. 246 pp.
* Vaughan, Philip H. "The Truman Administration's Fair Deal for Black America." ''Missouri Historical Review'' 1976 70(3): 291-305. Issn: 0026-6582

===Primary sources===
* Bernstein, Barton J., Ed. ''The Truman Administration: A Documentary History'' (1966); 2nd edition published as ''Politics and Policies of the Truman Administration'' (1970), revisionist
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables
* Ferrell, Robert H. ed. ''Dear Bess: The Letters from Harry to Bess Truman, 1910-1959'' (1983)
* Ferrell, Robert H. ed. ''Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman'' (1980).
* Merrill, Dennis. ed. ''Documentary History of the Truman Presidency, (1995- ) 35 volumes; available in some large academic libraries.
* Miller, Merle ''Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman'' (1974)
* Neal, Steve. ed. ''HST: Memories of the Truman Years.'' (2003)280pp; long excerpts from 20 oral history interviews (some of which are online at the Truman Library site).
* Neal, Steve. ed. ''Miracle of '48: Harry Truman's Major Campaign Speeches & Selected Whistle-Stops'' (2003); 43 speeches
* Truman, Harry S. ''Where the Buck Stops: The Personal and Private Writings of Harry S. Truman'' edited by Margaret Truman (1990) [http://www.amazon.com/Where-Buck-Stops-Personal-Writings/dp/0446391751/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221386001&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Truman, Harry S. ''Memoirs'' 2 vol (1955). [http://tera-3.ul.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/reader.pl?call=30151&search= vol 1 online]
* Truman, Margaret. ''Harry S. Truman''. (1973). memoir by his daughter
* Truman, Harry S. ''The Autobiography of Harry S. Truman'' edited compilation of excerpts by Robert H. Ferrell (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Harry-S-Truman/dp/0826214452/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193347436&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]
* [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/ ''The Public Papers of the Presidents'' contain most of Truman's public messages, statements, speeches, and news conference remarks. Documents such as Proclamations, and Executive Orders]

==Historiography==
* Ferrell, Robert H. ''Harry S. Truman and the Cold War Revisionists.'' 2006. 142 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Truman-Cold-War-Revisionists/dp/0826216536/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193349212&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Geselbracht, Raymond. "Creating the Harry S. Truman Library: The First Fifty Years," ''Public Historian'', 28 (Summer 2006), 37–78.
* Hartmann, Susan M. "The 1948 Election and the Configuration of Postwar Liberalism" ''Reviews in American History'' 28.1 (2000) 105-111 in [[Project Muse]]
* Heller, Francis H., ed. ''The Korean War: A 25 Year Perspective'' (1977), essays by scholars
* Heller, Francis H., ed. ''The Truman White House: The Administration of the Presidency, 1945-1953'' (1980), essays by scholars
* Heller, Francis H., ed. ''Economics and the Truman Administration'' (1981), essays by scholars
* Kirkendall, Richard S. ed. ''Harry's Farewell: Interpreting and Teaching the Truman Presidency'' (2004) essays by scholars
* Kirkendall, Richard S., ed. ''The Truman Period as a Research Field: A Reappraisal 1972'' (1974)
* Tull, Charles J. "The State of the Art in Truman Research," in William F. Levantrosser, ed. ''Harry S. Truman: The Man from Independence'' (1986), 1-31 aides. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23428395 online edition]
* Walker, J. Samuel "Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: a Search for Middle Ground." ''Diplomatic History'' 2005 29(2): 311-334. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]

==External links==
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ht33.html Biography]
*[http://www.trumanlibrary.org Presidential Library]
*[http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/index.php The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb], Truman Library.
*[http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/small/mb12a.htm President Truman to Senator Richard B. Russell], August 9, 1945.
====notes====
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}
{{USVicePresidents}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Truman, Harry}}

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

User talk:CGriswald

2008-12-13T18:03:21Z

FernoKlump: Welcome!

I guess talk goes on here.
{{welcome}}'''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 13:03, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Communist Party of the Soviet Union

2008-12-13T04:21:03Z

FernoKlump: sp + gr

{{Country
|name =''Союз Советских Социалистических Республик Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik''
|map =Soviet union rel 1986.jpg
|flag =600px-Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png
|arms =Arms of the Soviet Union.png
|capital =Moscow
|government =Communist
|language =Russian (de facto)
|president =Ivan Silayev (last, 1991)
|area =8,649,538 sq. mi. (1991)
|pop =293,047,571 (1991)
|pop-basis =
}}
The '''Communist Party of the Soviet Union''' was the only official party of the [[Soviet Union]]. It was started in January 1912 by [[Lenin]], and led the [[October Revolution]] of 1917. The party was dissolved in 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. Communist Parties still exist in [[Russia]], including the modern [[Communist Party of the Russian Federation]] and [[Communist Workers Party of Russia]], although in elections these parties have won only 51 seats in the Parliamentary elections.

==Aspect==
In 1917 the party seized power in Russia as the vanguard of the working class, and it has continued throughout the Soviet period to rule in the name of the proletariat. The party sought to lead the Soviet people toward communism, defined by [[Karl Marx]] as a classless society that contains limitless possibilities for human achievement. Toward this end, the party has sought to effect a cultural revolution and create a "new Soviet man" bound by the strictures of a higher, socialist morality.

The party's goals required that it control all aspects of Soviet government and society in order to infuse political, economic, and social policies with the correct ideological content. [[Vladimir I. Lenin]], the founder of the Communist party and the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution, justified these controls. Lenin formed a party of professional revolutionaries to effect a proletarian revolution in Russia. In the late 1980s, however, the party no longer sought to transform society and was apparently attempting to withdraw itself from day-to-day economic decisions. Nevertheless, it continued to exert control through professional management. Members of the party bureaucracy were full-time, paid officials. Other party members held full-time positions in government, industry, education, the armed forces, and elsewhere. In addition, Lenin argued that the party alone possesses the correct understanding of Marxist ideology. Thus, state policies that lacked an ideological foundation threatened to retard society's advance toward communism. Hence, only policies sanctioned by the party have contributed to this goal. Lenin's position justified party jurisdiction over the state. The CPSU enforced its authority over state bodies from the all-union level to that of the district and town. In the office, factory, and collective farm, the party has established its primary party organizations (PPOs) to carry out its directives.

The role of ideology in the political system and the party's efforts to enforce controls on society demonstrated the party leadership's continuing efforts to forge unity in the party as well as among the Soviet people. Democratic centralism, the method of intraparty decision making, directed lower party bodies unconditionally to execute the decisions of higher party bodies. Party forums from the town and district levels up to the Central Committee bring together party, government, trade union, and economic elites to create a desired consensus among policymakers. Party training, particularly for officials of the CPSU's permanent bureaucracy, shaped a common understanding of problems and apprised students of the party's approaches to ideology, foreign affairs, and domestic policy. Party training efforts demanded particular attention because of the varied national, class, and educational experiences of CPSU members.

The party exercised authority over the government and society in several ways. The CPSU has acquired legitimacy for its rule; that is, the people acknowledged the party's right to govern them. This legitimacy derived from the party's incorporation of elites from all parts of society into its ranks, the party's depiction of itself as the representative of the forces for progress in the world, and the party's postulated goal of creating a full communist society. Paradoxically, the party's legitimacy was enhanced by the inclusion of certain prerevolutionary Russian traditions into its political style, which provided a sense of continuity with the past. A different source of authority lies in the power of PPO secretaries to implement party policies on the lowest rungs of the Soviet economy. The CPSU obligated members participating in nonparty organizations to meet regularly and ensure that their organizations fulfilled the directives the party has set for them. Finally, as part of the ''nomenklatura'' system, the party retained appointment power for influential positions at all levels of the government hierarchy (higher party bodies hold this power over lower party bodies as well). Taken together, the legitimacy accorded to it and the prerogatives it possessed enabled the party to perform its leading role within the Soviet political system.

==Lenin's conception of the CPSU==
The origins of the CPSU lie in the political thought and tactical conceptions of Lenin, who sought to apply Marxism to an economically backward, politically autocratic Russia. Toward this end, Lenin sought to build a highly disciplined, monolithic party of professional revolutionaries that was to act as the general staff of the proletarian movement in Russia. Lenin argued that this underground party must subject all aspects of the movement to its control so that the actions of the movement might be guided by the party's understanding of Marxist theory rather than by spontaneous responses to economic and political oppression. Lenin envisaged democratic centralism as the method of internal party decision making best able to combine discipline with the decentralization necessary to allow lower party organs to adapt to local conditions. Democratic centralism calls for free discussion of alternatives, a vote on the matter at hand, and iron submission of the minority to the majority once a decision is taken. As time passed, however, centralism gained sway over democracy, allowing the leadership to assume dictatorial control over the party.

===Theoretical Underpinnings===
Lenin's ideas about the proletarian revolutionary party differed from the ideas of Marx. According to Marx, the working class, merely by following its own instincts, would gain rational insight into its plight as the downtrodden product of capitalism. Based on that insight, Marx held, the workers would bring about a revolution leading to their control over the means of production. Further, Marx predicted that the seizure by the proletariat of the means of production (land and factories) would lead to a tremendous increase in productive forces. Freedom from want, said Marx, would liberate the minds of men. This liberation would usher in a cultural revolution and the formation of a new personality with unlimited creative possibilities.

As he surveyed the European milieu in the late 1890s, Lenin found several problems with the Marxism of his day. Contrary to what Marx had predicted, capitalism had strengthened itself over the last third of the nineteenth century. The working class in western Europe had not become impoverished; rather, its prosperity had risen. Hence, the workers and their unions, although continuing to press for better wages and working conditions, failed to develop the revolutionary class consciousness that Marx had expected. Lenin also argued that the division of labor in capitalist society prevented the emergence of proletarian class consciousness. Lenin wrote that because workers had to labor ten or twelve hours each workday in a factory, they had no time to learn the complexities of Marxist theory. Finally, in trying to effect revolution in autocratic Russia, Lenin also faced the problem of a regime that had outlawed almost all political activities. Although the autocracy could not enforce a ban on political ideas, until 1905-- when the tsar agreed to the formation of a national duma (see Glossary)--the tsarist police suppressed all groups seeking political change, including those with a democratic program.

Based on his observations, Lenin shifted the engine of proletarian revolution from the working class to a tightly knit party of intellectuals. Lenin wrote in ''What Is to Be Done'' (1902) that the "history of all countries bears out the fact that through their own powers alone, the working class can develop only a trade-union consciousness." That is, history had demonstrated that the working class could engage in local, spontaneous rebellions to improve its position within the capitalist system but that it lacked the understanding of its interests necessary to overthrow that system. Pessimistic about the proletariat's ability to acquire class consciousness, Lenin argued that the bearers of this consciousness were déclassé intellectuals who made it their vocation to conspire against the capitalist system and prepare for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin also held that because Marx's thought was set forth in a sophisticated body of philosophical, economic, and social analysis, a high level of intellectual training was required to comprehend it. Hence, for Lenin, those who would bring about the revolution must devote all their energies and resources to understanding the range of Marx's thought. They must be professional activists having no other duties that might interfere with their efforts to promote revolution.

Lenin's final alteration of Marx's thought arose in the course of his adaptation of Marxist ideology to the conditions of Russia's autocracy. Like other political organizations seeking change in Russia, Lenin's organization had to use conspiratorial methods and operate underground. Lenin argued for the necessity of confining membership in his organization to those who were professionally trained in the art of combating the secret police.

The ethos of Lenin's political thought was to subject first the party, then the working class, and finally the people to the politically conscious revolutionaries. Only actions informed by consciousness could promote revolution and the construction of socialism and communism in Russia.

The CPSU regarded itself as the institutionalization of Marxist-Leninist consciousness in the Soviet Union, and therein lies the justification for the controls it exercised over Soviet society. Article 6 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution refers to the party as the "leading and guiding force of Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system, of all state organizations and public organizations." The party, precisely because it is the bearer of Marxist-Leninist ideology, determined the general development of society, directs domestic and foreign policy, and "imparts a planned, systematic, and theoretically substantiated character" to the struggle of the Soviet people for the victory of communism.

===Democratic Centralism===
Democratic centralism involved several interrelated principles: the election of all leadership organs of the party from bottom to top; periodic accounting of party organs before their membership and before superior organs; strict party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority; unconditional obligation by lower party bodies to carry out decisions made by higher party bodies; a collective approach to the work of all organizations and leadership organs of the party; and the personal responsibility of all communists to implement party directives.

Democratic centralism is primarily centralism under a thin veil of democracy. Democratic centralism requires unanimity on the part of the membership. The concept requires full discussion of policy alternatives before the organization, as guided by the leadership, makes a decision. Once an alternative has been voted upon, however, the decision must be accepted by all. In principle, dissent is possible, but it is allowed only before a decision becomes party policy. After the party makes a decision, party norms discourage criticism of the manner of execution because such criticism might threaten the party's leading role in Soviet society.

The principles of democratic centralism contradict one another. One contradiction concerns the locus of decision making. Democratic centralism prescribes a collective approach to the work of all organizations, which connotes participation of all party members in decision making. Yet, democratic centralism also holds that criticism of agreed-upon policies is permissible only for the top leadership, not for rank-and-file party members. Hence, discussion of these policies can take place only after the leadership has decided to permit it. The leadership will not allow discussions of failed policies, for fear that such discussions will undermine its power and authority.

A second contradiction concerns the issue of accountability. Democratic centralism holds that lower party bodies elect higher party bodies and that the latter are accountable to the former. Nevertheless, democratic centralism also prescribes the unconditional subordination of lower party bodies to higher party bodies. In reality, superiors appointed those who nominally elected them to their positions and told them what decisions to make.

Democratic centralism undermines intraparty democracy because the party had formally proscribed factions. The Tenth Party Congress in 1921 adopted a "temporary" ban on factions in response to the Kronshtadt Rebelliod. In 1989 this ban remained in effect. Every party member had the right to express an opinion in the party organization to which he or she belonged. Before a decision was taken, however, party members could not appeal to other members in support of a given position. Moreover, party members could not engage in vote trading. In democratic systems, a party member holding a minority position on an issue can exercise influence if allowed to organize people with similar views and if allowed the opportunity to persuade others. Without these opportunities, democratic procedures remained an empty formality.

Devoid of democratic content, the political and organizational logic of democratic centralism contributed to the emergence of dictatorship in the Soviet Union. Despite the formal ban, in the early 1920s factions emerged in the party because Lenin failed to work out orderly procedures for leadership succession. In the absence of these procedures, new leaders had to attempt to cloak their policies in the mantle of ideological orthodoxy. To prevent criticism from rivals, the new leader could label real and potential opponents a faction and, according to the party rules, which banned factions, take steps to remove them from the party. For example, [[Nikita S. Khrushchev]] took these steps against his opponents in 1957. The leader thus could eliminate real and potential rivals, but ultimately, however, only success in action could prove a leader's policies correct. Success in action required the commitment of the party, and commitment of the party demanded that ordinary party members perceive that the leader possessed infallible judgment. Democratic centralism provided a necessary condition for the leader's claim to infallibility because it prevented ordinary party members from criticizing the policies of the party elite.

==Party legitimacy==
The legitimacy of the CPSU derived from various sources. The party has managed to recruit a significant percentage of members having occupations carrying high status in Soviet society. In addition, the party has served as a vehicle of upward mobility for a significant share of the citizenry. By joining the party, members of the working class could ensure a secure future for themselves in the political apparatus and access for their children to a good education and high-status jobs. The party also justified its right to rule by claiming to embody the "science" of Marxism- Leninism and by its efforts to lead society to full communism. In addition, the CPSU appealed to the patriotism of the citizenry. In the more than seventy years of the party's rule, the Soviet Union (and its current successor, Russia) had emerged as a superpower, and this international status was a source of pride for the Soviet people. Finally, tradition bolstered the legitimacy of the CPSU. The party located its roots in Russian history, and it has incorporated aspects of Russian tradition into its political style.

The CPSU was an elite body. In 1989 it comprised about 9.7 percent of the adult population of the Soviet Union. Among the "movers and shakers" of society, however, the percentage of party members was much higher. In the 1980s, approximately 27 percent of all citizens over thirty years of age and with at least ten years of education were members of the party. About 44 percent of all males over thirty with at least ten years of education belonged to the CPSU.

Among certain occupations, party saturation (the percentage of party members among a given group of citizens) was even higher. In 1989 some occupations were restricted to party members. These positions included officers of youth organizations, senior military officers, and officials of government bodies such as the ministries, state committees, and administrative departments. Occupations with saturation rates ranging from 20 to 50 percent included positions as mid-level economic managers, scholars and academics, and hospital directors. Low saturation existed among jobs that carried low status and little prestige, such as industrial laborers, collective farmers, and teachers. Thus, the party could represent itself as a legitimate governing body because it commanded the talents of the most talented and ambitious citizens in society.

The CPSU derived some legitimacy from the fact that it acted as a vehicle for upward mobility in society. People who have entered the party apparatus since the 1930s have come from a working-class background. The party widely publicized the working-class origins of its membership, which led members of that class to believe they could enter the elite and be successful within it.

Another source of party legitimacy lay in Marxist-Leninist ideology, which both promised an absolute good - communism - as the goal of history and shrouds its understanding of the means to that goal with the aura of science. The party justified its rule as leading to the creation of a full communist society. Hence, the CPSU claimed that the purpose of its rule was the common good and not the enrichment of the rulers. The party also identified Marxism-Leninism and the policies that it developed on the basis of this ideology with the absolute truth of science. The CPSU maintained that the laws of this science hold with the same rigor in society as the laws of physics or chemistry in nature. In part, the party justified its rule by claiming that it alone could understand this science of society.

During its 74 years of rule the CPSU altered its ideology to ensure its continued legitimacy, despite the inability to fulfill the promises contained in Marxism- Leninism. One modification had been the rejection of some of Marxism-Leninism's original ideological tenets. For example, in the early 1930s the party renounced an egalitarian wage structure. A second modification has been the indefinite postponement of goals that cannot be realized. Thus, the party continued to assure the populace that the achievement of economic abundance or the completion of proletarian revolutions in developed Western countries would take place, but it did not specify a date. A third modification has been the ritualization of some of the goals whose fulfillment the party has postponed. For example, in his first public address as general secretary in 1984, [[Konstantin U. Chernenko]] averred that concern for the development of the new Soviet man remained an essential part of the CPSU's program. In the late 1980s, few accorded that goal much practical import, but the reaffirmation of that objective probably reassured the party faithful that the new leadership would remain true to the CPSU's ideology and traditions.

The party attempted to strengthen its legitimacy with appeals to the pride Soviet citizens feel for their country. The party has led Soviet Russia from the devastation the country suffered in the Bolshevik Revolution and Civil War (1918-21) to victory in [[World War II]] over an ancient Russian enemy and then to superpower status. In 1989, moreover, the CPSU could still claim to lead a world communist movement. Since World War II, Soviet influence had extended to [[Asia]], [[Africa]], and [[Latin America]]. A feeling of patriotic pride for these accomplishments united the Soviet elite, and it bound the elite to the masses.

The CPSU had incorporated aspects of traditional Russian culture into its political style. The party drew upon Russia's revolutionary tradition and represented itself as the culmination of a progressive and revolutionary movement that began with the "Decembrists' revolt" of 1825. Most aspects of this revolutionary tradition centered on Lenin. The fact that the state preserved his remains in a mausoleum on Red Square echoed an old Russian Orthodox belief that the bodies of saints do not decay. In addition, the regime bestowed Lenin's name on the second largest city of the Soviet Union (Leningrad, now called St. Petersburg), a bust or picture of Lenin decorated all party offices, and quotations from his writings appeared on billboards throughout the country. All Soviet leaders since Lenin have tried to show that they follow Lenin's policies. The CPSU had sought to maintain and strengthen its legitimacy by drawing upon the legacy of this charismatic figure.

Another element of old Russian culture that has entered the CPSU's political style was the ''cult of the leader'' (also referred to as cult of personality). The Soviet cult of the leader appropriated a cultural form whose sources lay deep in the Russian past. Cults of saints, heroes, and the just tsar had long existed in Russia. In the 1920s, the cult of Lenin emerged as part of a deliberate policy to gain popular support for the regime. [[Joseph Stalin]], who built the most extensive cult of the leader, was reported to have declared that the "Russian people is a tsarist people. It needs a tsar." Stalin assumed the title of generalissimo during World War II, and throughout his rule he was referred to by the title ''vozhd'' (leader). Other titles appropriated by Stalin included "Leader of the World Proletariat", "Great Helmsman", "Father of the Peoples", and "Genius of Mankind".

Soviet leaders since Stalin have also encouraged the development of their own cults, although on a smaller scale than that of Stalin. These cults of the party leaders replicated that of the just tsar. Like the cult of the just tsar, who was depicted as having remained true to his faith of Russian Orthodoxy, the cults of party leaders such as Khrushchev and Leonid I. Brezhnev represented them as leaders who remained true to their faith in Marxism-Leninism. Like the just tsar, who was depicted as being close to the common people, these leaders represented themselves as having the interests of the common people at heart.

==Central party institutions==
In a political organization like the CPSU, which aims to be monolithic and centralized, central party institutions assume supreme importance. Central institutions in the CPSU included the party congress, the Central Committee, the Central Auditing Commission, the Party Control Committee, the Politburo (political bureau), the Secretariat, and the commissions. These organs made binding decisions for intermediate and local party bodies down to the PPO.

According to the Party Rules, the party congress was the highest authority in the party. This body was too large and unwieldy to exert any influence, however, and its members were appointed either directly or indirectly by those whom it ostensibly elected to the Central Committee and Politburo. Moreover, the party congress met only once every five years. Another large party body of note was the party conference, which met infrequently upon the decision of the Central Committee. The Central Committee itself, which met every six months, theoretically ruled the party between congresses. Although more influential than the party congress and the party conference, the Central Committee wielded less power than the Politburo, Secretariat, and the party commissions.

The Politburo, the Secretariat, and the party commissions paralleled a set of central governmental institutions that included the Council of Ministers and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. The distinction between party and government institutions lay in the difference between policy formation and policy implementation. Stated briefly, the central party institutions made policy, and the government carried it out. The distinction between policy formation and policy implementation was often a narrow one, however, and party leaders frequently involved themselves in carrying out policies in the economic, domestic political, and foreign policy spheres. This problem, known in the Soviet Union as ''podmena'' (substitution), occurred throughout all party and government hierarchies.

The distinction between policy formation and policy execution also characterized the differences between the Politburo, on the one hand, and the Secretariat and the commissions, on the other hand. The Politburo made policy for the party (as well as for the Soviet Union as a whole). The Secretariat and, apparently, the party commissions produced policy alternatives for the Politburo and, once the latter body made a decision, carried out the Politburo's directives. In fulfilling these roles, of course, the Secretariat often made policy decisions itself. The Secretariat and the commissions administered a party bureaucracy that numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Through this apparatus, the CPSU Secretariat and the party commissions radiated their influence throughout the middle and lower levels of the party and thereby throughout the government, economy, and society.

The general secretary, as a member of the Politburo and the leader of the Secretariat, was the most powerful official in the CPSU. The general secretary was the chief policymaker, enjoyed the greatest amount of authority in party appointments, and represented the Soviet Union in its dealings with other states. The absence of a set term of office and the general secretary's lack of statutory duties meant that candidates for this position had to compete for power and authority to attain it. Once having been elected to this position, the general secretary had to maintain and increase his power and authority in order to implement his program.

===Party Congress===
According to the party rules, the party congress was "the supreme organ" of the CPSU. The First Party Congress took place in 1898 in Minsk, with 9 delegates out of a party membership of about 1,000. In 1986 the Twenty-Seventh Party Congress had 5,000 delegates, or 1 for every 3,670 party members. Delegates were formally elected by republic party congresses or, in the case of the Russian Republic, by conferences of kraia, oblasts, and autonomous republics. Attendance at a party congress was largely honorific. Approximately half the delegates were luminaries in the party. The Twenty-Seventh Party Congress included 1,074 important party functionaries, 1,240 executive government officials, 147 distinguished scholars and scientists, 332 high-ranking military officers, and 279 writers and artists. The party reserved the remainder of delegate positions for rank-and-file party members. For the rank and file, attendance at a party congress was a reward for long years of service and loyalty.

Relative to other central party institutions, the size of the party congress was inversely proportional to its importance. Lack of debate and deliberation have been characteristic of party congresses since the Tenth Party Congress in 1921. Party congresses convened every year until 1925. Thereafter, they began to lose their importance as an authoritative party organ, and the intervals between congresses increased to three or four years. From 1939 to 1952, the party neglected to hold a congress. After Stalin's death in 1953, the party elite decided to convene congresses more frequently. Since the mid-1950s, the Party Rules have stipulated that congresses be held every five years.

Since 1925, however, some notable congresses have taken place. The Seventeenth Party Congress in 1934 praised collectivization and the successes of the First Five-Year Plan (1928-32), and it confirmed Stalin as head of the party and the country. In 1956, at the Twentieth Party Congress, Khrushchev criticized Stalin's cult of personality. In 1986, at the Twenty-Seventh Party Congress, General Secretary Mikhail S. Gorbachev attempted to break with Stalin's legacy by enunciating policies calling for more openness (''glasnost'') in Soviet life and for restructuring (''perestroika'').

The party congress normally met for about a week. The most important event occurred when the general secretary delivered the political report on the state of the party, reviewed Soviet economic and foreign policy over the preceding five years, cited achievements and problems of the world communist movement, and delivered a prospectus for the next five years. In another important speech, the chairman of the Council of Ministers presented the targets for the next five-year plan. These two speeches provided the setting for a number of shorter speeches that followed. Republic party secretaries, oblast committee (''oblast komitet--obkom'') secretaries, and government officials offered very formalized comment on the policies enunciated by the general secretary. The central apparatus also selected a few rank-and-file members to give speeches praising party policies. Finally, the congress listened to brief reports given by secretaries of foreign communist and workers' parties friendly to Moscow. Some party congresses adopted a broad statement called the party program.

While in session, the party congress voted on several kinds of issues. All decisions were unanimous. The congress enacted a series of resolutions that stemmed from the general secretary's political report, and those resolutions became party policy until the next congress. In addition, the party leadership could offer changes in the Party Rules to the congress. Most important, the party congress formally elected the members of the Central Committee, which it charged to govern the party until the next congress.

===Party Conference===
Similar in size to the congress was the party conference, although unlike the congress it did not meet regularly. The Nineteenth Party Conference - the most recent - took place in 1988. (The Eighteenth Party Conference had been convened in 1941.) Officially, the conference ranked third in importance among party meetings, after the congress and the Central Committee plenum. Oblast and district party leaders handpicked most of the delegates to the Nineteenth Party Conference, as they had for party congresses in the past, despite Gorbachev's desire that supporters of reform serve as delegates. Nevertheless, public opinion managed in some instances to pressure the party apparatus into selecting delegates who pressed for reform.

The Nineteenth Party Conference made no personnel changes in the Central Committee, as some Western observers had expected. However, the conference passed a series of resolutions signaling policy departures in a number of areas. For example, the resolution "On the Democratization of Soviet Society and the Reform of the Political System" called for the creation of a new, powerful position of president of the Supreme Soviet, limiting party officeholders to two five-year terms, and prescribed multicandidate elections to a new Congress of People's Deputies. The conference passed other resolutions on such topics as legal reform, interethnic relations, economic reform, ''glasnost'', and bureaucracy.

By convening the Nineteenth Party Conference approximately two years after initiating his reform program, Gorbachev hoped to further the democratization of the party, to withdraw the party from many aspects of economic management, and to reinvigorate government and state institutions. He also sought to rouse the party rank and file against the bureaucracy. In this vein, the conference was a success for Gorbachev because it reaffirmed his program of party-directed change from above.

===Central Committee===
The Central Committee met at least once every six months in plenary session. Between party congresses, the Party Rules required that the Central Committee "direct all the activities of the party and the local party organs, carry out the recruitment and the assignment of leading cadres, direct the work of the central governmental and social organizations of the workers, create various organs, institutions, and enterprises of the party and supervise their activities, name the editorial staff of central newspapers and journals working under its auspices, disburse funds of the party budget and verify their accounting." In fact, the Central Committee, which in 1989 numbered more than 300 members, was too large and cumbersome to perform these duties; therefore, it delegated its authority in these matters to the Politburo and Secretariat.

The history of the Central Committee dates to 1898, when the First Party Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party elected a three-person body to run its affairs. In May 1989, the Central Committee had 251 full members and 109 candidate members (Candidate members do not have the right to vote).

Western scholars know little about the selection processes for membership on the Central Committee. British Sovietologists Ronald J. Hill and Peter Frank have suggested that the party leadership drew up a list of candidates before the party congress. Party leaders then discussed the list and presented it to the congress for ratification. Both personal merit and institutional affiliation determined selection, with the majority of members selected because of the positions they held. Such positions included republic party first and second secretaries; obkom secretaries; chairmen of republic, provincial, and large urban governmental bodies; military leaders; important writers and artists; and academics.

During periods of policy change, turnover in the Central Committee occurred at a rapid rate. A new leadership, seeking to carry out new policies, attempted to replace officials who might attempt to block reform efforts with its own supporters. Thus, at the Twenty-Seventh Party Congress, the first for Gorbachev as general secretary, the rate of turnover for full members was 41 percent, as compared with 25 percent at the Twenty-Sixth Party Congress in 1981. In addition, of the 170 candidate members elected by the Twenty-Seventh Party Congress, 116 (or 68 percent) were new.

Gorbachev effected further changes at the April 25, 1989, Central Committee plenum. As a result of personnel turnover because of death, retirement, or loss of position since the Twenty-Seventh Party Congress, a significant percentage of the Central Committee had come to be classified as "dead souls," that is, people who no longer occupied the position that had originally gained them either full or candidate status in the Central Committee. At the April 25 plenum, seventy-four full members resigned their Central Committee positions. Twenty-four members received promotion to full-member status. (The Party Rules dictate that only the party congress can name new candidate members and that a plenum can only promote new full members from among the pool of candidate members.)

The changes signified a reduction of influence for both the party apparatus and the military. Party apparatchiks declined from 44.5 percent to 33.9 percent of the full members. The military's representation fell from 8.5 percent to 4.4 percent among the full members.

Worker and peasant representation rose from 8.5 percent to 14.3 percent. But because members of these groups lacked an independent political base, they usually supported the general secretary. Thus, the changes indicated a victory for Gorbachev. He eliminated many Central Committee members who lost power under his rule and were therefore considered opponents of reform. Gorbachev also increased the number of his own supporters in the Central Committee.

The Central Committee served significant functions for the party. The committee brought together the leaders of the most important institutions in Soviet society, individuals who had the same rank in the institutional-territorial hierarchy. The Central Committee thus provided a setting for these organizational and territorial interests to communicate with one another, articulate their concerns, and reconcile their positions on various issues. Membership in the Central Committee defined the political elite and reinforced their high status. This status lent the committee members the authority necessary to carry out policies in their respective institutions. Members also possessed a great deal of expertise in their respective fields and could be consulted by the Central Committee apparatus in preparing policy recommendations and resolutions for plenums, party conferences, and party congresses.

===Central Auditing Commission===
Every party congress elected a Central Auditing Commission, which reviewed the party's financial accounts and the financial activities of its institutions. The commission also investigated the treatment accorded to letters and complaints by the party's central institutions. The status of membership on the Central Auditing Commission appeared to fall just below that of candidate status on the Central Committee. In 1989 the commission had seventy members. The commission elected a bureau, which in May 1989 was headed by Deputy Chairman Alla A. Nizovtseva.

===Party Control Committee===
The Party Control Committee, which was attached to the Central Committee, investigated violations of party discipline and administered expulsions from the party. Because it examined the work of party members in responsible economic posts, this committee could involve itself in financial and economic management. The Party Control Committee also could redress grievances of party members who had been expelled by their PPO. In 1989 its chairman was Boris A. Pugo.

===Politburo===
Two weeks before the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the Bolshevik leadership formed the Politburo as a means to further centralize decision making and to permit effective adaptation of party policies to rapidly changing circumstances. Since the Bolshevik Revolution, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU has consisted of the highest party and government officials in the Soviet Union. Despite the importance of this body, only a small amount of space was devoted to it in the Party Rules, which noted only that the Central Committee chose the Politburo for "leadership of the work of the party between plenums of the Central Committee." The Politburo formed the highest decision-making body in the Soviet Union. Its full and candidate members served on the Politburo by virtue of their party or government positions.

The Politburo was a standing subcommittee of the Central Committee. Like the Central Committee, the Politburo was composed of full and candidate (non-voting) members. The party rules neither specified the size of the Politburo nor mentioned candidate status.

Four general career patterns determined accession to membership in the Politburo. Officials of the central party apparatus could rise within that hierarchy to acquire a position that led to a seat on the Secretariat. In 1989 several secretaries of the Central Committee sat on the Politburo. Other officials, such as Mikhail A. Suslov (the party's leading ideologist under Brezhnev) and Aleksandr Iakovlev, who also made his career in ideology, attained membership in the Politburo because of their expertise. The technical or economic specialist was a third pattern. For example, Nikolai Sliun'kov probably was brought into the Politburo because of his expertise in economic administration. Finally, a successful career in the provinces often led to a call to Moscow and a career in the central apparatus. Volodymyr Shcherbyts'kyy exemplified this career pattern.

Several interlocking trends have characterized the Politburo since Stalin's death in 1953. Membership in the Politburo has become increasingly representative of important functional and territorial interests. Before 1953 the party leadership concentrated on building the economic, social, and political bases for a socialist society. In the post-Stalin period the leadership has sought instead to manage society and contain social change. Management of society required a division of labor within the Politburo and the admission of people with specialized expertise. Stalin kept the lines of responsibility ambiguous, and he tightly controlled the kinds of information his comrades on the Politburo received. Since 1953 Politburo members have had greater access to information and hence more opportunity to develop consistent policy positions. Because the party leadership eliminated violence as an instrument of elite politics and restrained the secret police after Stalin's death, Politburo members began advancing policy positions without fear of losing their seats on this body, or even their lives, if they found themselves on the wrong side of the policy debate.

===Secretariat===
Until September 1988, the Secretariat headed the CPSU's central apparatus and was solely responsible for the development and implementation of party policies. The Secretariat also carried political weight because many of its members sat on the Politburo. In 1989 eight members of the Secretariat, including the general secretary of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU, served as full members of the Politburo. One member, Georgii P. Razumovskii, was a candidate member of the Politburo. Those officials who sat on the Politburo, served in the Secretariat, and chaired a party commission were the most powerful in the Soviet Union.

After the formation of the party commissions in the fall of 1988, lines of authority over the central party bureaucracy became very unclear because the responsibilities of the secretaries and the responsibilities of the commissions considerably overlapped. Of the nine secretaries, excluding the general secretary, six chaired party commissions. One Western observer, Alexander Rahr, believed that this factor limited the power of the Secretariat because the influence of the secretaries who chaired the commissions was restricted to specific areas of competence as defined by their commission chairmanships. In addition, the secretaries became answerable to the commissions they chaired. Finally, in one case, a secretary served as a subordinate to another secretary in the latter's role as the chairman of a commission. Viktor P. Nikonov, a secretary responsible for agriculture, was deputy chairman of the Agrarian Policy Commission, which was chaired by Egor K. Ligachev, another party secretary.

Western specialists poorly understood lines of authority in the Secretariat. It was clear that the members of the Secretariat supervised the work of the Central Committee departments. Department chiefs, who normally sat on the Central Committee, were subordinate to the secretaries. For example, in 1989 Aleksandr S. Kapto, the chairman of the Ideological Department, answered to Vadim A. Medvedev, party secretary for ideology, and Valentin A. Falin, the head of the International Department, answered to Iakovlev, party secretary for international policy. Most department heads were assisted by a first deputy head (a first deputy administrator in the case of the Administration of Affairs Department) and from one to six deputy heads (deputy administrators in the case of the Administration of Affairs Department). However, the International Department had two deputy heads.

In 1989 a variety of departments made up the CPSU's central apparatus. Some departments were worthy of note. The Party Building and Cadre Work Department assigned party personnel in the nomenklatura system. The State and Legal Department supervised the armed forces, the Committee for State Security (''Komitet gosudarstvennoi bezopasnosti''; KGB), the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the trade unions, and the Procuracy.

Before 1989 the apparatus contained many more departments responsible for the economy. These departments included one for the economy as a whole, one for machine building, and one for the chemical industry, among others. The party abolished these departments in an effort to remove itself from the day-to-day management of the economy in favor of government bodies and a greater role for the market. In early 1989, Gorbachev suggested that the agrarian and defense industry departments might be disbanded as well as part of his reform efforts.

===Commissions===
At the September 30, 1988, plenum of the Central Committee, the CPSU announced that six new commissions would be formed to develop policy and oversee its implementation in a series of key areas. A resolution of the November 1988 plenum that actually established the commissions maintained that their purpose was to "facilitate the involvement of Central Committee members and candidate members in active work on major directions of domestic and foreign policy."

Several factors led to the formation of these new party bodies. First, Gorbachev probably sought to strengthen reformist influence at the top of the party hierarchy. Second, the move was designed to reduce the party's day-to-day involvement in the economy. Thus, only one of the six commissions was concerned with economic policy, while another dealt with agriculture. Finally, Gorbachev's desire to reduce the power of his conservative rival, Ligachev, also helped to explain the move. Prior to September 1988, Ligachev had been the party's second secretary, the official who usually chaired meetings of the Secretariat. By limiting the influence of the Secretariat and by placing Ligachev in charge of agriculture--the Achilles heel of the economy--Gorbachev eliminated Ligachev as a competitor for power.

As of May 1989, the actual work of the commissions belied the significance the party attached to them. In their first six months, none of the commissions had met more than once. All the communiqués reporting on their meetings have been devoid of substance.

===General Secretary: Power and Authority===
That certain policies throughout Soviet history have been so clearly identified with the general secretary of the CPSU demonstrated the importance of that position as well as of the stakes in the succession struggle upon a general secretary's death or removal from office. As general secretary, Stalin determined the party's policies in the economy and foreign affairs and thus gave his name to a whole era in Soviet history. Khrushchev put his stamp on a variety of policies, including peaceful coexistence with the West and the virgin land campaign. Soviet and Western observers identified Brezhnev with détente and the Soviet military buildup. In the late 1980s, Gorbachev associated his name with the policies of openness, restructuring, and democratization.

The general secretary possessed many powers. As chairman of the Politburo, the general secretary decided the agenda and timing of its deliberations. The general secretary acted as chief executive of the party apparatus and thus supervised the nomenklatura. The general secretary also chaired the Defense Council, which managed the Soviet military-industrial complex. Finally, through attendance at summit meetings with world heads of state, the general secretary acquired symbolic legitimation as the Soviet Union's top ruler.

Once selected for this position by other members of the Politburo and confirmed by the Central Committee, the general secretary had to proceed to build a base of power and strengthen his authority. Officials considered eligible for the position of general secretary held a great amount of power to begin with; they always occupied seats on the Politburo and Secretariat, and they developed a large number of clients throughout the party and government bureaucracies. The general secretary's efforts to extend this power base involved placing loyal clients in strategic positions throughout party and government hierarchies. One measure of the success of the general secretary's efforts in this regard was turnover in the Central Committee at the first party congress following the secretary's accession to the position. The general secretary used these clients to promote desired policies at all levels of the party and government bureaucracies and to ensure accurate transmission of information about policy problems up the hierarchy.

To secure his rule and advance his policies, the general secretary also had to increase his authority. American Sovietologist George Breslauer has written that efforts to build authority involved legitimation of the general secretary's policies and programs and demonstration of his competence or indispensability as a leader. The general secretary strove to show that his policies derived from Lenin's teachings and that these policies have led to successes in socialist construction. Moreover, the general secretary strove to demonstrate a unique insight into the teachings of Marx and Lenin and into the current stage of world development. The general secretary also emphasized personal ties to the people and a leadership motivated by the interests of the workers and peasants. One further means to strengthen the legitimacy of the general secretary's power has been the acquisition of high government offices. Thus in October 1988, Gorbachev became chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, which was the title for head of the Soviet state. He retained his position as head of state when in May 1989 the Congress of People's Deputies close a new Supreme Soviet and elected Gorbachev to the just created position of chairman of the Supreme Soviet. In the past, the head of the Soviet state sometimes had been referred to as "president" in Soviet and Western media, although such a position was not identified in the Constitution.

Another means that Soviet general secretaries have used to ensure their authority is the cult of the leader. The cult of the leader has several intended audiences. For example, the general secretary used the cult of the leader to intimidate actual or potential rivals and thus force them to accept and follow his policies. In addition, the cult of the leader reassured those members of the party and government hierarchies whose careers depended upon the success of the general secretary's policies. The cult of the leader provided inspiration to those who wished to identify with a patriarchal figure.

Breslauer has written that Soviet general secretaries since Stalin have attempted to build their authority by creating a sense of national élan. For example, Iurii V. Andropov, general secretary from November 1982 to February 1984, sought to rouse Soviet society with his campaign against alcoholism and corruption. The general secretary has also sought to play the role of problem solver. For example, in the mid- and late 1980s, Gorbachev sought to reverse a decline in economic efficiency by promoting economic policies designed to curb the ministries' role in Soviet economic life and thereby encourage enterprise initiative.

Since the death of Lenin, the party elite has been unable to institute regulations governing the transfer of office from one general secretary to the next. The Nineteenth Party Conference called for limiting party officeholders to two five-year terms. However, it was unclear whether this proviso would apply to the general secretary and other top leaders. The party leadership has yet to devise procedures by which the general secretary may relinquish the office. The powers of the office were not set; neither were its rights and duties. These factors combined to generate a high degree of unpredictability in selecting a new leader and a period of uncertainty while the new general secretary consolidates power.

Three stages have characterized the efforts of various general secretaries to consolidate their power and authority. The first stage begins while the incumbent leader is in power and lasts through his death or ouster. Potential successors seek to place themselves in more powerful positions relative to their rivals. For example, under Konstantin Chernenko (general secretary from February 1984 to March 1985) Gorbachev chaired Politburo meetings in the general secretary's absence and also assumed responsibilities for cadre policy. These responsibilities enabled Gorbachev to set the agenda for Politburo meetings and to place persons loyal to him in important positions throughout the regime. Gorbachev's unsuccessful rivals for power, Grigorii V. Romanov and Viktor V. Grishin, had fewer such opportunities to influence the outcome of the struggle to succeed Chernenko.

The second stage occurs with the transfer of authority to the new leader and both the accumulation of positions and the authority that goes with them. This stage can occur over a prolonged period of time and coincide with the next stage. For example, only in 1977 did Brezhnev, named general secretary in 1964, become chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and thus de facto head of state. The third stage involves two steps: consolidation of the new leader's power through the removal of his predecessor's clients and those of his actual and potential rivals for power; and the installation of the new leader's clients in key positions. This stage probably lasts for the duration of the general secretary's tenure.

A succession struggle entails opportunities and problems for the new party leader and for the Soviet leadership as a whole. Transfer of office from one general secretary to another can improve the possibilities for change. Seweryn Bialer has written that "ambition, power, and the desire for innovation all meet in a succession struggle and so prepare the ground for change." Succession disrupts the normal pattern of business. Also, policy initiatives are a critical means of consolidating a new leader's position. Khrushchev's condemnation of Stalin represented an appeal to party officials dissatisfied with Stalinism and an effort to define and control a new program that would better meet the needs of the party and society. Similarly, in the late 1980s Gorbachev's initiatives appealed to officials and citizens who were dissatisfied with the inertia of the late Brezhnev period and who sought to modernize the Soviet economy.

Yet, a succession struggle can also occasion serious difficulties for the leadership. A succession struggle increases the probability for personal and policy conflicts. In turn, these conflicts can lead to political passivity as the rivals for power turn their attention to that struggle rather than to policy development and execution. When the general secretary lacks the influence necessary to promote desired policies, a sense of inertia can debilitate the political system at the intermediate and lower levels. This factor partially explains the resistance that Khrushchev and, in the late 1980s, Gorbachev met in their respective efforts to alter the policies of their predecessors.

==Intermediate-level party organizations==
The intermediate-level party structure embraced the republic, oblast, raion (see Glossary), and city levels of the hierarchy. The organizational scheme of each of these levels resembled the others. In addition, at each of these levels the party organization corresponded to a similar layer in the government administration. According to the Party Rules, the authoritative body at each of these levels was the congress (republic level) or conference. These bodies elected a committee that, in turn, chose a bureau with several members (including a first secretary) and a secretariat. Conferences at one level elected delegates to the conference or congress at the next highest level. Thus, the rural or city conference designated delegates to the oblast conference or, in the case of the smaller republics, directly to the republic party congress. The oblast conference elected delegates to congresses of the larger republics. The Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic had no party congress. Delegates from provinces (oblasts, kraia, and autonomous subdivisions) in that republic were elected directly to the allunion party congress. Of course, at each level of the hierarchy the term election generally was a euphemism. By the norms of democratic centralism, party leaders at each level approved the makeup of the party conference or congress that ostensibly elected them, as well as the composition of party bodies on the next lowest level.

===Republic Party Organization===
The republic party organization replicated the party structure on the all-union level except for the Russian Republic, which had no republic-level party organization in 1989. A congress, made up of delegates from the oblast or district and town organizations, elected a central committee to govern the republic in the five-year interval between party congresses. The central committee of the republic, which held a plenum once every four months, named a bureau (in the case of the Ukrainian Republic, this body was called a politburo) and a secretariat to run the affairs of the republic between plenums of the central committee.

Full and candidate (nonvoting) members of republic bureaus included officials who held seats on this body by virtue of their party or government positions. Party officials who sat on the republic party bureaus normally included the first secretary of the republic and the second secretary for party-organizational work, as well as others selected from among the following: the first secretary of the party organization in the capital city of the republic, the chairman of the republic party control committee, and the first secretary of an outlying city or province. Government officials who could serve on the republic bureau were elected from among the following: the chairman of the republic's council of ministers, the chairman of the presidium of the republic's supreme soviet, the first deputy chairman of the republic's council of ministers, the republic's KGB chairman, and the troop commander of the Soviet armed forces stationed in the republic.

In 1989 the secretariats of the fourteen republic party organizations included a second secretary for party-organizational work and a secretary for ideology. The number of departments has, however, shrunk as the party has attempted to limit its role in economic management. Some sources also indicated the formation of commissions similar to those of the central party apparatus. Thus, the republic first secretaries in the Kazakh, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Moldavian republics and the second secretaries in the Belorussian and Turkmen republics assumed the chairmanships of their republics' commissions on state and legal policy.

With the exception of the Kazakh Republic (where a Russian, Gennadii Kolbin, served as first secretary), the first secretaries of the republic party organizations in 1989 were all members of their republic's dominant nationality. However, in 1989 the officials responsible for party-organizational work--the second secretaries--were predominantly Russians. (The Kazakh party's second secretary was Sergei M. Titarenko, a Ukrainian; the second secretary in the Ukrainian Republic was a Ukrainian.) The second secretary supervised cadre policy in the republic and hence managed the republic's nomenklatura appointments. As an official whose primary loyalty was to Moscow, the second secretary acted as a vehicle for the influence of the CPSU's central apparatus on the affairs of the republic's party organization and as a watchdog to ensure the republic organization's adherence to Moscow's demands.

===Oblast-Level Organization===
Below the all-union organization in the Russian Republic (which sufficed for the Russian Republic's party organization in 1989) and the union republic party organizations in the Azerbaydzhan, Belorussian, Georgian, Kazakh, Kirgiz, Tadzhik, Turkmen, Ukrainian, and Uzbek republics stood the oblast party organization, 122 of which existed in the Soviet Union in 1989 (six large, thinly populated regions in the Russian Republic have been designated by the term ''krai''; these regions are treated herein as oblasts). The Armenian, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Moldavian republics had no oblasts. An oblast could embrace a large city or nationality unit. According to the Party Rules, the authoritative body in the province was the party conference, which met twice every five years and consisted of delegates elected by the district or city party conference. Between oblast party conferences, an oblast committee (''obkom'') comprising full and candidate members selected by the conference supervised the provincial party organization and, through it, the province as a whole. The oblast party committee met once every four months. That committee chose a bureau made up of voting and nonvoting members and a secretariat.

The bureau integrated officials from the most important sectors of the provincial party, economic, and governmental organizations into a unified political elite. Membership on the bureau enabled these officials to coordinate policies in their respective administrative spheres.

As of the mid-1980s five different kinds of specialists served on the obkom bureau. The first category, composed of agricultural specialists, could be selected from among the obkom agricultural secretary, the agricultural administration of the oblast, or the obkom first secretary in predominantly rural regions. A second category of bureau membership consisted of industrial specialists, who were drawn from among the obkom industry secretary, the first secretary of the provincial capital (where most provincial industries were located), the provincial trade union council chairman, the first secretary of a large industrialized city district, or the obkom first secretary. Ideology specialists made up the third category. They were selected from the obkom secretary for ideology, the editor of the provincial party newspaper, or the first secretary of the Komsomol. A fourth category was the cadres specialist, who supervised nomenklatura appointments in the province. The cadres specialist on the provincial party bureau normally occupied one of the following positions: obkom first secretary, head of the obkom party-organizational department, chairman of the provincial trade union council, or obkom cadres secretary. "Mixed generalists" made up the fifth category. These officials served on the obkom bureau to fulfill positions that required a broader background than those possessed by the functional specialists. A wide range of roles prepared the mixed generalists to carry out their tasks. Prior to serving on the provincial party bureau, these officials generally worked in industry, agriculture, party administration, or ideology.

Reform of the party's central apparatus, however, portended significant changes at the regional level. According to Georgii Kriuchkov, a senior official of the Central Committee, "the party is shedding the functions of dealing with day-to-day problems as they arise, because these problems are within the competence of the state, managerial, and public bodies." Hence, parts of the obkom bureau that paralleled government and managerial bodies - mainly in the area of economic management - were to be dismantled.

The first secretary of the party obkom was the most powerful official in the province. Paradoxically, much of that power stemmed from Soviet economic inefficiency. According to the norms of democratic centralism, the obkom secretary had to carry out decisions made by leaders at the all-union and republic levels of the party hierarchy. Nevertheless, the obkom secretary preserved some scope for independent political initiative on issues of national importance. Initiative, perseverance, and ruthlessness were necessary characteristics of the successful obkom secretary, who had to aggregate scarce resources to meet economic targets and lobby central planners for low targets. Soviet émigré Alexander Yanov has argued that the interest of the obkom secretary, however, lay in preserving an inefficient provincial economy. Yanov has written that the obkom secretaries were "the fixers and chasers" after scarce resources who made the provincial economy work. If the economy were decentralized to allow greater initiative and if efforts were made to ensure greater agricultural productivity, one element of the obkom secretary's power--the ability to find resources to meet the plan--would diminish. For this reason, the obkom secretaries formed an important source of resistance to Khrushchev's efforts at economic reform. Western observers held that these officials were an important source of opposition to Gorbachev's economic reforms because these reforms envisaged a greater role for the government and the market at the expense of the party.

===District- and City-Level Organization===
In 1988 more than 3,400 district (''raion'') organizations made up the position in the CPSU hierarchy below that of the oblast. Of these organizations, 2,860 were located in rural areas and 570 in wards of cities. In addition, this hierarchical level encompassed 800 city (''gorod'') organizations.

The structure of these organizations resembled that of organizations on the republic and oblast levels. In theory, the party conference, with delegates selected by the PPOs in each district or city, elected a committee composed of full and candidate members. In practice, the party leadership in the district or town chose the delegates to the party conference and determined the composition of the district or town committee. Party conferences took place twice every five years. In the interim, the district committee (''raion komitet-raikom'') or city committee (''gorodskoi komitet-gorkom'') was the most authoritative body in the territory. The committee consisted of party officials, state officials, local Komsomol and trade union officers, the chairmen of the most important collective farms, the managers of the largest industrial enterprises, some PPO secretaries, and a few rank-and-file party members.

The raikom or gorkom elected a bureau and a secretariat, which supervised the daily affairs of the jurisdiction. The bureau numbered between ten and twelve members, who included party officials, state officials, and directors of the most important economic enterprises in the district or city. The composition of the bureau at this level varied with location. For example, the gorkom had no specialist for agriculture, and the rural raikom had no specialist for industry. The raikom and gorkom bureaus met two to three times per month to review the affairs of the district or city and to examine the reports of the PPOs.

The first secretary of the raikom or gorkom bureau headed the party organization at this level. As part of its nomenklatura authority, the oblast party organization made appointments to these positions. In 1987, however, reports of multicandidate elections for first secretary of a raikom appeared in the Soviet press. Two candidates competed for the position of raikom secretary in the Kemerovo and Vinnitsa districts. In the case of Kemerovo, Pravda reported that the oblast party secretary nominated the candidates, and the party conference at the district level settled the contest in a secret ballot. The Nineteenth Party Conference called for the institutionalization of multicandidate elections for these and other party positions.

The secretariat of a raikom and gorkom resembled that of the oblast party committee. In contrast to the party committee of the oblast level, however, the composition of this body varied with location. All had a department for agitation and propaganda; an organizational department, which staffed the positions for PPO secretaries and supervised the performance of the PPOs; and a general department, which coordinated the affairs of the district and city party organizations by circulating documents, administering party work, and preparing the agenda and materials for conferences, plenums, and bureau meetings. In 1988 the raikom or gorkom included a department for either agriculture or industry, which supervised those elements of the Soviet economy on the district level. In contrast to efforts to reduce the number of departments at higher levels of the party apparatus, no such reduction on the district level was planned as of early 1989.

As in the oblast, until the late 1980s the party organization in the district and city tended to involve itself in economic administration and production, which Gorbachev intended to place within the purview of the government. The CPSU judged its officials on their ability to meet and exceed the state economic plan. Party officials used their power as the representatives of the leading political institution in the country to engage themselves in economic administration. For fear of offending party officials and in the expectation that the party would solve their problems, until the late 1980s government and economic administrators were reluctant to exercise initiative and take responsibility in economic matters. The ability of raikom and gorkom secretaries to involve themselves in government activities formed one aspect of their power and influence within their respective jurisdictions. During the Khrushchev era, these officials resisted reforms that led to a diminution of their responsibilities.

==Primary party organization==
In 1987 primary party organizations (PPOs) numbered 441,851. The PPO was the lowest rung on the party's organizational ladder (PPOs were called party cells until 1934). One existed in every factory, office, collective farm, military unit, and education institution having more than three party members. According to the party rules, the highest organ of the PPO was the party meeting, which comprised all party members in a given work unit. PPOs having more than fifty members could be divided into groups led by steering committees. Party meetings generally convened at least once a month, although the interim could be longer for PPOs having more than 300 members. The party meetings elected a bureau of two or three persons to supervise the affairs of the PPO. The secretary of the PPO, nominally elected by the party meeting but actually appointed by the next highest party organization, managed the work of the PPO and was a full-time, salaried member of the party.

The PPO performed many important tasks. It admitted new members into the party; apprised rank-and-file party members of their duties, obligations, and rights within the party; organized agitation and propaganda sessions to educate party members in the ideology of Marxism-Leninism; stimulated productivity in the enterprise; encouraged efficiency and effectiveness of production methods and innovation; and disciplined party members for dereliction of their duties. An enumeration of the activities of the PPO only begins to suggest the importance of this organization to the party. For several reasons, the PPO was an important factor underlying the party's control over society. The PPO possessed what was known as the right of verification (''pravo kontrolia''), checking how managers met the demands of their position and how faithfully they implemented the plan for their enterprise. This power led to the PPO secretary's involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the enterprise. Moreover, factory managers or chairmen of collective farms, as well as chiefs of the enterprise trade unions normally were party members; consequently, they were bound by democratic centralism to follow the orders and suggestions of their party leader, the PPO secretary. Thus, the PPO secretary and not the manager carried primary responsibility to the party for the work of the enterprise.

The PPO itself was also critical to the implementation of the economic plan. The state devised its economic plan on the basis of party requirements. The government implemented the party's plan, and therefore the norms of democratic centralism obligated the PPOs to enforce it. At the enterprise level, the principal activity of the PPO secretary and of all party members was to stimulate production. Party members had to set an example with their work and encourage nonmembers to fulfill their production quotas and improve their labor productivity.

The PPO not only conveyed party policies to nonmembers in the enterprise but also apprised the party hierarchy of the mood of the masses and prevented the formation of groups to promote grass-roots change. Rank-and-file party members were scattered throughout the Soviet Union. Party members had hands-on experience in their jobs and knew nonparty members personally. Because of this intimate knowledge of their surroundings, party members were in a position to inform their superiors about the concerns and problems of people in all walks of life. With this knowledge, the party could take steps to stem potential sources of unrest, to institute new methods of control, and, more generally, to tailor its policies toward the maintenance of the population's political quiescence.

==Nomenklatura==
The ''nomenklatura'' referred to the CPSU's authority to make appointments to key positions throughout the governmental system, as well as throughout the party's own hierarchy. Specifically, the nomenklatura consisted of two separate lists: one was for key positions, appointments to which were made by authorities within the party; the other was for persons who were potential candidates for appointment to those positions. The Politburo, as part of its nomenklatura authority, maintained a list of ministerial and ambassadorial positions that it had the power to fill as well as a separate list of potential candidates to occupy those positions.

Coextensive with the nomenklatura were patron-client relations. Officials who had the authority to appoint individuals to certain positions cultivated loyalties among those whom they appointed. The patron (the official making the appointment) promoted the interests of clients in return for their support. Powerful patrons, such as the members of the Politburo, had many clients. Moreover, an official could be both a client (in relation to a higher-level patron) and a patron (to other, lower-level officials).

Because a client was beholden to his patron for his position, the client was eager to please his patron by carrying out his policies. The Soviet power structure essentially consisted of groups of vassals (clients) who had an overlord (the patron). The higher the patron, the more clients the patron had. Patrons protected their clients and tried to promote their careers. In return for the patron's efforts to promote their careers, the clients remained loyal to their patron. Thus, by promoting his clients' careers, the patron could advance his own power.

===Appointment authority===
The nomenklatura system arose early in Soviet history. Lenin wrote that appointments were to take the following criteria into account: reliability, political attitude, qualifications, and administrative ability. Stalin, who was the first general secretary of the party, also was known as "Comrade File Cabinet" (''Tovarishch Kartotekov'') for his assiduous attention to the details of the party's appointments. Seeking to make appointments in a more systematic fashion, Stalin built the party's patronage system and used it to distribute his clients throughout the party bureaucracy (see Stalin's Rise to Power , ch. 2). Under Stalin's direction in 1922, the party created departments of the Central Committee and other organs at lower levels that were responsible for the registration and appointment of party officials. Known as uchraspredy, these organs supervised appointments to important party posts. After Brezhnev's accession to power in October 1964, the party considerably expanded its appointment authority. However, in the late 1980s some official statements indicated that the party intended to reduce its appointment authority, particularly in the area of economic management, in line with Gorbachev's reform efforts.

At the all-union level, the Party Building and Cadre Work Department supervised party nomenklatura appointments. This department maintained records on party members throughout the country, made appointments to positions on the all-union level, and approved nomenklatura appointments on the lower levels of the hierarchy. The head of this department sometimes was a member of the Secretariat and was often a protégé of the general secretary.

Every party committee and party organizational department - from the all-union level in Moscow to the district and city levels - prepared two lists according to their needs. The basic (''osnovnaia'') list detailed positions in the political, administrative, economic, military, cultural, and educational bureaucracies that the committee and its department had responsibility for filling. The registered (uchetnaia) list enumerated the persons suitable for these positions.

===Patron-Client Relations===
An official in the party or government bureaucracy could not advance in the nomenklatura without the assistance of a patron. In return for this assistance in promoting his career, the client carried out the policies of the patron. Patron-client relations thus help to explain the ability of party leaders to generate support for their policies. The presence of patron-client relations between party officials and officials in other bureaucracies also helped to account for the control the party exercised over Soviet society. All of the 2 million members of the nomenklatura system understood that they held their positions as a result of a favor bestowed on them by a superior official in the party and that they could be replaced if they manifested disloyalty to their patron. Self-interest dictated that members of the nomenklatura submit to the control of their patrons in the party.

Clients sometimes could attempt to supplant their overlord. For example, Khrushchev, one of Lazar M. Kaganovich's former protégés, helped to oust the latter in 1957. Seven years later, Brezhnev, a client of Khrushchev, helped to remove his boss from power. The power of the general secretary was consolidated to the extent that he placed his clients in positions of power and influence. The ideal for the general secretary, writes Soviet émigré observer Michael Voslensky, "is to be overlord of vassals selected by oneself."

Several factors explain the entrenchment of patron-client relations. First, in a centralized nondemocratic government system, promotion in the bureaucratic-political hierarchy was the only path to power. Second, the most important criterion for promotion in this hierarchy was not merit but approval from one's supervisors, who evaluated their subordinates on the basis of political criteria and their ability to contribute to the fulfillment of the economic plan. Third, political rivalries were present at all levels of the party and state bureaucracies but were especially prevalent at the top. Power and influence decided the outcomes of these struggles, and the number and positions of one's clients were critical components of that power and influence. Fourth, because fulfillment of the economic plan was decisive, systemic pressures led officials to conspire together and use their ties to achieve that goal.

The faction led by Brezhnev provides a good case study of patron-client relations in the Soviet system. Many members of the Brezhnev faction came from Dnepropetrovsk, where Brezhnev had served as first secretary of the provincial party organization. Andrei P. Kirilenko, a Politburo member and Central Committee secretary under Brezhnev, was first secretary of the regional committee of Dnepropetrovsk. Volodymyr Shcherbyts'kyy, named as first secretary of the Ukrainian apparatus under Brezhnev, succeeded Kirilenko in that position. Nikolai A. Tikhonov, appointed by Brezhnev as first deputy chairman of the Soviet Union's Council of Ministers, graduated from the Dnepropetrovsk College of Metallurgy and presided over the economic council of Dnepropetrovsk Oblast. Finally, Nikolai A. Shchelokov, minister of internal affairs under Brezhnev, was a former chairman of the Dnepropetrovsk soviet.

Patron-client relations had implications for policy making in the party and government bureaucracies. Promotion of trusted subordinates into influential positions facilitated policy formation and policy execution. A network of clients helped to ensure that a patron's policies could be carried out. In addition, patrons relied on their clients to provide an accurate flow of information on events throughout the country. This information assisted policymakers in ensuring that their programs were being implemented.

==Party Membership==
The CPSU placed stringent requirements on its membership. Party members had to work indefatigably on the party's behalf, actively participate in the political life of the country, and set a moral and political example for those who were not members of the party. Despite these obligations, the benefits of membership compelled many to join the party. Membership in the CPSU was a requirement for career advancement. In addition, a career in the party could also serve as a means for upward mobility from the working class or peasantry into white-collar positions. Moreover, for those interested in political activities, the party was a vehicle for political participation.

Party members had a duty to increase their political knowledge and qualifications. Such efforts indicated a willingness to make a career of party work. The CPSU has set up a series of party schools whose courses range in difficulty from the elementary to the advanced. These schools were located at the local, intermediate, and all-union levels of the political system. Training in party schools strengthened the ideological, political, and administrative abilities of party members, especially officials of the CPSU apparatus. Although the stated purpose of party training was to better equip party members to perform their jobs, it acted as one additional means to promote a common outlook and ideological perspective among members of the party apparatus.

===Selection Procedures===
The standards for admission into the CPSU required that a person be at least eighteen years old, have a good personal record, and possess some knowledge of the principles of Marxism-Leninism. Those who wanted to become party members had to secure references from at least three party members of at least five years' standing. In the case of prospective members entering the party from the Komsomol, one of the references had to have been written by a member of the Komsomol city or district committee. These references attested to the candidate's moral, civic, and professional qualities.

Only the PPO general meeting could accept or reject an application for membership. Before the general meeting, however, the PPO secretary reviewed that person's application, and the secretary's recommendations counted heavily in the selection process. The district or town party committee then confirmed the acceptance of the prospective member. Upon acceptance, the individual became a candidate (non-voting) member of the party for one year. The new candidate paid an admission fee of 2 rubles and monthly dues that varied from 10 kopeks to 3 percent of salary, depending on the person's income.

During the candidate stage, the individual had to faithfully carry out responsibilities assigned by the party. Candidates had to demonstrate their ability to cope with the obligations of party membership, which included attendance at party meetings, improvements in labor productivity, and efforts to strengthen one's understanding of Marxism-Leninism. After one year, the candidate had to again solicit recommendations from three members of five years' standing and undergo a review by the PPO secretary. The PPO general meeting then voted on the candidate's application for full membership, and the district or city organization confirmed the acceptance of the full member.

The party rules defined many obligations for CPSU members. For example, the party member had to resolutely execute the general line and directives of the party, explain to the nonparty masses the foreign and domestic policies of the CPSU, and facilitate the strengthening of the party's bonds with the people. In addition, party members had to strive to increase productivity in their regular jobs, improve the quality of their work, and "inject into the economy the achievements of science and technology." The Party Rules required that members participate in party activities, broaden their political horizons, and struggle against any manifestation of bourgeois ideology and religious prejudices. Party members had to strictly observe the norms of communist morality, place social interests higher than personal interests, and exhibit modesty and orderliness. Party members also undertook criticism of other members and self criticism in meetings. Criticism and self-criticism uncovered conflicts, mistakes, and shortcomings that resulted from personal or organizational inadequacies. Once flaws were uncovered, criticism and self-criticism generated peer pressure to remove the problem. Finally, party members had to consistently promote the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and work to strengthen the defense forces of the country.

In addition to their obligations, full members of the CPSU had certain rights. They participated in elections of candidates to party organs, and they could be chosen for positions in the hierarchy. At party meetings, conferences, meetings of party committees, and in the party press, party members could freely discuss issues connected with the policy and activities of the party. According to the Party Rules, party members could criticize any party organ and any other party member (including members of the leadership) at party meetings, plenums and conferences, and congresses at all levels of the party hierarchy. The norms of democratic centralism precluded such criticism, however. Any party member brave enough to make such criticism would have been subject to party discipline and possible exclusion from the CPSU. A party member had the right to participate in party meetings, bureau sessions, and committees when these bodies discussed that person's activities or behavior. In addition, a party member could submit questions, statements, and suggestions to any party body, including the Central Committee, and demand a reply.

The party could take several forms of disciplinary action against members who broke its rules. The lightest penalty was a reprimand, followed by a censure. Both of these measures were entered into the member's permanent party record. A harsher punishment was reduction to candidate status for one year. For severe rule infractions, a party member could be expelled. The stigma attached to expulsion from the party remained with the individual throughout his life and precluded career advancement, access to better housing facilities, and educational opportunities for the person's children. In some instances, expelled party members have lost high-status positions.

Another form of disciplinary action, which occurred on a wider scale, was the so-called "exchange of party documents." This entailed a review of the party's membership and discussions between party members and their superiors, followed by replacement of old party cards. The exchange of party documents provided an occasion for the CPSU to rid itself of members who breached party discipline. Party sources reported that exchanges of party cards were not purges. Nevertheless, the Russian word ''chistka'', which means purge, was the term the party used to describe these exchanges. The last exchange of party documents occurred in 1975.

Several reasons accounted for the desire of Soviet citizens to join the party, despite the stringent obligations it placed upon its members and the formal nature of their rights. The primary reason for joining the party was opportunity for career advancement and social mobility. Party membership was a prerequisite for promotion to managerial positions in Soviet society. In addition, party membership opened up the possibility for travel abroad, admission to special shops for consumer goods, access to Western media, and cash bonuses for work. Party membership also provided the chance for upward mobility from the working class or peasantry into professional, white-collar positions in the party apparatus. Children of lower-class parents tended to enter this "political class" in order to raise their status. Having become members of this class, these people could then sure their offspring access to the amenities Soviet life has to offer.

Party membership had other, less tangible rewards. It enabled an individual to claim membership in an organization linked to Russian historical tradition, to the Bolshevik Revolution, and to the world-historical movement the CPSU claimed to lead. In addition, as the dominant political institution in society, the party offered the most important outlet for political participation. These benefits encouraged a feeling of in-group solidarity with other members of the CPSU and a sense of civic efficacy.

===Training===
The CPSU obligated its members constantly to improve their understanding of Marxism-Leninism and political qualifications. Toward these goals, the party operated a series of schools to train party members in Marxism-Leninism, to recruit rank-and-file members into its administration, and to communicate party principles and policies to the membership, particularly to officials in the apparatus.

Party schools operated at all levels of the hierarchy. The primary party schools formed the elementary level of the training system. These schools were informal; they could be as simple as a circle of workers who met after work to discuss the life of Lenin, political and economic affairs, or current party policies. Since the mid-1960s, enrollments in these schools have been declining because of the increased education level of the population. These courses were open to nonmembers, whose participation could be used to demonstrate a desire to join the party. Trade unions and the Komsomol administered schools with similar levels of instruction. Trade unions operated "people's universities" and "schools of communist labor." The former treated a variety of topics and enrolled students in a group that advanced as a class from level to level. Schools of communist labor were oriented to problems of production. Lectures often dealt with the correct attitude toward work.

The party had a variety of schools at the intermediate level. Schools of the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, administered by district and city party committees, required some knowledge of Marxism-Leninism. Classes were small, which permitted individual attention to students and the examination of subject matter in detail. Courses in these schools reviewed the fundamentals of party doctrine and included subjects such as party history, political economy, and Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Since the mid-1970s, enrollment in these schools has grown. In 1981 the party formed the Schools for Young Communists. These institutions offered instruction to candidate members of the party and to people who had recently become full members.

The Schools of Scientific Communism offered more specialized instruction at the intermediate level. In 1989 topics included current events in domestic and international affairs. Schools for the party's economic specialists offered training in such areas as party direction of trade unions, economic policy, and the theory of developed socialism. Schools for ideological specialists included courses for PPO secretaries and group leaders, party lecturers, and media personnel. These schools offered courses on the principles of Marxism-Leninism and on the means and methods of the party's control over ideological affairs.

Party training at the intermediate level also encompassed seminars in Marxist-Leninist theory and methods. Members of the scientific intelligentsia and professors at institutions of higher education attended these seminars. Subjects included philosophical and social science topics: the scientific-technical revolution, economics, the theory of proletarian internationalism, communist morality, and socialist democracy.

Finally, the party offered courses for raising the qualifications of party and soviet officials at the provincial and republic levels. These courses involved supplementary training in a variety of subjects first treated in lower-level party schools. Party officials also could take correspondence courses offered either by the Higher Party School of their republic or under the auspices of the Academy of Social Sciences of the CPSU Central Committee.

At the all-union level, the Higher Party School and the Academy of Social Sciences in Moscow were staffed with instructors attached to the CPSU Central Committee departments. These schools trained officials to enter the party elite at the all-union level. The Higher Party School graduated about 300 students per year; the Academy of Social Sciences graduated approximately 100.

Training at party schools served a variety of purposes. Willingness to participate in party courses at the lowest level could indicate an aspiration to join the party or ensure advancement from candidate status to that of full member. Once in the party, participation in training courses demonstrated a desire to enter into full-time, salaried party work. Indeed, such coursework was a prerequisite for this kind of a career. Party training also created an in-group consciousness among those who attended courses, particularly at the intermediate and all-union levels. Various kinds of specialists from wide-ranging backgrounds took these courses; hence, party schools integrated officials from all sectors of the party and government bureaucracies and inculcated a shared consciousness of their duties and status. Equally important, party schools, according to American Soviet specialists Frederick C. Barghoorn and Thomas F. Remington, underscored the CPSU's legitimacy by providing a theoretical basis for its policies. Courses in party schools examined current events and policy issues from the party's perspective. Thus, party training counteracted the insular viewpoints that could arise as a result of officials' attention to their narrow fields of specialization.

==Social Composition of the CPSU==
The Bolshevik organization began as a tightly knit group of revolutionaries whose leadership was dominated by members of the Russian, Jewish, and Polish intelligentsia but whose mass base consisted mainly of industrial workers from Russia's largest cities. By the late 1980s, for the most part the social characteristics of the party membership reflected the social and economic changes the Soviet Union had undergone over the more than seventy years of its existence. Consequently, professionals made up a percentage of party membership that exceeded their percentage of the population, and the number of party members with a secondary or higher education has constantly risen since the mid-1930s. Similarly, the party has recruited its members from all nationalities. As a result, the gap between the ethnic groups that dominated the party and other ethnic groups in the early years has narrowed. However, this gap has not disappeared completely. By contrast, the percentage of women in the party has continued to lag behind the percentage of women in the population. Altogether, the social characteristics of party members confirmed their status as an elite in the society. The social composition of the party reflected the decision made by Stalin in the 1930s and reaffirmed since that time both to make professional achievement and merit the primary criteria for admission into the party and to strive for the proportional representation of all groups within the party's ranks.

In 1987 the CPSU numbered more than 19 million members. Party members constituted about 9.7 percent of the adult population. This figure represented an increase of 4 percent since 1956. Most of that increase, however, reflected the CPSU's rapid growth between 1956 and 1964 under the leadership of Khrushchev. Since 1971 the share of party membership in the adult population has risen only 0.3 percent.

In general, party members possessed a high occupational status in society, which belied the party's claims to be the vanguard of the working class. The party did not publish statistics on the social status of its membership. Nevertheless, the CPSU did publish statistics on its membership's "social position," which denoted the class affiliation of members at the time they joined the CPSU. Workers and peasants who joined the party often used their membership to advance into white-collar positions. Were statistics available on the social status of party members, they would reveal the disproportional representation of white-collar professionals in party ranks. Available figures on the social position of party members, however, also indicated the importance of professionals in the party. In 1987 persons who were members of the white-collar professions when they joined the CPSU made up 43.1 percent of the party, while those who were members of the working class made up 45.3 percent and those who were peasants made up 11.6 percent. By contrast, in 1987 Soviet sources reported that 27.8 percent of the working population consisted of white- collar professionals, 62.7 were workers, and 9.5 percent were peasants. The high percentage of members who were professionals when they joined the party, together with the accelerated advancement into white-collar positions by members who were workers or peasants, suggested that the CPSU was not a proletarian party but rather one dominated by white-collar professionals.

Statistics on the percentage of party members with higher education replicated this pattern. Between 1967 and 1987, the percentage of party members who had completed higher education almost doubled. In 1987 over 32 percent of the party membership had received a degree from an institution of higher education. By contrast, in that same year only 7.3 percent of the general population had received a similar degree. Again, the figures indicate that the CPSU was less the party of the working class than the party of the white-collar intelligentsia.

The ethnic composition of the party reflected further disproportions between the party and the population as a whole. In 1922 the share of Russian members in the party exceeded their proportion of the population by 19 percent. Since that time, the gap between Russians and other nationalities has narrowed. In 1979 Russians constituted 52 percent of the Soviet population; however, they constituted 60 percent of the party in 1981. Moreover, the percentage of Russians in the party apparatus was probably even greater than their percentage in the party as a whole.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, other major nationalities whose share of party membership exceeded their proportion of the population were the Belorussians, the Georgians, and the Jews (the percentage of Jews in the party was twice their percentage in the Soviet population as a whole). The proportion of Ukrainians and Armenians in the party equaled their share of the Soviet population. Armenians and Jews shared certain characteristics that help explain their relatively high proportion of party membership. Members of these nationalities tended to be more urbanized, educated, and geographically mobile than the norm. These characteristics correlated strongly with party membership. The Georgians, although not as urbanized as the Armenians or the Jews, tended to be highly educated. Other reasons explained the relatively high percentage of party membership among the Belorussians and Ukrainians. These two East Slavic nationalities are culturally close to the Russians. In addition, the central party apparatus has sought to demonstrate that political opportunities for Belorussians and Ukrainians equal those for Russians.

Those major nationalities having the lowest proportion of party members compared with their share of the population were the Tadzhiks, Uzbeks, Kirgiz, and Turkmens of Central Asia, and the Moldavians. The Central Asians resisted membership in an organization they perceived to be dominated by East Slavs in general and Russians in particular. Similar considerations applied to the Moldavians, whose territory the Soviet Union seized from Romania in World War II.

The percentage of women in the party lagged far behind the proportion of women in the population. In 1987 women comprised 29.3 percent of the party and 53 percent of the population. Several reasons explained women's lack of interest in joining the party. First, party work required a substantial commitment of time from each member. Approximately 80 percent of Soviet women held jobs and, in addition, spent long hours caring for children, shopping, and running households. Second, Muslim peoples, who constituted a high percentage of the Soviet population, discouraged female participation in politics. Third, Soviet women might not enter the CPSU because they perceived that the social mores of that organization restricted their ability to move up the hierarchy into positions of power. The 307 members elected to the CPSU Central Committee at the Twenty-Seventh Party Congress in 1986 included only 13 women. In the 1980s, women made up only about 33 percent of PPO secretaries, 20 percent of district party organization secretaries, and 3.2 percent of obkom bureau members. No woman has been a full member of the Politburo. Thus, the higher the level in the party hierarchy, the lower the percentage of women.

In his report to the CPSU Central Committee on January 27, 1987, General Secretary Gorbachev called for the promotion of more women and representatives of national minorities and ethnic groups into leading positions in the party. That policy, together with the pursuit of other policies that encourage greater urbanization, geographic mobility, and higher education levels, may lead to a greater proportion of women and national minorities in influential party positions. If women and national minorities perceive the opportunity to move up the hierarchy into positions of power, a greater number of these underrepresented groups might be willing to join the party and thus help to balance the sexual and ethnic composition of the CPSU with that of the population as a whole.

[[Category:Political Parties]]
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Soviet Union]]

Conservapedia:Userboxes

2008-12-12T01:55:27Z

FernoKlump: /* Putting user boxes on your user page */

A "Userbox" is a box placed on a user's main page to express oneself. They can be fun, informative, or whatever the user prefers. This page is an attempt at a comprehensive index. The index is at the bottom - please edit to add ones that you have made (see [[#Adding to index|editing advice]] below).

== Putting user boxes on your user page ==
Coding for user boxes is easy. Simply code as follows:

''<nowiki>{{userboxtop|Your Name, Title}}</nowiki> 
''<nowiki>{{user ____}}</nowiki> ''
''<nowiki>{{user ____}}</nowiki> ''
''<nowiki>{{userboxbottom}}</nowiki>''

Replace the "____" with the title of the template that you seek to use, from the lists on the sub pages below.

If the code is placed at the top of a userpage in the above format the table will align along the side of the page. However, if the table code is placed on the bottom the table will appear below any other text on that page.

== Coding a New Box ==

It is easy to create your own Userbox. All new userboxes must be templates, created under the title "template:User ____". Experienced coders can change the [[web colors]] using any of the standard hexadecimal color values.

{| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="2" style="background: #99f; colour: #000;"
!style="background: #fff;"|Code
!style="background: #fff;"|Appearance
|-
!colspan="2" style="background: #fff; text-align: left; padding: 0 1em;"|Standard box
|-
|style="background: #fff;"|<tt><nowiki>{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=ID |info=Content}}</nowiki></tt>
''or'' <tt><nowiki>{{Userbox |side-box colour |main box colour |side-box content |main box content}}</nowiki></tt>
|style="background: #fff;"|{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=ID |info=Content}}
|-
!colspan="2" style="background: #fff; text-align: left; padding: 0 1em;"|Reverse box
|-
|style="background: #fff;"|<tt><nowiki>{{Userbox-r |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=ID |info=Content}}</nowiki></tt>
''or'' <tt><nowiki>{{Userbox-r |side-box colour |main box colour |side-box content |main box content}}</nowiki></tt>
|style="background: #fff;"|{{Userbox-r |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=ID |info=Content}}
|-
!colspan="2" style="background: #fff; text-align: left; padding: 0 1em;"|Double box
|-
|style="background: #fff;"|<tt><nowiki>{{Userbox-2 |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id1-c=#fff |id1-s=12 |id1-fc=#000 |id2-c=#000 |id2-s=12 |id2-fc=#fff |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id1=ID 1 |id2=ID 2 |info=Content}}</nowiki></tt>
''or'' <tt><nowiki>{{Userbox-2 |side-box 1 colour |main box colour |side-box 1 content |message |side-box 2 content |border colour |side-box 2 colour |main box font-colour |box border thickness}}</nowiki></tt>
 '''''Note''': If omitted, border colour and side-box 2 colour default to the same colour as side-box 1, and font colour is black. Default border thickness is 1.''
|style="background: #fff;"|{{Userbox-2 |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id1-c=#fff |id1-s=12 |id1-fc=#000 |id2-c=#000 |id2-s=12 |id2-fc=#fff |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id1=ID 1 |id2=ID 2 |info=Content}}
|}

== Restrictions on Userbox Material ==
Userboxes may not be profane or set up to annoy other users.

==Language Userboxes==

Please see [[Conservapedia:Babel]] for more information on how to make language userboxes. (Please note that these are not fully implemented yet.)

== Adding to index ==

To add your userbox to any of the index pages listed below, please add it in the following format:

<tt><nowiki>|{{UB</nowiki>|''userbox name''|''parameter 1''|''parameter 2''|help=''instructions''}}</tt>

The pipe character (|) at the start is to start a new cell in the table.

All parameters after the first are optional; simply omit them if not required.

Optional parameters ''parameter 1'' and ''parameter 2'' are used if your userbox takes parameters.

The optional ''help'' parameter is used if the user box needs instructions on how to use it, such as the use of the parameters. Note that this parameter needs to start with <tt>'''help='''</tt>.

'''Simple example'''

:<tt><nowiki>|{{UB|Christian1}}</nowiki></tt>

This will result in:

<blockquote><table class="wikitable"><tr><td>{{UB|Christian1}}</td></tr></table></blockquote>

'''Complete example'''

:<tt><nowiki>|{{UB|Political Compass|x|y|help=''x'' and ''y'' refer to the results of the test at [http://www.politicalcompass.org/].}}</nowiki></tt>

This will result in:

<blockquote><table class="wikitable"><tr><td>{{UB|Political Compass|x|y|help=''x'' and ''y'' refer to the results of the test at [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ www.politicalcompass.org/].}}</td></tr></table></blockquote>

==Userbox Index==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Christianity|Christianity]]
|-
||[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Computers|Computers]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Conservapedia|Conservapedia]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Creation|Creation]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Donuts|Donuts]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Dance|Dance]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Evolution and Big Bang|Evolution and Big Bang]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Fields of Expertise|Fields of Expertise]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Location|Location]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Political Figures|Political Figures]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Politics|Politics]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Religion|Religion]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Sports|Sports]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Uncategorized|Uncategorized]]
|}

User talk:DeanS

2008-12-12T01:10:17Z

FernoKlump: /* RightWingAndProud */ new section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Thanks, Bro! ==

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

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

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

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

== Conservapedia:Featured articles. ==

Your opinion is needed in: [[Holy Days]], [[Architecture]], [[Great Flood]] and [[Deconstruction]].
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:39, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:Done. Thanks for the reminder. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:03, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:24, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

==Welcome==

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

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

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

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

==Christian solidarity==

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

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

== Thanks and a request or two. ==

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

==Pre-screening of News stories==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Thank You for the Unblock==

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

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

== Wikinews Project ==

Mr. DeanS,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Jp, I have reconsidered your idea to use the Conservapedia wanted articles. Just using the news wikilinks was okay, but including the general wanted articles is even better. Plus these articles also add to their count. If you want to add articles, add them to the bottom of the [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page#Conservapedia_wanted_articles|Conservapedia wanted articles]] section. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Response to 'add missing wikilinks for the other suggestions', I would but do not have access to mainpage:right. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that you can add the missing wikilinks ''before'' the suggestion is posted.
:::Thanks for continuing to add new wanted articles.
:::What do you think about the section on revising the news postings? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:32, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I am fine with adding wikilinks before postings, even if they do not get posted.
::::My pleasure to help CP
::::Sounds interesting but I am not sure I understand. Do you mean, create a short essay/summary, then link back? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Once you add the revised headline summary, I will replace my headline with your revised headline on the Main Page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:46, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey DeanS, what is your policy if we created a news item that wasn't posted. But then the item was created and posted by a SysOp? Do I still get credit? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:I believe you should still get the credit. Add a comment below your suggestion and you will get the credit. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 21:45, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Outdated news item ==

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

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

== IP's ban ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Good, steady work==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Republican Convention Headline ==

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

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

== RIP Bill Melendez ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Re: New article request process ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:DirkB, although it doesn't make sense to you, there is a reason for this rule. I want that page to contain suggestions only. I don't want liberals debating about the suggestions. From what I've seen on the Talk:Main Page, liberals like to discuss some of the articles, other editors reply, and this goes back and forth. I don't care whether you or other liberals agree with the suggested article. You can have these endless discussions on the Talk:Main Page after it's posted, not on the suggestions page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:45, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think he liked your reply... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Too bad. I'm not here to please the liberals.
:::Good block, btw. You better get ready to defend the permablock from Philip, etc. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:57, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::::<sigh> [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:59, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

== {{User|DRamon}} ==

Do you think he should be unblocked? Perhaps I was a little harsh, seeing as he has been creating content. I took a look at his edits after he edited another user's userpage, though the user has now reverted back to Ramon's version. Earlier this issue was brought up in Schlafly's talkpage. I mainly blocked him for this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&diff=prev&oldid=517564]. The parodists have been having fun with that list. Also he had been warned before. Take a look at his edits, is he a parodist? Do you think unblock? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:I do think DRamon should be unblocked and I don't see him as a parodist. If you want to warn him for editing someones user page that would be appropriate. Thanks for asking. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:46, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::User is unblocked. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:54, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks Henry. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 02:04, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== Inappropriate user name ==
A new user has joined with the user name : Tony Blair. could you please look into it?--[[User:Carolyn|Carolyn]] 09:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's a vandal and has already been blocked. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:07, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

== Satan... Carrot Top... ==

You have to at least admit that was pretty funny. It's rare that the vandals and parodists are actually funny instead of stupid. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:09, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:That's why I changed the block comment. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==Wiki support==
DeanS, as a member of Wikiproject: News, I feel you have spoiled me with attentiveness and clear direction. As a member of Wikiproject: Religion, I have no such contact, no direction, no replies. It is frustrating but I can live with that. I wanted to pick your brains about site structure that I have unable to find in the help section. Category's seem to have boundaries. A rule of thumb, no more than three, correct? Multiple category's on similar topics not looked upon as correct? e.g. Catholic Church and Christianity. Sub-categories have more precedent than category tagging? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for the compliment, Jp. I don't have the same passion for categories and I defer an answer to those who have more interest. I would suggest you start a Wikiproject:Categories and go from there. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==Fred1776==

Was it really necessary to revert that last edit by Fred1776? It was on a talk page, and was not rude in anyway. Robust, certainly, but neither rude nor insulting. "Liberalist version whatever"'s edits were vandalism: this was an opinion. It's one I happen to share and I am sure that many on this site share. Surely Aschlafly is not such a tender soul that he needs protecting from this. It might make unpleasant reading, but it's surely nicer and more decently put than a "mild" rebuke from Bugler --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:55, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:Lecturing the site owner is not appropriate, period. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

== Something's not right with that mainpage edit ==

It looks like you posted the same story twice, though I see what you meant to do. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:28, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:I thought about taking off the second link, but I wanted to provide twice as much fun for the liberals. I'm going to change it now. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Just wanted to point out mispelling of 'organization' in the human rights watch story. I don't know if we should be promoting HRW. I believe their foundations are the monitoring|promotion of homosexual rights.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:55, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Organisation is correct English in the home of that tongue! As for HRW's Liberal bias - well, if even ''they'' are condemning Chavez... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Misspelling corrected. Btw, ''misspelling'' has two s's. I don't believe we're promoting HRW, just that we agree with them in this instance. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::::As you can tell, my grammar and spelling needs much improvement. The news headline: Could the he U.S. mortgage, needs a fix'n. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:25, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Jpatt, I think you may be confusing HRW with HRC (Human Rights Campaign), which *is* an organization based on the promotion of homosexual rights. It's easy to get the two confused, which was probably the intent when they came up with the name for HRC. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

==Another brainless attempt to hack my account==
This time from IP 24.21.149.251. Could you do me a favour and give them a daisycutter? Thanks, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 08:30, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks, Dean [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:36, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== ChristMaster2000 ==

A user called Christmaster2000 keeps writing 'McCain = The end of the world' at the top of pages. Can you stop him?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:41, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:Where? I don't see the changes? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

::There was one on [[Athletics]], which I've reverted, plus a few others. Actually he seems to have been blocked already - I thought he was active because his change was still on the Athletics page.

== Thanks for unblocking me ==

Thank you. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:36, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:Your welcome. Philip convinced me to undo your block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:49, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Archive mainpageright ==

Since you're a regular who archives the main page, can you do so sometime soon? [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 03:48, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

:Done. Btw, Conservative took [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=prev&oldid=529716 my] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News&diff=next&oldid=530094 archive] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=next&oldid=530125 restored] it to the Main page when he added the ''Evolutionary Racism of Hitler and Darwin'' section to the bottom of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3AMainpageleft&diff=530432&oldid=529771 Mainpageleft]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 08:11, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg lawsuit==
Since the claims made on the mainpage In the News headline were [http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/27-alert-contrary-to-internet-rumor-there-has-not-yet-been-a-court-ruling-on-obama-dnc-motion-to-dismiss shown to be false] four days before the headline was posted on Conservapedia, will you please remove the entry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 16:30, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thank you.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:30, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
`

== News- Debate ==

Shouldn't the second presidential debate be discussed in the news section? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:07, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

==Family Values==
I made a grammar burp. No such thing as won't. Also, count me in on the previous news project.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:55, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:I disagree with saying "won't" is a grammar burp. "Won't" is correct. "Won't" is a contraction of "will not". [http://www.edufind.com/English/grammar/Tenses14.cfm]
:Thanks for agreeing to participate in the previous news subproject. I'm going to set up a special page for our coordination and will link to it from your talk page and the subproject. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:51, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== Let's block registration wave ==

Dean, let's permanently block everyone registered between 11:30 and noon. I think they're fake. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I blocked the IP 93.106.19.228 - it was the same one for all 101 accounts.
:08:57, October 11, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 93.106.19.228 (Talk) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: 101 accts set up from 08:30, October 11, 2008 to 08:43, October 11, 2008)
:I blocked the rest of them. They're all blocked now. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:31, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Great effort. I thought the IP might be the same, such that blocking one would block all. But it didn't hurt to block the names also, in case someone tried to access it from a different IP.

:: In the future, I have an even more powerful way to delete the accounts.

:: Thanks again for your alert effort.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== Wikinews/subproject ==
Definetely, your idea is a must. Though, explain to me about '''Suggestions for new Previous Breaking News summaries.''' Is this the same as Rewrite current headlines?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 18:11, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:No, it's not the same. Rewriting the current headlines is for someone that wants to improve headlines on the current Main page. The ''Suggestions for new Previous Breaking News summaries'', is like the other Previous Breaking news, but the page hasn't been created yet. I want us to create those pages and link them to our Conservapedia articles and incorporate their content into the corresponding articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Once additions are made, would you suggest strikethrough font the listing?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:32, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Once additions are made, move the listing to this new section: [[Wikiproject:News/Previous_Breaking_News#Completed_updates_to_September_2008|Completed updates to September 2008]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:42, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The sheer size is overwhelming. We need an army of helpers.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:34, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I totally agree. Since this is a long term project, I'm hoping we can make progress while recruiting others to join our efforts. I would like to have a competition similar to the other subprojects - Wanted pages and News suggestions. Any ideas? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:42, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Competition is your best bet. I can suggest members pick categories that they are fond of- like ACLU. Then their responsibility includes News additions, past and future, ACLU posts.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 01:12, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Interesting idea. Let's say you picked the ACLU subject. Then someone else picked Barack Obama. How would the competition work? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:19, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I just want to say that I think this is a bad idea. I realize Jpatt worked very hard on the recent additions to [[ACLU]] and I commend him for that, but I don't think the additions help the article. Since news headlines, by their nature, aren't broadly descriptive, they don't fit well in most articles. They end up being made into lists, which I don't think satisfy the "conscise" requirement of the commandments. Additionally, most of the sources for the news article are blogs or internet news sites which generally aren't up to the standards needed for regular articles. Maybe there will be times when a news headline or two is relevant to an article, but I think wholesale moving of headlines is not appropriate. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:58, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

:I am just following orders for the Wikinews/subproject. I will wait for DeanS to rule before adding any more.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 23:02, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

::Where are the rules? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:26, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, I found them. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:29, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for your efforts Jp. I'm glad you decided to wait before adding more headlines.
:I agree with a couple of HelpJazz's points. I don't think the wholesale moving of headlines is appropriate either. The idea is to use the news links as a ''reference'' to improve the article. We need to discuss the details on the corresponding previous news talk page.
:I also don't see how we can do this as a competition. We want quality instead of quantity on these edits.
:I disagree that this is a bad idea. While inserting the headlines directly into the article isn't the right approach, I believe the news links provide unique material that can improve the article.
:I also disagree with the notion we shouldn't use blogs or internet news sites as resources. The mainstream media doesn't provide much material we can use because of their liberal bias. Conservative truth is found in these blogs and we will continue to use these in our articles and news items.
:In summary, I think we need to be careful how we use these news items. If done in the proper way, these links can provide valuable reference material for our articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:32, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==FYI==
Hello Dean. As a Mormon, I feel you should know that User Conservative has been promoting the blogs of a man named Mariano Grinbank who writes such blogs as [[Atheism is Dead]], [[Richard Dawkins : Scientist or Activist?]], [[Atheism Dissected]] and others (I say “promoting” because these blogs would not warrant encyclopedia entries on their own; they are hosted by popular free blog sites and have little traffic). There is nothing wrong with this, however the same Mariano is a dedicated anti-Mormon who writes a blog [http://www.lifeanddoctrinemormonism.blogspot.com/ attacking Mormonism], calling it “offensive religion”, and saying “Mormonism has sought to discredit Christianity”, and “everything that Mormonism does, everything it teaches, everything it stands for is an offense against Christianity.” I don’t think this is the sort of character Conservapedia should be promoting. [[User:SamJ|SamJ]] 09:28, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for the info. I have no problem with Conservative promoting the blogs against Atheism and Richard Dawkins. I'm also aware that there are several anti-Mormons on this site. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:36, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::My concern isn't about the anti-atheism blogs, which I'm sure are fine for this site, but the fact that these links prominently link to the same writer's anti-Mormon blog, which Conservapedia is therefore indirectly promoting. A reader who finds one of these blogs through Conservapedia and finds it convincing may easily look at the other links to the other blogs and be led to a screed condemning Mormonism. That is my concern, but if you don't object then that's fine. I just felt you should be informed. [[User:SamJ|SamJ]] 09:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Your objection is noted. I hope you will make some positive contributions to Conservapedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:57, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== My talk page ==

According to [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] I am in control of my own talk page. I have no intention of getting embroiled in an edit war here, but why is this not being respected? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 18:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] # 5. Advertisements are prohibited. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:32, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

== Username change ==

I apologize for using an inappropriate username. I did not see a statement of Conservapedia's username policy on the account creation page. May I suggest that you folks add one there? It might prevent misunderstandings and hard feelings in the future. —[[User:AshleyS|Asphalt P . Stanky]]

:You should have seen the following when you signed up the first time:
:"Note: Offensive user names will result in that user name being blocked and perhaps the IP address being blocked. Frivolous user names, names of prominent living persons, and user names consisting of, for example, all capital letters or all the same character, may also result in that user name being blocked. User names based on your real name or initials are preferred."
:That policy seems clear to me. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:55, 11 November 2008 (EST)

==The M&M factor==

Thanks for the quick revert. I was just about to ban and revert, but you beat me to it. We should write more about the similarities between LDS and UC. Tithing is 10-30%, isn't it? And our youth now do a 1 or 2 year mission before college. I call it learning from our elders. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:22, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Tithing is 10%. The missions are 2 years for young men and 1.5 years for young women. Also, some senior couples go on missions for 1.5 years. Some men go to college for a year before serving their mission, since the minimum age is 19 years old for the men. The male missionaries are called "Elders", because they must be ordained as Elders in the Melchizedek priesthood before they serve a mission. Women must be 21 before they can serve a mission, and if they aren't married by then, they are eligible to serve a mission. [http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/membership-in-christ-s-church/missionary-work Mormon.org - Missionary Work] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 08:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== Funny Jeopardy Question ==

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoMspJqqVcA&feature=related
A garden tool - but also means sexual immoral --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Question==
Can I contact off list about the LDS? Would you unlock you email for 5 minutes?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Yes, you may contact me offline. My email is unlocked. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I am very very very sorry, for describing Mormons, as cultists. Please forgive me, I got very angry and stopped thinking-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 16:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:Forgiven. I appreciate your contributions to Conservapedia and hope we can remain civil. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Great block ==

Great block, Dean, on "JasonAllen". I was going to use the term "liberal namecalling" for that block. Your reason was charitably understated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks. I realized that was the wrong block reason and i changed it. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 20:30, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== News suggestions procedure ==

Am I doing this right? I realized a couple things while I was going through the process (admittedly, didn't read all the guidelines before I started), and hopefully I'm on the right track now. I improved my entry to include appropriate links; one thing I think I did wrong was to add the pages to the wanted pages list before my suggestion made it to the front page, but they seem like pretty useful pages in general, so I'm leaving them up there for now - if I have time this weekend, I'll make those articles if somebody hasn't by then. [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 10:47, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:I will check your entries soon. Thanks for your contributions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:09, 21 November 2008 (EST)

== Dates ==

Thank you for deleting and protecting those Date pages. You never know how parodists and vandals could use them for their evil goals! --[[User:Nasu|Nasu]] 12:39, 23 November 2008 (EST)

:Nice sarcasm Nasu. The date pages are being deleted since they are in violation of the [[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Date_style|Manual of Style]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:42, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the "nice", less for the "sarcasm". But thank you, I must remember not to wikilink to dates, as inviting as it may be. --[[User:Nasu|Nasu]] 12:47, 23 November 2008 (EST)

==Wikilink???==
Could someone enlighten me on what that means? I created a date article as to what happened on "Such-and-such a day in history". I'd like to know how that violated the Manual of Style. Thanks for understanding. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:56, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:Conservapedia's [[Manual of Style]] differs from several other prominent wikis. One of the ways it differs is that we do not have pages on specific dates (a list of important events that occured then). It would be wise to familiarize yourself with the MoS so we can avoid such encounters in the future. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:11, 23 November 2008 (EST)

== News project and categories ==

Would you mind if I categorized the subpages in [[Wikiproject:News]]? They are cluttering up the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:UncategorizedPages list of uncategorized pages], which makes it harder to spot new pages that need categorizing. Plus it will give you a page with handy links to all the pages in the project.

Thanks--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:30, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:No, I don't mind. Thanks for your contributions on categorizing. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:34, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::Done that. Hope the organization is to your liking. We're down to just 70 uncategorized pages now (some because they're protected, if you fancy helping out...)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:48, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::The categorizing looks good. I will help out with the protected articles. Provide a link to the article with the requested category and I will make the changes. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:51, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Here they are:
*[[Adult stem cells]] - ''Genetics, Medicine''
*[[American History Homework Five Answers - Student One]] - ''American History Homework Five Answers''
*[[American History Homework One Answers - Student One]] - ''American History Homework One Answers''
*[[American History Homework Six Answers - Student One]] - ''American History Homework Six Answers''
*[[American History Homework Three Answers - Student One]] - ''American History Homework Three Answers''
*[[American History Homework Two Answers - Student Two]] - ''American History Homework Two Answers''
*[[Goat]] - ''Mammals''
*[[Main Page]] - ''Conservapedia'' (or maybe leave uncategorized?)
*[[Scientology]] - ''Cults''

Obviously feel free to use different categories if you don't agree with my suggestions. Aschlafly has approved adding categories to the homework assignments. Thanks--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:03, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:29, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::That's brilliant - we're now down to just 35 uncategorized pages, which is amazing when you consider that a couple of weeks ago there were over 1000. [[User:WesleyS]] deserves a lot of the credit for that.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:32, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::I agree, that is amazing. When you get it down to zero (albeit temporarily), post a message on Aschlafly's talk page. I'm sure he'll appreciate that news. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:37, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==[[LDS]] and the [[Trinity]]==

UltimaHero made several good points about the difference between (1) LDS views on the [[Trinity]] and (2) Protestant views on it. The link which argues that your church is closer to Protestants than the latter realize has a needlessly irritating label. I suggest we incorporate UH's analysis into the article, along with Kelly Bingham's ideas. Then we can use the external link as a footnote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:17, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Ok, Ed. I think that's a compromise we can work with. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:12, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Great image ==

Great image, Dean, for Thanksgiving!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Thanks Andy. I found an appropriate place for it in the [[Thanksgiving]] article as well. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

==Typo==
Hey Dean, I made a goof on my George Washington Wikiproject:News suggestion. It should read "Read his proclamation" it currently reads "Read his proclaimation." Sorry, hope you had a wonderful thanksgiving. Peace --jpatt 23:14, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Fixed. Thanks Jp. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:29, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== quotebox in Family Research Institute article ==

Hi Dean , I hope you can help me fix this , I was trying quotebox 2 but it didnt seem to work. I am asking you because you seemed active at the moment . Thanks [[User:Markr|Markr]] 14:06, 29 November 2008 (EST)
:Do you have a wikilink for quotebox 2? I didn't find it using the search function. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:12, 29 November 2008 (EST)
::[[Template:QuoteBox2]] it looked like the best option but came up as red link [[User:Markr|Markr]] 14:20, 29 November 2008 (EST)
:::Perhaps BrianCo can fix this for you (since he created the template). Add a post to [[Template talk:QuoteBox2]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:28, 29 November 2008 (EST)
:::: thanks , I have done so [[User:Markr|Markr]] 14:49, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== Thank you :-) ==

Hi Dean S, Thank you for always protecting my images, I appreciate it! [[User:Taj|Taj]] 14:08, 29 November 2008 (EST)
:You're welcome Taj. Thanks for your contributions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:10, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks for volunteering to leave out 'that link'. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:40, 30 November 2008 (EST)
:You're welcome Ed. The discussion on the talk page helped change my mind about the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:43, 30 November 2008 (EST)
::Now you're getting me all teary eyed. How I do miss the early days at Wikipedia! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:51, 30 November 2008 (EST)

== Member ==

Dear friend

TK has accepted to be part of the team for Featured articles, I am sure you will be glad to have him with us. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:16, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:Great news Joaquín. I'm glad Terry has joined our team. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Image protection ==

Dean, I saw you protected [[:Image:Red_dot.gif]]. Do you think that you could leave it open for the time being as I am still experimenting with it. This also applies to [[:Image:Red pog.svg‎]] and [[:Image:Blank USA outline.svg‎]]. Thanks. --[[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:06, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:Done. Please let me know when you are done editing them so I can reprotect them. I don't want them used as vandalism fodder. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

==Sorry==
I was unaware that the B-1B Lancer article was previously featured. They removed the archives after Public Transportation was featured. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:56, 7 December 2008 (EST)

== Debates ==

Hello, can you please provide me with information on debates: whether I, as a normal user, can start one, and if yes how. Many thanks! [[User:DiegoC|DiegoC]] 15:23, 7 December 2008 (EST)

== Protection ==

Dean could you delete [[:Image:Blank USA outline.svg]] I couldn't get it to render properly so replaced it with a png. Also could you unprotect [[:template:Nb sl english premier]] it needs updating. Thanks [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:54, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:58, 7 December 2008 (EST)
::Thanks, I also need [[:Template:Tnb sports league]] unprotecting, if you would be so kind. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 19:19, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:::Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)
::::Thanks. Please delete [[:Image:Soccerball.svg]] SVG rendering here is not very good. Also you may proect [[:Image:Soccerball.png]]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 19:55, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 20:11, 7 December 2008 (EST)

==Block==
Thank you for blocking the account you just blocked. I noticed it and guessed it would be safe to assume the worst about anyone going by that name.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:You are correct. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:56, 8 December 2008 (EST)

== Wanted pages: "premarital sex" ==

Hi Dean,

I had a question that needed resolution by an administrator. While going through the wanted pages, I stumbled upon "premarital sex," a page that has many links to it. When I tried to start a stub for the page, I noticed that it was "protected" from re-creation. I think that's a mistake. While Conservapedia should be family-friendly, a short article on premarital sex that goes into ''no more detail than needed'' could warn of the risks of this type of conduct, and provide links to abstinence only resources. Therefore, a short article could do more good than harm. If you would like to unprotect it, I could start it, and you could protect it after I was done to ensure that no vandals disturb its message.

Alternately, if the page is truly meant to be left blank, please let me know and I'll go around the site removing any links to the term to get it off the wanted list.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 12:35, 9 December 2008 (EST)

== British Telecom ==

inetnum: 86.145.0.0 - 86.147.255.255
netname: BT-CENTRAL-PLUS
descr: IP pools
country: GB
admin-c: BTCP1-RIPE
tech-c: BTCP1-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: BTNET-MNT
mnt-lower: BTNET-MNT
mnt-routes: BTNET-MNT

[http://www.btplc.com/index.cfm BTplc.com]

"''BT is the world's oldest communications company, with a direct line of descent from the first commercial telecommunications undertaking in the world. The Electric Telegraph Company established in 1846, was the first outside the United States to exploit leading edge telegraphy technology and introduce electrical communications to an astonished world. Within ten years an international network had been developed, making communications possible within minutes and hours instead of days and weeks. The consequences for every aspect of society were dramatic and profound....''"

Yours [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)

== Locking ==

Dean, not at all, my friend. However it was kind of handy, the liberal trolls kind of announced themselves, making it easier and faster to block them! I see you have the situation well in hand, blocking out the areas we don't have editors from, unless they are a troll, like everyone from the Southern Hemisphere, lol. ;-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 21:15, 9 December 2008 (EST)

== RightWingAndProud ==

RightWingAndProud was told to recreate his/her account with an appropriate name after being banned as 420time. See [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RodWeathers#Another_recent_block this] '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 20:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Attack on Pearl Harbor

2008-12-12T00:52:29Z

FernoKlump: gr

[[Image:H50930.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Photograph taken from a Japanese plane during the torpedo attack on ships moored on both sides of Ford Island. The geyser of water in the center marks a torpedo hit on USS ''West Virginia'']]
'''The Attack on Pearl Harbor''' was a military air strike by the [[Imperial Japanese Navy]] on the morning of December 7, 1941, that was designed to cripple the U.S. Fleet, enabling Japan to have free and unfettered access to much of the western [[Pacific Ocean]] and Southeast [[Asia]]. The attack resulted in the United States declaring war against Japan the next day.

==Prelude==
The road to war between Japan and the United States began in the 1930s when differences over [[China]] drove the two nations apart. In 1931 Japan conquered [[Manchuria]], which until then had been part of China. In 1937 Japan began a long and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to conquer the rest of China. In 1940, the Japanese government allied their country with [[Nazi Germany]] in the [[Axis]] Alliance, and, in the following year, occupied all of Indochina.

The U.S. increased military and financial aid to China, and embarked on a program of strengthening its military power in the Pacific. Secretary of State [[Cordell Hull]] sought to make America's economic policy ambiguous so that Japan might be deterred by fear of sanctions not yet imposed and won by hopes of concessions not yet granted. Such a policy obtained Roosevelt's explicit approval while at the same time it more aggressive elements in Japan to take control.

Roosevelt accepted a plan for economic sanctions presented by Treasury Assistant [[Harry Dexter White]]. On July 26, 1941, a full scale economic blockade was implemented, all Japanese financial assets in the U.S. were frozen and trade virtually ended between the two countries. Japan found itself in a position where its oil reserves would be exhausted in two years, its aluminum reserves in seven months. The chief of the Navy told the emperor that if Japan resorted to war, it would be very doubtful that it could win. The Japanese Cabinet sought desperately to reach an agreement in Washington. <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200101/ai_n8935656 Soviet penetration of the U.S. gets fresh look], Allan H Ryskind, ''Human Events'', Jan 29, 2001. Review of Romerstein and Breindel, ''The Venona Secrets''.</ref>

Because Japan was poor in natural resources, its government viewed these steps, especially the embargo on oil, as a threat to the nation's survival. Japan's leaders responded by resolving to seize the resource-rich territories of Southeast Asia, even though that move would certainly result in war with the United States. A proposal by Japanese Premier [[Fumimaro Konoe]] for a personal meeting with Roosevelt was rejected. Hull abandoned all thought of a truce with Japan and put in final shape an ultimatum. Hull's use of harsh, demanding language only strengthened the position of the war party in Tokyo. Ambassador Nomura found it impossible to reach an agreement because the demands were extreme. <ref>''Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time'', Carroll Quigley, Collier-Macmillan, 1966, pgs. 735 - 741. ISBN 0-945001-10-X</ref>

On the 25th of November, U.S. Secretary of War [[Henry Stimson]] had stated the problem as one of "how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot." <ref>As Stimson explained: "In spite of the risk involved... in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors." Stimson's Testimony quoted in Basil Rauch, Roosevelt from Munich to Pearl Harbor (New York: Creative Age, 1950), p. 473.</ref> Secretary Hull solved the problem the next day. This was the conclusion of the Army Pearl Harbor Board when it reported that the Hull note "touched the button that started the war." <ref>Pearl Harbor Attack. Part 39, p. 137. [http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/army/chap_3c.html]</ref>

It is significant that in the ten-point ultimatum sent to Japan on November 26, 1941, eight of the drastic demands were written by [[Harry Dexter White]]. In other words, Harry Dexter White, an agent of the Soviet Union, helped in a decisive way to draft the ultimatum that provoked war between Japan and the United States. This was the primary aim of Soviet [[foreign policy]] to advance the interests of the [[Comintern]] and the Soviet Union in the Far East <ref>Communism at Pearl Harbor, How the Communists Helped to Bring on Pearl Harbor and Open up Asia to Communinization, Dr. Anthony Kubek, Dallas Texas, Teaching Publishing Company, 1959, pg. 19. Dr. Anthony Kubek was the Editor of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, [[Senate Internal Security Subcommittee]], Report on the ''Morgenthau Diaries''. The records of the Morgenthau Diary Study, 1953-65 consist largely of copies of portions of memorandums, correspondence, transcripts of meetings, and other records preserved by Secretary Morgenthau in order to document his tenure. The original records are in the custody of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, NY. In 1965, the SISS issued a two volume committee print entitled Morgenthau Diary (China), Edited by Dr. Anthony Kubek, containing entries from the records at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library selected to illustrate the implementation of Roosevelt administration policy in China. According to Dr. Kubek, the subcommittee wanted to produce a documentary history on the subject and "also indicate the serious problem of unauthorized, uncontrolled and often dangerous power exercised by non-elected officials," specifically Harry Dexter White. White was a major figure in Senator William Jenner's investigation of interlocking subversion in Government departments in 1953. The bipartisan investigation lasted for twelve years, and the Subcommittee's Report took another two years to write. [http://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/senate/chapter-13-judiciary-1947-1968.html#103] Dr. Kubek also is a recognized expert on the subject of U.S. Naval Intelligence's Operation Magic, the effort to crack Japanese diplomatic ciphers. [http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/2ch2_bibl.pdf] 

Kubek writing in 1959 during the interwar period between the [[Korean War]] and the [[Vietnam War]], two "hot wars" in the "cold war," concluded: "The United States destroyed the one power that was able to check the flow of that Red tide in the Far East. ...The present Soviet military might, which threatens our national security, is the direct product of billions of [[lend-lease]] aid, coddling of Communists in high places in the American Government and failure to understand the basic drives of world [[Communism]]. ...Never before in our history was Presidential leadership so devoid of vision and never before had the mistakes of our Chief Executive been so fraught with peril to our nation."</ref>

==Japanese plan==
The problem with the plan was the danger posed by the U.S. Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor. Admiral [[Isoroku Yamamoto]], commander of the Japanese fleet, devised a plan to immobilize the U.S. fleet at the outset of the war with a surprise attack.

The key elements in Yamamoto's plans were meticulous preparation, the achievement of surprise, and the use of aircraft carriers and naval aviation on an unprecedented scale. In the spring of 1941, Japanese carrier pilots began training in the special tactics called for by the Pearl Harbor attack plan.

In October 1941 the naval general staff gave final approval to Yamamoto's plan, which called for the formation of an attack force commanded by Vice Admiral [[Chuichi Nagumo]]. It centered around six heavy aircraft carriers accompanied by 24 supporting vessels. A separate group of submarines was to sink any American warships which escaped the Japanese carrier force.

Nagumo's fleet assembled in the remote anchorage of Tankan Bay in the [[Kurile Islands]] and departed in strictest secrecy for Hawaii on November 26, 1941. The ships' route crossed the North Pacific and avoided normal shipping lanes. At dawn on December 7, 1941, the Japanese task force had approached undetected to a point slightly more than 200 miles north of Oahu. At this time the U.S. carriers were not at Pearl Harbor; on November 28, Admiral Kimmel sent USS ''Enterprise'' under Rear Admiral William Halsey to deliver Marine Corps fighter planes to [[Wake Island]]. On December 4 ''Enterprise'' delivered the aircraft and on December 7 the task force was on its way back to Pearl Harbor. On December 5, Admiral Kimmel sent the USS ''Lexington'' with a task force under Rear Admiral Newton to deliver 25 scout bombers to [[Midway Island]]. The last Pacific carrier, USS ''Saratoga'', had left Pearl Harbor for upkeep and repairs on the West Coast.
==The attack==
At 6:00 a.m. on December 7, the six Japanese carriers launched a first wave of 181 planes composed of [[Nakajima B5N|torpedo bombers]], [[Aichi D3A|dive bombers]], horizontal bombers and [[Mitsubishi Zero|fighters]]. Even as they winged south, some elements of U.S. forces on Oahu realized there was something different about this Sunday morning.

In the hours before dawn, U.S. Navy vessels spotted an unidentified submarine periscope near the entrance to Pearl Harbor. It was attacked and reported sunk by the destroyer USS ''Ward'' (DD-139) and a patrol plane. At 0700, an alert operator of an Army radar station at Opana spotted the approaching first wave of the attack force. The officers to whom those reports were relayed did not consider them significant enough to take action. The report of the submarine sinking was handled routinely, and the radar sighting was passed off as an approaching group of American planes due to arrive that morning.

The Japanese aircrews achieved complete surprise when they hit American ships and military installations on Oahu shortly before 0800. They attacked military airfields at the same time they hit the fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor. The Navy air bases at Ford Island and Kaneohe Bay, the Marine airfield at Ewa and the Army Air Corps fields at Bellows, Wheeler and Hickam were all bombed and strafed as other elements of the attacking force began their assaults on the ships moored in Pearl Harbor. The purpose of the simultaneous attacks was to destroy the American planes before they could rise to intercept the Japanese.

====Battleship Row====
[[Image:pearlharborattack.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Battleship ''[[USS Arizona]]'' burns after her magazine was hit by a Japanese bomb.]]
Before dawn on 7 December 1941, the American strategic center of gravity in the Pacific reposed in the seven battleships then moored along "Battleship Row", the six pairs of interrupted quays located along Ford Island's eastern side. Quay F-2, the southernmost, which usually hosted an aircraft carrier, was empty. Northeastward, Battle Force flagship ''California'' was next, moored at F-3. Then came two pairs, moored side by side: ''Maryland'' with ''Oklahoma'' outboard, and ''Tennessee'' with ''West Virginia'' outboard. Astern of ''Tennessee'' lay ''Arizona'', which had the repair ship ''Vestal'' alongside. Last in line was ''Nevada'', by herself at quay F-8. These seven battleships, ranging in age from eighteen to twenty-five years, represented all but two of those available to the Pacific Fleet. The Fleet flagship, ''Pennsylvania'', was also in Pearl Harbor, drydocked at the nearby Navy Yard. The ninth, ''Colorado'', was undergoing overhaul on the west coast.

Together, these ships were one short of equaling Japan's active battlefleet. Clearly a worrisome threat to Japanese plans for Pacific Ocean dominance, they were the Japanese raiders' priority target. Twenty-four of the forty Japanese torpedo planes were assigned to attack "Battleship Row", and five more diverted to that side of Ford Island when they found no battleships in their intended target areas. Of these planes' twenty-nine Type 91 aerial torpedoes (each with a warhead of some 450 pounds of high explosive), up to twenty-one found their targets: two hit ''California'', one exploded against ''Nevada'' and as many as nine each struck ''Oklahoma'' and ''West Virginia''. The latter two ships sank within minutes of receiving this torpedo damage.

Horizontal bombers, armed with heavy armor-piercing bombs, arrived just as the last torpedo planes finished their attacks, and other horizontal and dive bombers came in later. Together, these planes scored many hits or damaging near-misses on the "Battleship Row" ships: two on ''California'', ''Maryland'' and ''Tennessee''; a few on ''West Virginia''. Most spectacular of the bombers' victims was ''Arizona'', which was struck many times. One bomb penetrated to the vicinity of her forward magazines, which detonated with a massive blast, immediately sinking the ship.

There was a short lull in the fury of the attack at about 0830. At that time ''Nevada'', despite her wounds, managed to get underway and move down the channel toward the open sea. Before she could clear the harbor, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, launched 30 minutes after the first, appeared over the harbor. They concentrated their attacks on the moving battleship, hoping to sink her in the channel and block the narrow entrance to Pearl Harbor. On orders from the harbor control tower, ''Nevada'' beached herself at Hospital Point and the channel remained clear.

====West side of Ford Island====
[[Image:pearlharbor.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Destroyer USS ''Shaw'' explodes during the second wave.]]
In addition to strategically vital "Battleship Row", the Japanese thought two other areas were important enough to warrant attention from the initial Pearl Harbor attack wave's torpedo planes. These were the long 1010 Dock at the Navy Yard, and the fixed moorings on the western side of Ford Island, both of which might hold battleships or aircraft carriers. On the morning of the attack the latter location was occupied by the seaplane tender ''Tangier'', the old target and training ship ''Utah'' and the light cruisers ''Raleigh'' and ''Detroit''. Six aerial torpedoes were launched against these ships, of which three hit, sinking one vessel and nearly sinking another.

The thirty-year-old ''Utah'', which had been converted from an obsolete battleship ten years earlier, received two torpedoes, completely overwhelming her very limited ability to absorb underwater damage. She capsized to port in about ten minutes, coming to rest with her bottom in the air. As ''Utah's'' crew were abandoning ship and swimming through the oily water to Ford Island, they were the target of machine-gun attacks by Japanese planes. Although ten trapped Sailors were later cut free from her upturned hull, about sixty were lost with their ship. ''Utah'' was partially turned upright in 1943-44 but was not further salvaged.

USS ''Raleigh'' was hit by one torpedo and a bomb. Of an old and not very sturdy design, she barely avoided capsizing, but her crew, assisted by a salvage barge and a tug, kept her upright and afloat. Major repairs returned ''Raleigh'' to the active fleet in a a little over a half-year.

Also damaged west of Ford Island was the seaplane tender ''Curtiss'', hit by a crashing enemy dive bomber, plus one bomb and fragments of another during the second wave attack. ''Curtiss'' was also unsuccessfully attacked by a Japanese midget submarine, which fired a torpedo at the seaplane tender and was then promptly sunk by the destroyer ''Monaghan''.

====Navy Yard area====
[[Image:G19943.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Destroyers ''Downes'' and ''Cassin'' lie wrecked in front of the lightly-damaged battleship ''Pennsylvania'' at Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.]]
The initial Japanese attack wave hit the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard area relatively lightly, with a few torpedoes launched at ships along 1010 Dock and some dive bombers targeting that vicinity and the drydock area immediately to the southward. The torpedo planes made one hit, on the light cruiser ''Helena'', opening two of her engineering spaces to the sea. The minelayer ''Oglala'', tied up alongside ''Helena'', fared much worse. This old converted passenger ship had her port side opened up by the blast of the torpedo that hit the cruiser, and the resulting inrush of water could not be controlled. About two hours later, ''Oglala'' rolled over to port and sank alongside 1010 Dock.

The second Japanese attack wave's horizontal and dive bombers gave the Navy Yard's drydock area considerable attention. Though their efforts were somewhat mitigated by the diversion of some planes against USS ''Nevada'' as she passed nearby, these bombers made several hits, wrecking three destroyers and damaging the battleship ''Pennsylvania''. The latter, Flagship of the Pacific Fleet and one of the raiders' priority targets, was "high and dry" in Drydock #1 with destroyers ''Cassin'' and ''Downes''. One bomb hit ''Pennsylvania'' amidships, killing eighteen crewmembers and producing modest damage to the battleship. Other bombs, hitting on and near the two destroyers, opened their fuel tanks and set intense fires. Ammunition explosions, including the detonation of a torpedo on ''Downes'', added to the destruction, which was compounded when the drydock was partially flooded. ''Cassin'' then lifted off her blocks and rolled over against ''Downes''.

Dive bombers from the second wave also struck the destroyer ''Shaw'', which was in the floating drydock YFD-2. The resulting fires spread to ''Shaw's'' forward magazines, which blew up spectacularly, severing her bow. However, the rest of the ship remained afloat as the drydock sank beneath her. The little tug ''Sotoyomo'', also in YFD-2, was badly burned by ''Shaw's'' fires and went down as well.

Japanese bombs near-missed some of the ships at the piers in the northeastern part of the Navy Yard, producing notable damage to the hull of light cruiser ''Honolulu''. However, the attackers' concentration on battleship targets left the Yard's vital industrial facilities essentially untouched. These were soon hard at work on rescue, repair and salvage jobs, of which there were many immediately at hand.

====The airfields and aerial combat====
Military and Naval aircraft at Oahu's airfields were second only to battleships among the Japanese target priorities, though the reason was different. While Pearl Harbor's battleships represented American strategic "reach", and had to be eliminated to safeguard Japan's offensive into Southeast Asia and the East Indies, Oahu's aircraft had to be taken out for a more immediate reason: to protect the Pearl Harbor attack force. U.S. fighter planes, if they could get into the air in any numbers, would be a serious threat to Japanese bombers. U.S. Army bombers and Navy patrol planes potentially imperiled the Striking Force's invaluable aircraft carriers.

The Japanese first attack wave therefore assigned many fighters and bombers to airbase suppression, the fighters to set planes afire with machine gun and cannon fire and the bombers to wreck them with high explosives. The second attack wave also had airfield strikes among its tasks. Wheeler Army Airfield, in central Oahu, was Hawaii's main fighter base. It was heavily attacked. Of some 140 planes on the ground there, mainly P-40 and P-36 pursuits, nearly two-thirds were destroyed or put out of action. A similar proportion of the B-17, B-18 and A-20 bombers at Hickam Army Airfield, adjacent to the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard, was also wrecked or damaged enough to keep them grounded. Many men were killed at Hickam when the Japanese bombed their barracks. Smaller Bellows Field in eastern Oahu was also hit, destroying several P-40s, including two whose pilots courageously attempted to take off in the teeth of the enemy onslaught.

U.S. Navy and Marine Corps air stations on Pearl Harbor's Ford Island, at Ewa to the west of Pearl and at Kanoehe Bay near Bellows Field, also received concentrated attention from the raiders. Ewa's aircraft complement, mainly carrier-type bombers and fighters, was reduced from nearly fifty operational planes to less than twenty. Ford Island and Kanoehe, home to several squadrons of long-range PBY patrol seaplanes, were massively attacked, with Ford Island losing about half its planes and Kaneohe all but a few.

These very successful Japanese strikes thus prevented any significant aerial opposition, though the few Army fighters that got airborne gave a good account of themselves. Later on December Seventh, surviving bombers and patrol planes were sent out to search for the Japanese carriers. They found nothing and confronted considerable "friendly" anti-aircraft gunfire when they returned to their bases.

==Aftermath==
[[Image:U036055.jpg|right|200px|thumb|USS ''Bennington'' (CVA-20) passes the wreck of USS ''Arizona'' (BB-39) on Memorial Day, 31 May 1958. By the mid-1950's platforms were constructed over the sunken battleship for services to the more than 1,100 sailors and Marines entombed on board; a white marble memorial structure would span the wreck in 1962, inscribed with their names.]]
When the attack ended shortly before 10:00 a.m., less than two hours after it began, the American forces have paid a fearful price. Twenty-one ships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were sunk or damaged: the battleships ''Arizona'', ''California'', ''Maryland'', ''Nevada'', ''Oklahoma'', ''Pennsylvania'', ''Tennessee'', and ''West Virginia''; cruisers ''Helena'' (CL-50), ''Honolulu'' (CL-48), and ''Raleigh'' (CL-7); the destroyers ''Cassin'' (DD-372), ''Downes'' (DD-375), ''Helm'' (DD-388), and ''Shaw'' (DD-373); seaplane tender ''Curtiss'' (AV-4); target ship (ex-battleship) ''Utah'' (AG-16); repair ship ''Vestal'' (AR-4); minelayer ''Oglala'' (CM-4); tug ''Sotoyomo'' (YT-9); and Floating Drydock Number 2. Aircraft losses were 188 destroyed and 159 damaged, the majority hit before they had a chance to take off. American dead numbered 2,403. That figure included 68 civilians, most of them killed by improperly fused anti-aircraft shells landing in Honolulu. There were 1,178 military and civilian wounded.

Japanese losses were comparatively light. Twenty-nine planes, less than 10 percent of the attacking force, failed to return to their carriers.

The Japanese success was overwhelming, but it was not a strategic victory. They failed to damage any American aircraft carriers, which by a stroke of luck, had been absent from the harbor. They neglected to damage the shoreside facilities at the Pearl Harbor Naval Base, which played an important role in the Allied victory in [[World War II]]. American technological skill raised and repaired all but three of the ships sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor (''Arizona'', ''Oklahoma'' and ''Utah''). Most importantly, the shock and anger caused by the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor united a divided nation and was translated into a wholehearted commitment to victory in World War II.

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-4.htm Battle reports from the individual commands on December 7, 1941]
*[http://www.archive.org/details/PreludeToWar Frank Capra's "Prelude to War", from the ''Why We Fight'' series of films made during World War II]
*[http://www.ww2pacific.com/aaf41.html Aircraft at Pearl Harbor]

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm]}}

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:World War II]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Pearl Harbor}}

Sculpture

2008-12-12T00:51:35Z

FernoKlump: sp

'''Sculpture''' is a form of [[art]]. It also means a three-dimensional work of plastic art. Sculpture as an art form goes back to Prehistoric times. A sculptor is one who creates sculptures.

Sculpture, [[painting]], [[architecture]], [[music]], [[literature]], [[poetry]], drama, [[dance]], and cinema are some of the forms of Fine Arts.
[[Image:Maya3.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jaina]] figurine]]
Sculptures are made of stone, [[marble]], wood, glass, bronze, iron, clay, or any other hard or plastic material that could be transformed into a three-dimensional object. The shaping figures could be in the round or in relief. For this reason Sculpture is considered also one of the plastic arts.

<blockquote>
The [[Greeks]] were blessed with a large supply of marble, which was what they used most in their sculptures. Bronze was also used in their artistic work of humans. <ref> [http://www.historylink101.com/lessons/art_history_lessons/greek_sculpture.htm Ancient Greek Sculpture] </ref>
</blockquote>

'''The main types''' of sculpture are bust, miniature figure and statue.

Sculptures are also categorized '''by the process''' into four categories:

* Carving - Cutting away material from an existing piece of material.
* Modeling - Shaping of a pliable material.
* Casting - Using a mold to shape a molten substance.
* Assembling - Creating a sculpture by connecting or unifying in some way objects.

''The sense of motion in painting and sculpture has long been considered as one of the primary elements of the composition.'' Alexander Calder.

Sculpture masterpieces are all over the world; many different techniques have been used in the many different regions ([[China]], [[India]], [[Egypt]], [[Greece]], [[Rome]], [[Italy]], etc.). Sculpture in the ancient Americas developed in [[Mexico]] and [[Peru]]. ''The Venus of Willendorf'' ([[Austria]]) is one of the earliest known sculptures ever made (Upper Paleolithic).
[[Image:Manuel Tolsá El Caballito.jpg|thumb|280px|The equestrian statue of Charles IV (El Caballito) by Manuel Tolsá, 1802, Mexico City.]]
[[Image:Arnolfo di Cambio Carlo d'Angiò.jpg|thumb|120px|left|Italian Gothic sculpture.]]
 

== Famous Sculptors ==
[[Image:Venus de Milo.jpg|thumb|[[Venus de Milo]] by Alexandros of Antioch-on-the-Meander.]]

''The Classical period of Ancient [[Greece]] produced some of the most exquisite sculptures the world has ever seen... human anatomy was deemed worthy of being immortalized in stone or bronze... and proportion became the main preoccupation of sculptors and [[Architecture|architects]].'' <ref> [http://www.greeklandscapes.com/greece/athens_museum_classical.html Sculpture of the Greek Classical Period] </ref>
[[Image:Hemes.JPG|thumb|left|Hermes by Praxiteles.]]
Artists of this period of Greece are little known and most of their works were destroyed; fortunately the [[Roman]]s made copies of the original works, (e.g. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Myron_Discus_thrower.jpg Discus Thrower]). [[Praxiteles]] is considered one of the best artists of this period; his statue of ''[[Hermes]]'', discovered at Olympia in 1877, has become famous throughout the world. Myron, Phidias, Polyclitus, Scopas, and Lysippus were also famous Greek sculptors.

<blockquote>
''The scale and ambition of classical Greek sculpture can be seen in a fragment of an early masterpiece. The famous Charioteer of Delphi'' (bronze statue also known as Heniokhos, sculptor unknown, commissioned by Polyzalus.), ''a life-size bronze, is the only surviving figure of a major group consisting of the chariot and its horses, a royal passenger on board with the charioteer, and an attendant slave boy.'' <ref> [http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=bzt HISTORY OF SCULPTURE] </ref>
</blockquote>

Romans also developed a sense of style aimed for a more realistic view. ''It is also very interesting to note that while Roman statues survive in great numbers, few names of Roman sculptors were recorded.'' <ref> [http://www.statue.com/roman-statues.html Roman Statues and Ancient Roman Sculpture] </ref>

The Florentine [[Donatello]] was an influential sculptor of the early [[Renaissance]]. In about 1415 he delivered the first free-standing Renaissance sculpture, ''The Statue of St. Mark''. His most famous statue is the ''David'' (bronze, 1430). In 1453, his ''Equestrian Condottiero Erasmo da Narni'' was set up in Padua.

[[Michaelangelo]] is one of the most famous sculptors artists... a perfectionist in his [[art]]. The marble statues ''The David, [[Pieta|The Pieta]]'' and ''The Moses'' are his famous masterpieces. The Pieta in Saint Peter's Basilica is the only work signed with his name. ''Michelangelo always thought of himself first and foremost as a sculptor. Other projects were undertaken reluctantly. On the contract for the painting of the [[Sistine Chapel]] ceiling, for example, he pointedly signed ''Michelangelo sculptore'' - "Michelangelo the sculptor".'' <ref> [http://home.aubg.bg/faculty/IPenchev/web%20materials/Michelangelo,%20sculpture.doc Michelangelo: Sculpture] </ref>
[[Image:Sforza.jpg|left|Da Vinci's started bronze horse at Milan.]]
[[Leonardo da Vinci]] worked as a sculptor from his youth on. He started a bronze horse at Milan, [[Italy]] that could not be finished by war. It was going to be the largest equine statue ever built. The full-scale model of the horse in clay was unveiled in November 1493. [http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/l/leonardo/15sculpt/index.html Sculptures and studies to sculptures by LEONARDO da Vinci]

The most important sculptor of the [[Baroque]] period was the Italian [[Gianlorenzo Bernini|Gian Lorenzo Bernini]] (Napoli, 1598 - Roma, 1680). Some of his famous works are ''The Rape of Proserpina'', ''Apollo e Dafne'', ''Angelo Reggicartiglio'', ''La Beata Ludovica Albertoni'' and '' Fontana del Tritone''. [[Antonio Canova]] ( 1757 - 1822), an Italian [[Neoclassical]] sculptor made the famous reclining Venus Victrix of ''Pauline Borghese Bonaparte'' and the ''Bust of Napoleon''. He sculpted also among others his well-known ''Three Graces'' from 1812 to 1816.

<blockquote>
[[Auguste Rodin|Auguste-René Rodin]] (1840 - 1917) is considered one of the greatest and most prolific sculptors of the 19th and 20th centuries; ''several of his most famous sculptures, such as ''The Thinker'', ''[http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Rodin_The_Kiss.jpg The Kiss]'' and ''The Three Shades'', were derived from smaller reliefs contained within ''The Gates of Hell''... He modeled portrait busts and large scale versions of well known people, such as the Monument to [[Victor Hugo]]. <ref> [http://www.cantorfoundation.org/Rodin/rbiol.html Rodin] </ref>
</blockquote>

More recently [[Henry Moore]] (1898 – 1986), a British artist, became well known for his larger-scale abstract cast bronze and carved marble sculptures.
[[Image:La Puerta a Chihuahua - Sebastian.gif|thumb|left|''La Puerta a Chihuahua'' by Sebastian.]]
[[Image:Augustus.jpg|thumb|Augustus, Roman sculpture, ca. 20 AD.]]
Antônio Francisco Lisboa (1730 or 1738 – 1814) is one of the most famous sculptors from [[Brazil]]. The Spanish painters, [[Pablo Picasso]], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Miro_monument_a_la_dona_1972.jpg Joan Miró] and [[Salvador Dali]] were also sculptors. Francisco Zuñiga (born in Costa Rica, 1912 - 1998) was a Mexican sculptor; he ''began studying the collections of the Museum of Archaeology in Mexico City and the indigenous culture of the Southeastern Mexican people. In the sculpture of the Aztec and Maya, he found "the myth of life and death in aggressive, rounded figures with a heaviness, vitality, and formal equilibrium." In 1947, he became a citizen of Mexico and a state teacher''. <ref> [http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=mark2&p=/threewomenwalking/ Three Women Walking] WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY. </ref> [[Enrique Carbajal]] "Sebastián" (b. 1947), is a contemporary Mexican artist with some 150 monumental pieces in cities around the world.

The American sculptor Paul Manship (1885 – 1966) discovered archaic Greek sculpture while studying in Rome; he is considered a precursor to [[Art Deco]]; ''Dancer with Gazelles'', (1916) and ''[http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Prometheus_Fountain_at_the_Rockefeller_Center.jpg The Prometheus Fountain]'', at the Rockefeller Center, New York, (1934), are two of his most renown works. George Segal (New York, 1924 - New Brunswick, 2000), was an American [[painter]] and sculptor of Jewish ancestry. He was recognized with 20 awards included the 1999 National Medal of Honor. Segal was associated with the [[Pop Art]] movement.

<center> ''After painting comes Sculpture, a very noble art...'' Leonardo da Vinci </center>

[http://www.artcyclopedia.com/media/Sculptor.html Sculptors - Chronological Listing]
{{Clear}}

== Gallery ==
<center>
<gallery perrow="5">
Image:Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor.jpg|Terracotta warriors, Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor, [[China]].
Image:Daibutsu - Buddha.jpg|Daibutsu - Buddha, [[Japan]].
Image:Temple d'Abou Simbel.jpg|Temple d'Abou Simbel, [[Egypt]].
Image:Luxor.jpg|Ramsés II, Luxor, [[Egypt]].
Image:5457e.jpg|The Sphinx, [[Egypt]].

Image:Torsculpture Yellow Dandelions.jpg|Yellow Dandelions [[Canada]].
Image:Statue of Liberty.jpg|[[Statue of Liberty]], [[France]] [[US]].
Image:DcLincMor.JPG|[[Lincoln Memorial]], [[US]].
Image:The Lost Pleiad.jpg|The Lost Pleiad, [[US]].
Image:Awakening sculpture.jpg|Awakening, [[US]].
Image:Germanicus.JPG|Germanicus, [[Rome]].
Image:The Veiled Rebecca.jpg|The Veiled Rebecca, [[Italy]].
Image:Paolina by Antonio Canova.jpg|Paolina Borghese as Venus Victrix, [[France]].

Image:Three Walking Women.gif|Three Walking Women, [[Mexico]].
Image:Cristo Redentor Río de Janeiro.jpg|Christ the Redeemer, [[Brazil]].
</gallery>
</center>

[[Image:Supreme Court West Pediment.jpg|thumb|Supreme Court, West Pediment.]]
 
*[[Architectural Sculpture Gallery]]
{{Clear}}

== See also ==
[[Image:Nike of Samothrace.JPG|thumb|Victory ([[Nike]]) of Samothrace, displayed in the [[Louvre]] (Hellenistic period).]]

*[[Art history]]
*[[Ancient art]]
*[[The Renaissance]]
*[[Statue of Zeus at Olympia]]
*[[Oriental art]]
*[[Famous American artists]]
{| class="wikitable"

|-
|[[Image:Athlete.jpg]]

Athlete Wrestling a Python by Frederic Lord Leighton
|[[Image:The kiss.jpg]]The kiss by Rodin
|}
{{Clear}}

== External links ==
[[Image:David M.jpg|right|thumb|Michelangelo's David]]
*[http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=1346&HistoryID=ab21 HISTORY OF SCULPTURE]
*[http://www.chiff.com/art/sculpture/history.htm History of sculpture] From ancient China, Greece and India to Gothic France and Victorian England.
*[http://www.zeroland.co.nz/sculpture_sculptors.html Sculptors]
*[http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/s/sculpture.html Sculpture] Numerous examples.
*[http://www.sculpturecenter.org/ The Sculpture Center] Art of Ohio.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-59102/Leonardo-da-Vinci Leonardo da Vinci Sculpture]
*[http://bronzedirect.stores.yahoo.net/rodinbio.html August Rodin]
*[http://www.andrewdunnphoto.com/ Andrew Dunn web site] With Henry Moore work.
*[http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/verrocchio_andrea_del.html Andrea del Verrocchio]
*[http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/ Mary Ann Sullivan web site] Bluffton University.
 

[[Image:Drapedrecliningw.jpg|left]]

[http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/mooretoronto/mooretoronto.html Draped Reclining Woman, Henry Moore. Mary Ann Sullivan photographer.]
{{Clear}} 
[[Image:Mountrushmore.jpg|thumb|310px|[[Mount Rushmore]].]]
<center>
[[Image:Angel de la Independencia.jpg|thumb|center|The Angel ([[Nike]]), [[Mexico City]].]]
</center>
{{Clear}}

== References ==
[[Image:Bernini Proserpina.jpg|thumb|340px|The Rape of Proserpina by Gian Lorenzo Bernini (Napoli, 1598 - Roma, 1680).]]
<references/>

[[Image:Notke St. George and the Dragon.jpg|thumb|left|St. George and the Dragon by Bernt Notke (b. ca. 1440, Lassahn, d. 1509, Lübeck).]]

 
[[Image:George Segal sculpture.jpg|thumb|400px|left|Depression Bread Line (detail) by George Segal, (1991).]]

[[Category:Art]]

Literature

2008-12-12T00:49:40Z

FernoKlump: gr

[[Image:Narnia books.jpg|right|thumb|230px|The Chronicles of Narnia]]
'''Literature''', as an [[art]], consists of writings whose value lies in "the beauty of form or emotional effect",<ref>The Concise Oxford Dictionary</ref> and encompasses such diverse forms of expression as [[novel]]s, short stories, [[drama|plays]] and [[poetry|poems]]. Its content is as limitless as the desire of human beings to communicate.

<blockquote>
''The art of literature is not reducible to the words on the page; they are there because of the craft of writing. As an art, literature is the organization of words to give pleasure; through them it elevates and transforms experience; through them it functions in society as a continuing symbolic criticism of values.'' [http://www.bopsecrets.org/rexroth/essays/literature.htm The Art of Literature] - Encyclopædia Britannica
</blockquote>

==Origins==
It is generally thought that literature arose from the oral traditions of [[epic poetry]]. In ancient [[Mesopotamia]] (c. 7th century B.C.), the development of [[ideograph|ideographic]] glyphs allowed the [[Epic of Gilgamesh]] to be transcribed for an Assyrian king in the city of Akkadia. This is arguably the earliest piece of literature that we possess today, although Egyptologists believe that the [[Egypt|Egyptian]] [[Book of the Dead]] may have been written as early as the 18th century B.C. Extant copies, however, date from 250 B.C.<ref>Diamond, Jared. ''Guns, Germs, and Steel.'' New York: Norton, 2005.</ref>

<blockquote>
Literature is not only a storehouse of creativity. Through its topics of discussion literature is also a take on the history of the world. Dealing as it does with language it is also, a repository of the history of language. Ancient literature like those of [[Greek]], Latin, Hebrew, Celtic, Saxon, Aryan, Dravidan and the like help us learn how these languages have evolved through time and through the ravages of the different cultures conquering them. Literature has also helped preserve for man the different schools of thought, Sophism to Modernism, the [[Dead Sea scrolls]] to Structuralism. <ref> [http://www.iguides.org/articles/articles/85/1/The-importance-of-the-history-of-Literature/Page1.html The importance of the history of Literature]
</ref>
</blockquote>

''The story of English literature begins with the Germanic tradition of the Anglo-Saxon settlers''... Beowulf, ''an epic poem of the 8th century, stands at its head.'' <ref> [http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=gsz#gsz Alliterative verse: 8th - 14th century AD] </ref>.

[[Geoffrey Chaucer]], a poet of the court, wrote the poem ''The House of Fame'' in 1380, and his masterpiece ''Troilus and Criseyde'' in 1385; he was also the author of ''[[Canterbury Tales]]'', which ranks as one of the greatest epic works of world literature. <ref> [http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/chaucer.htm Geoffrey Chaucer] </ref>

<blockquote>
''Pamela'', indeed, was printed as early as 1744 in Philadelphia, by [[Benjamin Franklin]], and in the same year in New York and in Boston. But the only other novels printed in America before the Declaration of Independence seem to have been ''Robinson Crusoe'' (1768), ''Rasselas'' (1768), ''The Vicar of Wakefield'' (1772), ''Juliet Grenville'' (1774), and ''The Works of Laurence Sterne'' M.A. (1774). <ref> [http://www.bartleby.com/225/1501.html The Novel in the Colonies.] </ref>
</blockquote>

The history of literature in many other countries, both ancient and modern, has record real treasures of writing pieces.

== Popular authors ==
[[Image:Dickens.jpg|thumb|300px|Charles Dickens]]
Some of the most popular authors are:
* [[Charles Dickens]]
* [[Mark Twain]]
* [[William Shakespeare]]
* [[Arthur Conan Doyle]]
* [[Jane Austen]]
* [[Jules Verne]]
* L. Frank Baum (Lyman Frank - The Wizard of Oz)
* [[Lewis Carroll]]
* [[Edgar Allan Poe]]
* [[Oscar Wilde]]
* [[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]]
* [[H. G. Wells]] (Herbert George)
* [[Homer]]
* [[Leo Tolstoy]]
* [[J. R. R. Tolkien]]
* [[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]]
* [[Paulo Coelho]]
* [[Dan Brown]]

== Poetry samples ==
[[Image:Lord Byron.png|thumb|170px|Lord Byron]]
''We call it a grain of sand''

''but it calls itself neither grain nor sand.''

''It does just fine without a name,''

''whether general, particular,''

''permanent, passing, ''

''incorrect or apt.''

Wislawa Szymborska, from "View with a Grain of Sand". [http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~slav411/1.htm Poetry Samples]

 

From The Raven by Poe.

..............................................................

And the raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting

On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;

And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming,

And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;

And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor

Shall be lifted - nevermore!
[[Image:Edgar Allan Poe.jpeg|thumb|Edgar Allan Poe.]]

 

(EZRA POUND, PISAN CANTOS, LXXXI)

What thou lovest well remains,
:::the rest is dross

What thou lov'st well shall not be reft from thee

What thou lov'st well is thy true heritage

Whose world, or mine or theirs
:::or is it of none?

First came the seen, then thus the palpable
:::Elysium, though it were in the halls of hell,

What thou lovest well is thy true heritage

What thou lov'st well shall not be reft from thee.

{{Clear}}

== Novel criticism ==
[[Image:Tolstoy and wife.jpg|thumb|120px|Tolstoy and wife Sonya Andreyevna Behrs]]
About Anna Karenina.

''Anna Karenina was published in serial form from 1873-1877. It created a great stir in society; reports from the time claim that everyone in Russian Society was discussing the book and waiting eagerly for the next installment to appear. The critical reaction was mostly positive and, like the novel itself, passionate. It was published on the heels of [[Leo Tolstoy]]'s great opus, War and Peace (1863-1869) and solidified his reputation as one of Russia's most important 19th-century writers. This was quite a feat, given that his contemporaries included Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Gogol and Lermontov.''... Although the critical reaction to Anna Karenina was favorable and the public was shaken by the strength of both the story and Tolstoy's prose, Tolstoy himself was dissatisfied with the novel... <ref>[http://www.gradesaver.com/classicnotes/titles/karenina/about.html About Anna Karenina] Literature ClassicNotes™ </ref>
 

Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

"That Uncle Tom’s Cabin stands higher in the history of reform than in the history of the art of fiction no one needs to say again. Dickens, Kingsley, and Mrs. Gaskell had already set the novel to humanitarian tunes, and Mrs. Stowe did not have to invent a type. She had, however, no particular foreign master, not even Scott, all of whose historical romances she had been reading just before she began Uncle Tom. Instead she adhered to the native tradition, which went back to the eighteenth century, of sentimental, pious, instructive narratives written by women chiefly for women. Leave out the merely domestic elements of the book—slave families broken up by sale, ailing and dying children, negro women at the mercy of their masters, white households which at the best are slovenly and extravagant by reason of irresponsible servants—and little remains. To understand why the story touched the world so deeply it is necessary to understand how tense the struggle over slavery had grown, how thickly charged was the moral atmosphere awaiting a fatal spark. But the mere fact of an audience already prepared will not explain the mystery of a work which shook a powerful institution and which, for all its defects of taste and style and construction, still has amazing power." <ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/227/0406.html Uncle Tom’s Cabin.] </ref>
{{Clear}}

== The Iliad (fragment) ==
[[Image:Ioannidis Homer Iliad.jpg|left|300px]]
Book I

Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans. Many a brave soul did it send hurrying down to Hades, and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs and vultures, for so were the counsels of Jove fulfilled from the day on which the son of Atreus, king of men, and great Achilles, first fell out with one another.

And which of the gods was it that set them on to quarrel? It was the son of Jove and Leto; for he was angry with the king and sent a pestilence upon the host to plague the people, because the son of Atreus had dishonoured Chryses his priest. Now Chryses had come to the ships of the Achaeans to free his daughter, and had brought with him a great ransom: moreover he bore in his hand the sceptre of Apollo wreathed with a suppliant's wreath and he besought the Achaeans, but most of all the two sons of Atreus, who were their chiefs.

"Sons of Atreus," he cried, "and all other Achaeans, may the gods who dwell in Olympus grant you to sack the city of Priam, and to reach your homes in safety; but free my daughter, and accept a ransom for her, in reverence to Apollo, son of Jove."

On this the rest of the Achaeans with one voice were for respecting the priest and taking the ransom that he offered; but not so Agamemnon, who spoke fiercely to him and sent him roughly away. "Old man," said he, "let me not find you tarrying about our ships, nor yet coming hereafter. Your sceptre of the god and your wreath shall profit you nothing. I will not free her. She shall grow old in my house at Argos far from her own home, busying herself with her loom and visiting my couch; so go, and do not provoke me or it shall be the worse for you."

[[Homer]]. <ref>[http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.1.i.html The Iliad]. Translated by Samuel Butler. </ref>

== See also ==
[[Image:Copista.jpg|right|200px]]
*[[Literary criticism]]
*[[Author]] With a list of "Best books and authors".
*[[Poetry]]
*[[Spanish Golden Age]]
*[[Liberal Arts college]]
*[[World History Lecture One]]
*[[Theater]]
*[[Famous American artists]]

''Some are thoughtful on their way''

''Some are doubtful, so they pray.''

''I hear the hidden voice that may''

''Shout, "Both paths lead astray."'' Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.
{{Clear}}

== External links ==
[[Image:Tagore.jpg|thumb|Rabindranath Tagore]]
*[http://classics.mit.edu/index.html The Internet Classics Archive] by Daniel C. Stevenson.
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Project Gutenberg]
*[http://www.literature.org/ An Online Library of Literature]
*[http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Literature/ Literature] Open Directory.
*[http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/top_poems.html Top 50 Poems]
*[http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/display_rpo/poetterm.cfm GLOSSARY OF POETIC TERMS]
*[http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac01 HISTORY OF LITERATURE]
*[http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/literat3/Classical_Literature.htm Literature of the Western World: Greek & Roman]
*[http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa08 HISTORY OF LITERATURE IN ENGLISH]
*[http://www.bartleby.com/cambridge/ The Cambridge History of English and American Literature] An Encyclopedia in Eighteen Volumes.
*[http://www.scaruffi.com/fiction/spanish.html A Brief History of Spanish-language Literature]
*[http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/chinlit.html CHINESE LITERATURE]
*[http://www.kanzaki.com/jinfo/jliterature.html History of Japan's Literature]
*[http://www.indianetzone.com/2/history_indian_literature.htm History of Indian Literature]
*[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/liter.htm Literature in Ancient Egypt]
*[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=466&letter=L LITERATURE, HEBREW]
*[http://www.answers.com/topic/arabic-literature Arabic literature]
<center>
"''Love is an endless mystery, for it has nothing else to explain it.''"

Rabindranath Tagore. <ref> [http://www.writespirit.net/authors/tagore Rabindranath Tagore] </ref>
</center>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Image:Noh.jpg|thumb|left|Japanese theater.]]
[[Category:Literature]]
[[Category:Art]]

Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-10T15:04:18Z

FernoKlump: /* The Adulteress Story, beginning of John 8 */ I don't know if 'frequently' applies here. The ref only gives one instance on a forum.

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-10T15:02:03Z

FernoKlump: /* Adulteress story */

==Conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on Hell==

Right now this claim is very unsubstantiated. I think the readers of this article will get more out of it if we tell them ''how'' the passage about the adulterous woman conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on hell-- not merely say that it does. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: Good point. Will try to improve it now per your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:Many Christians don't believe in Hell or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved. See [http://gospelthemes.com/hell.htm Jesus' Teaching on Hell, Samuel G. Dawson] [[User:BernardH|BernardH]] 13:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::''or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved.'' That is not believing in Hell; that is believing in [[Purgatory]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:31, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Human Ghosts? ==

"''It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts''"

I have never heard anyone claim that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts. On the contrary, it is against the idea. Could you please point out the basis for the claim that these versions have introduced the idea of human ghosts. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 14:28, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: You're right that the Bible does not support the idea of human ghosts. But I've given examples now of how modern translations (erroneously) do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:: The examples do not show that modern translations support the idea of human ghosts. All the examples support is that modern translators believe that ''the people the Bible was talking about'' believed in human ghosts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:: The "commentator" mentioned in this section is a KJV-only person, who provides a poor argument overall. The quote of him is wrong (as mentioned above the examples do not show what is claimed) and should be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)
: I would imagine that when people say that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts they are referring to 1 Samuel 28, in which Saul has a witch summon the deceased Samuel for counsel. I have always been personally surprised by the depiction of this story in the bible and I wonder if its translation has changed from the older manuscripts. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 13:21, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's a curious case! The connections between human ghosts and the Holy Ghost are patently absurd, however. I think it has to do with the German (perhaps Old-English?) rootword Geist, which means both Ghost and Spirit. Translation is often a problem. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)

== Adulteress story ==

I've removed some bits for the following reasons:
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against capital punishment.
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against hell. The reference supposedly supporting this claim was actually using the passage to argue against ''condemnation'' of any sort, as part of a larger argument against the existence of hell, but this passage itself wasn't being used to argue against hell itself.
* I can't see how the passage conflicts with other teaching about hell.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:Quite the contrary, it's used ''extensively'' by liberal denominations who try to push the "no condemnation" "everyone is saved" view. I've personally had numerous conversations with "liberal Christians" who brought up the passage to deny Hell itself. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:: Right. There's no denying how this passage is used to deny the existence of [[Hell]] (which, by the way, should be capitalized), oppose capital punishment, and even bully anyone who condemns sin in an effective way. There is already one reference to an example and more could be easily found.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm going to half-agree with Andy here: I have heard people (ministers included) reference this story as an argument against capital punishment, and/or to downplay the notion of harsh punishments from God. However, I must take issue with the idea that the story's "authenticity is rejected by modern biblical scholars". While some reject it entirely, and most dispute its placement, my understanding is that it is considered to be an actual Jesus story, and the implication that all scholars reject it out of hand is preposterous. At the ''very'' least, there should be a "some" inserted between "by" and "modern".--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Given that there's now further testimony of the passage being used to oppose hell and capital punishment, I'll accept that. However, not all the objections have been addressed.
:::: Further, Andy's edit comment and reply here are offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated. As I have repeatedly pointed out before, it is NOT censorship to remove inaccurate information (which is what I believed this to be). Further, it is NOT a valid argument to simply declare yourself correct ("There's no denying...").
:::: Finally, there was no explanation for the reversion of a wording change that was made at the same time.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, your edits again distort the entry without justification. For example, you say that the passage is "misused" to deny the existence of Hell (which you notably spell with a small "h"). There is evidence that the passage is fake, but no justification for saying it is "misused". The passage, if taken at face value, does support an argument denying the existence of Hell.
::::::The passage taken at face value does ''not'' deny the existence of Hell. It is an example of Christ's forgiveness, which he offers to everyone, regardless of the severity of their sin. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:01, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::::: Another change is you insist on putting a website in the text rather than in a footnote, perhaps to try to downplay the (undeniable) point being made. Websites belong in the footnotes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your "reversion explained" does not explain the wholesale reversion of my edits including formatting changes nor much of my rewording, such as the sentence introducing the different translation comments.
:::::: The passage does not directly nor indirectly mention hell, so does ''not'' deny the existence of hell, at face value or otherwise.
:::::: The "misused" word was yours. I didn't add that.
:::::: I did not spell Hell with a lower-case "h". The only use of that in the section is in a quote that you inserted.
:::::: I did not "insist" on putting a web-site in the text. I did put it in the text, but only because it's normal practice when quoting someone to say ''in the text'' who is being quoted. As there was not an author's name to attribute it to, I attributed it to the web-site.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: ''offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated'' You are skating on very thin ice with abusive comments like that. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:33, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You have a problem with the truth? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: You are both out of order. When comments get above six colons, the indent should be reset to the edge of the page.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Did you just make that up, Mr. nine-colons? :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I thought it was a rule, but maybe I'm wrong. The amount of time I spend on here, I wouldn't be surprised if I'd dreamt it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't know the six colon rule, CP, but I do now! As for Philip: I don't have any problem with the truth; what I do have a problem with is your increasingly aggressive and intemperate attitude towards Andy, who, as the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia is entitled to courtesty and respect, not insult. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:15, 10 December 2008 (EST)
: If I'm increasingly aggressive and intemperate toward Andy, then I'm merely following the example set by our Founder and Leader. Is there any better way to show courtesy and respect other than to try and be like him? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, your angry and insulting comments are increasingly inappropriate. We're going to keep a high level of discourse here consistent with our purpose. Also, website references belong in footnotes, not the text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::: If we are going to keep a high level of discourse here, why do you insult me by ignoring my questions and comments, by calling my attempts to make the article more accurate "censorship", and calling me "liberal"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, we're building an encyclopedia here. I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk. Your edits have far too high a percentage of talk and edits that are reverted. Deleting information is censorship, and I don't think I ever called you a liberal. Supporting gun control is a liberal position; claiming that "beauty is on the eye of the beholder" is an atheistic view; and spelling Hell with a small "h" does suggest a denial of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I don't know if using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell is a very common thing. The provided source links to a forum post, where the Adulteress Story seems like a very minor point in the guy's argument. Anyone who is trying to use that verse to deny Hell is really just grasping at straws. Could we find a better source for this? I searched briefly but found no other instance of using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 10:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-10T15:00:28Z

FernoKlump: /* Adulteress story */

==Conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on Hell==

Right now this claim is very unsubstantiated. I think the readers of this article will get more out of it if we tell them ''how'' the passage about the adulterous woman conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on hell-- not merely say that it does. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: Good point. Will try to improve it now per your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:Many Christians don't believe in Hell or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved. See [http://gospelthemes.com/hell.htm Jesus' Teaching on Hell, Samuel G. Dawson] [[User:BernardH|BernardH]] 13:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::''or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved.'' That is not believing in Hell; that is believing in [[Purgatory]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:31, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Human Ghosts? ==

"''It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts''"

I have never heard anyone claim that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts. On the contrary, it is against the idea. Could you please point out the basis for the claim that these versions have introduced the idea of human ghosts. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 14:28, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: You're right that the Bible does not support the idea of human ghosts. But I've given examples now of how modern translations (erroneously) do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:: The examples do not show that modern translations support the idea of human ghosts. All the examples support is that modern translators believe that ''the people the Bible was talking about'' believed in human ghosts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:: The "commentator" mentioned in this section is a KJV-only person, who provides a poor argument overall. The quote of him is wrong (as mentioned above the examples do not show what is claimed) and should be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)
: I would imagine that when people say that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts they are referring to 1 Samuel 28, in which Saul has a witch summon the deceased Samuel for counsel. I have always been personally surprised by the depiction of this story in the bible and I wonder if its translation has changed from the older manuscripts. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 13:21, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's a curious case! The connections between human ghosts and the Holy Ghost are patently absurd, however. I think it has to do with the German (perhaps Old-English?) rootword Geist, which means both Ghost and Spirit. Translation is often a problem. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)

== Adulteress story ==

I've removed some bits for the following reasons:
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against capital punishment.
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against hell. The reference supposedly supporting this claim was actually using the passage to argue against ''condemnation'' of any sort, as part of a larger argument against the existence of hell, but this passage itself wasn't being used to argue against hell itself.
* I can't see how the passage conflicts with other teaching about hell.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:Quite the contrary, it's used ''extensively'' by liberal denominations who try to push the "no condemnation" "everyone is saved" view. I've personally had numerous conversations with "liberal Christians" who brought up the passage to deny Hell itself. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:: Right. There's no denying how this passage is used to deny the existence of [[Hell]] (which, by the way, should be capitalized), oppose capital punishment, and even bully anyone who condemns sin in an effective way. There is already one reference to an example and more could be easily found.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm going to half-agree with Andy here: I have heard people (ministers included) reference this story as an argument against capital punishment, and/or to downplay the notion of harsh punishments from God. However, I must take issue with the idea that the story's "authenticity is rejected by modern biblical scholars". While some reject it entirely, and most dispute its placement, my understanding is that it is considered to be an actual Jesus story, and the implication that all scholars reject it out of hand is preposterous. At the ''very'' least, there should be a "some" inserted between "by" and "modern".--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Given that there's now further testimony of the passage being used to oppose hell and capital punishment, I'll accept that. However, not all the objections have been addressed.
:::: Further, Andy's edit comment and reply here are offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated. As I have repeatedly pointed out before, it is NOT censorship to remove inaccurate information (which is what I believed this to be). Further, it is NOT a valid argument to simply declare yourself correct ("There's no denying...").
:::: Finally, there was no explanation for the reversion of a wording change that was made at the same time.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, your edits again distort the entry without justification. For example, you say that the passage is "misused" to deny the existence of Hell (which you notably spell with a small "h"). There is evidence that the passage is fake, but no justification for saying it is "misused". The passage, if taken at face value, does support an argument denying the existence of Hell.
::::::The passage taken at face value does ''not'' deny the existence of Hell. It is an example of Christ's forgiveness, which he offers to everyone, regardless of the severity of their sin. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:01, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::::: Another change is you insist on putting a website in the text rather than in a footnote, perhaps to try to downplay the (undeniable) point being made. Websites belong in the footnotes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your "reversion explained" does not explain the wholesale reversion of my edits including formatting changes nor much of my rewording, such as the sentence introducing the different translation comments.
:::::: The passage does not directly nor indirectly mention hell, so does ''not'' deny the existence of hell, at face value or otherwise.
:::::: The "misused" word was yours. I didn't add that.
:::::: I did not spell Hell with a lower-case "h". The only use of that in the section is in a quote that you inserted.
:::::: I did not "insist" on putting a web-site in the text. I did put it in the text, but only because it's normal practice when quoting someone to say ''in the text'' who is being quoted. As there was not an author's name to attribute it to, I attributed it to the web-site.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: ''offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated'' You are skating on very thin ice with abusive comments like that. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:33, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You have a problem with the truth? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: You are both out of order. When comments get above six colons, the indent should be reset to the edge of the page.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Did you just make that up, Mr. nine-colons? :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I thought it was a rule, but maybe I'm wrong. The amount of time I spend on here, I wouldn't be surprised if I'd dreamt it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't know the six colon rule, CP, but I do now! As for Philip: I don't have any problem with the truth; what I do have a problem with is your increasingly aggressive and intemperate attitude towards Andy, who, as the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia is entitled to courtesty and respect, not insult. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:15, 10 December 2008 (EST)
: If I'm increasingly aggressive and intemperate toward Andy, then I'm merely following the example set by our Founder and Leader. Is there any better way to show courtesy and respect other than to try and be like him? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, your angry and insulting comments are increasingly inappropriate. We're going to keep a high level of discourse here consistent with our purpose. Also, website references belong in footnotes, not the text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::: If we are going to keep a high level of discourse here, why do you insult me by ignoring my questions and comments, by calling my attempts to make the article more accurate "censorship", and calling me "liberal"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, we're building an encyclopedia here. I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk. Your edits have far too high a percentage of talk and edits that are reverted. Deleting information is censorship, and I don't think I ever called you a liberal. Supporting gun control is a liberal position; claiming that "beauty is on the eye of the beholder" is an atheistic view; and spelling Hell with a small "h" does suggest a denial of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I don't know if using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell is a very common thing. The provided source links to a forum post, where the Adulteress Story seems like a very minor point. Anyone who is trying to use that verse to deny Hell is really just grasping at straws. Could we find a better source for this? I searched briefly but found nothing. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 10:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Governor of California

2008-12-10T05:08:29Z

FernoKlump: b + sp

The '''Governor of California''' is an elected official who is the chief executive of the [[State]] of [[California]]. As chief executive, he and his designates have direct responsibility over the day to day affairs of the State. The current Governor is [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who succeeded [[Gray Davis]] in a recall election.

The purpose of the Governor is best summed up by the [[California Constitution]] which says, "The supreme executive power of this State is vested in
the Governor. The Governor shall see that the law is faithfully
executed." <ref>[http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html California Constitution: Article V, Section 1]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Judaism

2008-12-09T01:59:55Z

FernoKlump: sp + evade spam filter for appropriate words

[[Image:StarofDavid.gif|right|thumb|The Star of David, a symbol of Judaism]]
'''Judaism''' was the first [[monotheistic religion]], dating back to around 2000 BC. Like [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]], Judaism is an [[Abrahamic faith]], tracing its origins to [[Abraham]]. Judaism was the first of the Abrahamic faiths. The core of the Judaism as it exists today took shape from a later time period when [[Moses]] led the [[Hebrews]] from [[Egypt]] and climbed [[Mount Sinai]], bringing back the [[Ten Commandments]].

The five books of Moses (the [[Torah]]) are generally considered to be the core of the Jewish Scripture, and are supplemented by the works of the prophets and other writings which Christians call the [[Old Testament]]. The [[Talmud]] is another ancient Jewish writing considered by some Jews to contain traditions dating back to Moses himself, yet the Talmud also contains discussion by rabbis involving extensive disagreement and lively discussion, over interpretation of these traditions. The Talmud is not part of the [[Bible]] and the degree to which the Talmud itself is considered to be inspired varies across Judaism, with the [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]] generally giving it the most weight.

[[Jesus]] was one of many Jewish teachers who disagreed with the Jewish authorities during his lifetime. He founded a new school of thought, which flourished even after his death and eventually became [[Christianity]]. Christians consider him to be the [[Messiah]] and even consider him to be the [[Son of God]]. Jews on the other hand, do not believe Jesus is either the messiah nor God's son. Other than those agreements amongst Jews concerning Jesus, Jewish views of Jesus vary greatly.

==Sabbath==
[[Image:Menora exb HSTR7337.jpg|right|thumb|Yarmulke and Menorah]]
Many Jews observe a weekly day of rest (the [[Sabbath]]) that begins shortly before sundown on Friday and ends after sunset on Saturday. During this time no work may be done, business transactions are forbidden, and light switches are not to be turned on or off. Jews celebrate the Sabbath by lighting candles before the Sabbath, singing songs, going to synagogue, called shul, by some, and learning.

==Denominations==
There are many different branches of Judaism. The four largest branches from the most literal to the most interpretive in their practice:
*[[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]]
*Conservative
*Reconstructionist
*[[Reform Judaism|Reform]]

==Ethnicities==
*[[Sephardi]] Jews.
*[[Mizrahi (sometimes spelled Mizrachi)|Mizrahi]] Jews.
*[[Ashkenazi]] Jews.

===The Diaspora===
"Diaspora" (Greek meaning "seeded throughout") is the term used to refer to the various dispersions of the Jews throughout the world through the eras of history. Its Hebrew linguistic forerunner is "Galut" meaning the "uncovering", betraying the understanding that being exiled from the Land of Israel is an exposing of Israel to vulnerability and danger. Some commonly known "Galuyot" (plural for Galut) are:

* the forced exile and assimilation among other peoples of the Northern Tribes of Israel by the Assyrians in 721, 722. Modern Israel has recognized among the ingathering of this exile (Kibbuts Galuyot) the ''Bnei Menashe'' (Sons of Manessaeh) of northern [[India]]. These members of the "Lost Tribe" are now allowed to freely immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. ''(see [[Religion in India]])''

* the ''Falashas'' of [[Ethiopia]], among whom, like the Bnei Menashe, Jewish practices such as circumcision at 8 days and the keeping of Passover are maintained by those eligible for citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return. The are racially native African in appearance. They believe themselves to have become Jewish from the days of Solomon and the Queen of Ethiopia. That was the basis for the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selase (Holy Trinity) taking the title "Lion of the Tribe of Judah".

* The Galut of Babylon, the so called "''Iraqis''" exiled by the Babylonians at the time of their conquest of Judah and Jerusalem (c. 538 B.C.) This Galut developed a rival to Palestinian Jewry of the first centuries and provided the second corpus of religious literature to the developing Talmud. This was in the common language of Babyon at the time - Aramaic. This corpus came to be called the Gemara ("completion"). The [[Gemara]] dates from about 200 A.D.to 500 A.D. The Gemara and the earlier Palestinian Hebrew corpus, the Mishna, dating from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. comprise the Talmud, which regulated most of Jewish internal life, until the western European "emancipation" and assimilation of the Jews - starting in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Talmud is still regulatory for Orthodox Jews.

*The Galut of the Jews by the Roman [[Titus]] after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. They were triumphantly displayed in Rome and dispersed in the lands along the Rhine Valley known in the Hebrew tongue as Ashkenaz - which is known now as Germany. There they learned the language of the land which developed into Modern German. The Jews called their language, the early stage of German, Yiddish. From the Rhine, many of the "''Ashkenazis''" moved (were moved) to Eastern Europe, many fleeing from there, to America, to Israel, to Latin America, etc. learning new languages, but also speaking their old language, not Hebrew, but Yiddish. This, with the common religion, enabled the fostering of unity and brotherhood.

*the 1492 A.D. exile from [[Spain]], where the Jews had previously settled in the time of the [[Moors]] and some attaining to high positions and appointments as physicians, prime ministers, and poets under the Islamic conquest. This was the Golden Age of Jewry in Spain. At their expulsion ("gerush") from Spain they settled mainly around the Mediterranean basin - North Africa, Greece, Turkey, and also many going to Holland and from there to the American Colonies. The first synagogue in America was created due to this dispersion. These Jews soon were speaking the language of the their host countries - Arabic, Turkish etc. but also speaking the language of Old Spain. "Spain" in Hebrew is Sefarad, so the language is Sephardic and the dispersion is of the ''Sephardim'' (sometimes spelled Sepharadim).

*the Yemenites (''Temanim''). Yemen means "right (direction)" in Semitic languages. When facing the temple from the east, the "right" points south. Therefore, "Teiman" also means "south". This dispersion is the southerly dispersion to what is now Yemen, gaining momentum during the Himyaritic Kindom in Yemen which had adopted Judaism. With the founding of the Modern State of Israel, most Yemenite Jews have immigrated to Israel and speak Arabic as well as Hebrew.

The term "''Mizrachi''" means "easterner" and it covers a number of eastern dispersions as opposed to the Ashkenazi who were westerners - from Europe. Coming into Israel during Ottoman Turk rule (1517-1917), many immigrating Jewish families who were not European were given the name Mizrahi by the Turkish immigration authorities as they were all "lumped together" as Easterners.

The Return of the Jews to Israel is seen as a fulfillment of the Scriptures and is called Kibbutz Galuyot, the ingathering of the Exiles. Here are some of the scriptures that both tell about the ingathering of the exiles and which have provided a major influence for the some of the dispersions to return to the Land of Israel:

" I will bring your offspring from the east, and gather you from the west, To the north I will say 'Give them up', and to the south, 'Do not hold them'. Bring back my sons from far away, my daughters from the end of the earth. Isaiah 43: 5,6

"Those whom Adonai has redeemed return, they come to Zion shouting for joy. everlasting joy in their faces, joy and gladness go with them, sorrow and lament are ended." Isaiah 51:11

"He who has scattered Israel, gathers him, He guards them as a shepherd guards his flock...they shall come back from the enemy country, There is hope for your descendants" Jeremiah 31: 10,16

"The Lord says this: 'I am going to take the sons of Israel from the nations, where they have gone. I shall gather them together from everywhere and bring them home to their own soil. I shall make them into one nation and into My own land and on the mountains of Israel.'" . Exekiel 37:21,22

==Main Holidays==
:''Main article: [[Jewish holidays]]''

*'''[[Rosh Hashanah]]'''--New Years. Marks the creation of the world.

*'''[[Yom Kippur]]'''--the Day of Atonement. Observant Jews consume no food or drink for the entire day.

*'''[[Pesach]]'''--celebrating the liberation from Egyptian slavery. Observant Jews hold a special festive meal, called a ''Seder,'' on the eve of Passover and do not eat leavened bread for the duration of the festival.

*'''Shavuot'''-- Pentecost or Feast of Weeks. Traditionally celebrates God's giving the Ten Commandments at Mt. Sinai.

*'''Sukkot''' --Tabernacles or Feast of Booths. Observant Jews eat and sleep in temporary shelters shaded by cut vegetation.

*'''Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah'''--The day after Sukkot is a separate holiday, known as the "Eighth Day Feast." It also marks the completion of the cycle of reading the Torah in synagogues. The end of Deuteronomy is read, followed by the first chapter of Genesis.

*'''[[Purim]]'''--celebrates the thwarting of a plot to kill all Jews it is recorded in the Book of Esther, which is read aloud in its entirety in the synagogue.

*'''Tisha B'Av'''--also known as the Ninth of Av, 9th of Av, is a fast day that mourns the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

*'''[[Chanukah]]''' (there are several English spellings)--celebrates the re-dedication of the Temple after the revolt against the Greeks recorded in the Talmud and other non-Biblical texts. Jews light candles each night for eight nights, adding one candle each night. Chanukah is not a holiday recorded in the Bible and is considered a minor holiday from a religious standpoint, however from a secular Jewish perspective it has taken on a position of great prominence in modern times passing all other holidays as far as degree to which it is celebrated.

==Calendar==
The Jewish calendar combines lunar and solar features. During Temple times, months began when the new moon was sighted in Jerusalem. An extra month was added when needed to keep the Pesach festival in the spring. Today a complex algorithm, over a thousand years old, is used to determine when months begin. As a result, the dates of the Jewish holidays in the civil calendar vary from year to year.

==Jewish Scripture==
Jewish Scripture consists of 24 books, broken down into three sections:

*'''[[Torah]]'''--The Five Books of [[Moses]]: [[Genesis]] (Bereshit), [[Exodus]] (Shemot), [[Leviticus]] (Vayikra), [[Numbers]] (Bamidbar) and [[Deuteronomy]] (Devarim).

*'''Nevi'im''' --The Prophets: Joshua (Yehoshua), Judges (Shoftim), Samuel (Shmuel), Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 minor prophets

*'''Ketuvim'''---The Writings: [[Psalms]], Proverbs, Job), Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, [[Esther (Biblical book)|Esther]], [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]], Ezra, Chronicles.

The Torah is divided into portions that are read during synagogue services over the course of the liturgical year. Jews refer to all 24 scrolls as the ''Tanakh,'' an acronym of the three sections. The Old Testament is the Tanakh, except with some different naming and a different ordering than the Jewish version. Some Jews find the term Old Testament to be offensive, as its meaning can be interpreted to mean the covenant of God with the Jews has been superseded and no longer applies.

==The Twelve Tribes of Israel==
The most famous of the tribes of Israel is Judah. From Judah's descendants came [[King David]] as did [[Jesus Christ]]. No matter what tribe you originate from, all are considered Israeli.

In the [[Old Testament]], father Abraham's grandson Jacob, Isaac's son, his family would make up the 12 tribes. Jacob came to be known as the father of Israel, for it is written God changed his name to Israel. <ref>[http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/tribeisr.htm The Tribes Of Israel by Wayne Blank] The Church of God Bible Studsy</ref> The descendants of these twelve 'sons' of Jacob became the twelve tribe's of Israel.

In Northern Israel [[Gad]], [[Reuben]], [[Simeon]], [[Dan]], [[Naphtali]], [[Asher]], [[Issachar]], [[Zebulun]] and [[Joseph]]. In Southern Israel, the tribes [[Benjamin]] and [[Judah]]. The [[Levi]] were to serve as as the priests and their assistance for all tribes having their own levitical cities within the other tribes while having no land as inheritance for for themselves.

Each tribe was composed of a group of families, united by blood ties and constituting a social and political unit. As time went on, the stronger tribes tended to absorb the weaker ones. <ref>[http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=762510356&vv=450 Twelve Tribes of Israel] MSN Encarta</ref>
After the death of King Solomon, and in the time of his son, Rehoboam, the 12 tribes divided into two camps, the south was known as [[Judah]] with Jerusalem as their capital. The 10 Northern tribes made up the kingdom of Israel whose capital was [[Samaria]]. In 721/2 B.C. , the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered and the elite and powerful taken away by the Assyrians (leaving the weak and powerless) and resettled among various client kingdoms of their empire. The Assyrians, in like manner, settled other conquered peoples in various places of conquered Israel in order to dilute and weaken the population causing them to be compliant to the Assyrian overlords. This is how the "Samarians" were to arise, present in the time of Jesus and and present to this day - a mixed semi-judaized population with their religious center on Mt. Gerizim in Samaria rivaling Jerusalem. The northern dispersion came to be called popularly "the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel". But some of the "10 Lost Tribes" were not lost. At the time of Assyrian conquest of Israel, archaeology reveals, the city walls of the capitol city of the Southern Kingdom, Jerusalem, were suddenly and greatly expanded. This is because, it is thought, of the sudden influx to the southern brothers of the fleeing northerners. See also in the Diaspora section above, the Bnei Menashe, and see [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/973487.html]

The Southern Kingdom was conquered by Babylonians in 586/7 B.C. with much population taken to Babylon, which was to become a center for Judaism (and the Babylonian Talmud) rivaling Jerusalem itself. Cyrus, Emperor of Persia was to allow the Jews to return to their ancestral homeland, but many Jews preferred to remain in Babylon (most of these "Iraqis" would return to Israel with the erection of the modern State of Israel).

Alexander the Great, 333 B.C. would wrest the Middle East, and "Judah" with it, from the hands of the Persians, and after him, at the breakup of his Empire into Seleucid (northern) and Ptolomaic (southern) parts, the Seleucids took control of the Judah and Galilee (bringing "[[Hellenism]]" - the amalgamation of Greek with local cultures), and the occasion for the the revolt of the Jews against Seleucid overlord Antiochus and the beginning of the celebration among the Jews of [[Hanukah]] - the remembrance of the successful revolt, the setting up once again of a Jewish Kingdom in the promised land, and the re-dedication ("Hanukah") of the Temple (which had been desecrated). In 63 A.D., Pompey and the Roman rule would wrest power from the Hellenistic Greeks, and thus the Roman rule in the Land at the time of Jesus. The Kingdom of Judah, with its King Herod, was intended by Rome to be a buffer state between Rome and its hated adversary Kingdom - that of Persia. In this context there arose, another movement, followers of "the way" of Jesus, the forefront of another Kingdom, that was not of this world, the leading servants of which, would sit on the seats of the now ''12 tribes'' of Israel, and knowing themselves, as the "Israel of God".

Note: Among modern Jews, there is no knowledge of descent from any of the particular tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel, except Jews with the family name of Levi or Cohen (and a very few others). "Levi" is from the tribe of levites and means "accompanier", that is the ones who accompany the priest and offering assistance in the service of the Temple. "Cohen" means priest. With the last great dispersion from the Holy Land, that of 70 AD at the hands of the Romans, with its destruction of "the House" - the Temple of God, the levitical and priestly families, now exiled to Rome and Italy were careful to record and remember their genealogies back to the tribe of Levi, as it would be they who would once again be called to function when God when would make possible the return to the Land of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple.

==Post Biblical Jewish Development and Literature==
The Jewish [[canon]] of Scripture was defined at the Jamnia (Yavneh) on the Mediterranean coast of Israel at 90A.D., about two decades after the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. Jews now also lived in great numbers outside of the Land of Israel, particularly in Mesopotamia (the Land between the Rivers of the Euphrates and the Tigris), and in Alexandria, Egypt. Mesopotamian Jewry, with its large core from the exile to Babylon continually added to, was mainly Aramaic speaking while Egyptian Jewry was Greek speaking. Aramaic Jewry began the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into [[Aramaic]], this came to be known as the [[Peshitta]] ("simple" or common). This development was accelerated particularly when the queen of [[Adiabene]], Helena (Shlomzion HaMalka, converted with others to Judaism. The Old Testament Peshitta (there is also the New Testament Peshitta as believers in Jesus translated the Greek New Testament into Aramaic) contains influence from the Jewish literature known as the [[Targum]]. Queen Helena was buried in Jerusalem around 70 A.D.

The Alexandrian Jews also translated, even earlier, the Torah into their language, Greek. Later books were added to the Septuagint by anonymous translators. This is known as the Septuagint (translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars). The Septuagint was used by Greek speaking Jews and was naturally turned to by the Greek speaking believers in Jesus. Later Jewish scholars retranslated the Bible into Greek, as the Septuagint was seen as having issues in translations of words, these translations were done by Symmachus, Aquilas, and Theodotios, all converts to Judaism. Around the same time of this process, the Rabbinical School at Jamnia (Yavneh) under Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, decided that what was canonical for Judaism was only those books which had already been accepted as Scripture and were found in the Hebrew language. This eliminated most of the Apocrypha which was found mostly in Greek and Latin (but the book of Ecclesiasticus - "Ben Sirach" - has now been found in Hebrew and considered canonical by the Dead Sea community of Jews) as well as elevating the ''Hebrew'' Scriptures over just the Scriptures of Israel no matter in which language. Eventually over time, not only did the Septuagint drop out of Jewish usage, but so did the other Greek translations.
They were replaced by various translations of the Bible into Aramaic, one of the best known of these was the translation by Onkelos, a convert to Judaism, although Jewish scholars still used the Hebrew translation of the Bible, the laity preferred the Aramaic translations because Hebrew became out of use expect for Jewish scholars.

===="Jamnia" and Protestantism====
Though the connection of Jamnia and Protestantism is little known, it is a real one and one that exerted much influence on the developing Protestant Church and its outlook. The Hebrew canon of Scripture with its emphasis on Hebrew language originals sanctioned at Jamnia, which would exclude the Jewish but Greek language books we now know as Intertestamental or Apocryphal, would be the basis of a continuing textual study and ammendation according to the passing on of readings and comments by succeeding Jewish authorities, scholars, and rabbis. This work would be carried on through the fifth century, the time of the Masoretes - the "tradition (of Scripture) bearers". The receiving and handing on of how Scripture texts were to be read and sung, and what they meant.

When the [[Renaissance]] took hold in Europe, great interest was shown in the rediscovering both of the Greek classics, entailing the renewed study of Greek for this purpose, and the study of Hebrew language. Here now was the possibility for many scholars, and the emerging Protestant ones among them, to study the Hebrew Scriptures directly in the original language instead of the necessity of working through the Greek ([[Septuagint]]) and Latin ([[Vulgate]]) translations. But the Hebrew source resorted to by these scholars was the [[Masoretic]] text - following the School of Jamnia - without the Apocrypha. From then on, the heritage and perspective of the Protestant Reformation churches was that the Bible excluded the Apocrypha, though some of the churches would use the Apocrypha as "secondary" readings.

===The Talmud===
In Israel, there arose a literature, mainly in the common Hebrew of the day. It is known as the Mishna ("secondary"). This was primarily the recordings of discussions of Biblical laws with view to application to the present life and experience of Jews in Israel and in the [[diaspora]]. Changing conditions required more current applications. The Mishna developed over four centuries (200 B.C. to 200 A.D.) and is divided into 6 orders, numerous tractates, and smaller units (mishnayot). Most of the Mishna is comprised of "''Halakha''"- that is, legal discussions, decisions, having, in many cases, enforceable applications either by the Jewish community directly or by the Roman or otherwise authorities. The non legal aspects of the Mishna - the anecdotes, stories, remembrances of the rabbinic lives, etc. are called ''Aggadah'' ("the telling").

The Palestinian Hebrew Mishna, having spread to Mesopotamia, came to be regulatory to the Babylonian Jews, and, as the Mishna had become a "commentary" on the Hebrew Bible, so the Babylonian Jews developed a commentary on the Mishna itself. This was called the Gemara ("completion") and is in their own language, [[Aramaic]]. The formation of the Gemara took from 200 A.D. to 500 A.D. The whole Talmud then was a work of 700 years. The Mishna and the Gemara together is called the Talmud ("the Learning"). The Talmud then became regulatory until modern times for Jewish life elsewhere with but a few non-mainstream groups not accepting it.

The process of G-d sanctioned and ordained commentary (the Talmud) on the Scriptures is a legacy of the one movement that survived the first century Roman destruction of the temple and Jewish authority in Israel. The [[Saduccees]] disappeared as did the [[Essenes]] and the Herodians. But not so the [[Pharisees]]. The Pharisees believed that with the written Torah given to Moses on Sinai, there was also an Oral Torah given to him, by which the written was to be interpreted and applied. According to this tradition this Oral Torah was transmitted to others - Joshua, then the seventy, the prophets, and then to certain pairs (Zugot) finally finding its expression through the discussions and decisions embodied in the Talmudic literature. Through this the Jews created over 600 laws that they had to obey. Having a "portable" law and, so to speak, a "constitution" in the Talmud, Jews then were able to survive as Jews when they no longer had a land to live in and define them.

==Dietary laws==
Observant Jews follow a strict and complex set of rules governing what they may eat and drink. Permissible foods are called ''[[kosher]].'' Per Biblical commandments, only animals that chew their cud and have cloven hooves may be eaten and they must be properly slaughtered. Fish must have fins and scales. Dairy products cannot be mixed with meat from animals or birds. Vegetables must be checked for insects, as insects are considered "treyf," meaning not kosher. Additional rules apply during [[Pesach]].

==Life cycle==
Jewish boys are circumcised eight days after birth. They become adults for religious purposes when they turn 13, and event marked by a ceremony called a [[Bar Mitzvah]]. Similar ceremonies for girls when they turn 12, called [[Bat Mitzvah]], were introduced in in the 20th century.

[[Jewish law]] only recognizes marriages between Jews. [[Divorce]] is permitted, but there are exacting rules that must be followed for the divorce to be valid, including the husband presenting a bill of divorce (''Get'') to his wife.

Jewish law requires bodies to be buried promptly, preferably no later than the day after death. [[Cremation]] is not permitted. There are prescribed stages of [[mourning]] for the first year after the death of a close relative (parent, sibling, spouse of child). The anniversary of such a death is observed with gifts to [[charity]] and the recitation of a prayer, ''[[Kaddish]],'' praising God's name.

==See also==
* [[Bible]]
* [[Israel]]
* [[Israel Tourism]]
* [[Synagogue]]
* [[Orthodox Judaism]]
* [[Jewish Republican]]
* [[Passover Seder]]
* [[Hebrew]]
* [[Aramaic]]
* [[Aramaic Church]]
* [[Had Gadya]]
* [[Kaddish]]
* [[Midrash]]
* [[Targum]]
* [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==External links==
* [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html Internet Jewish History Sourcebook]
* [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ Jewish Virtual Library]
* [http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm Judaism 101] Tracey R Rich.
* [http://www.jewishstudies.virtualave.net/ Academic Jewish Studies Internet Directory]
* [http://www.AskMoses.com AskMoses.com for questions about Judaism]
* [http://www.Chabad.org Chabad's Website]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/jews/ What Liberals Say - Category: Jews], [[Accuracy In Media]]
* [http://www.aish.com Aish.com/]
* [http://www.beingjewish.com/ BeingJewish.com]
* [http://jewishanswers.com/ JewishAnswers.com]
* [http://torah.org/ Torah.org]
* [http://simpletoremember.com SimpleToRemember.com]
* [http://njop.org National Jewish Outreach Program (outreaches to assimilated Jews)]
* [http://ArtScroll.com ArtScroll.com]
* [http://Shamash.org Shamash.org]
* [http://shemayisrael.com/ ShemaYisrael.com]
* [http://jewishworldreview.com/ JewishWorldReview.com]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Judaism|*]]

George Washington

2008-12-09T01:51:42Z

FernoKlump: sp

{{President
|image=George washington 3.jpg
|seq=1
|party=None
|term_start=1789
|term_end=1797
|vp=John Adams
|previous=
|next=John Adams
|birth_date=February 22, 1732
|birth_place=Westmoreland County, Virginia
|death_date=December 14, 1799
|death_place=Mount Vernon, Virginia
|spouse=[[Martha Dandridge Custis Washington]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Anglican]]/[[Episcopalian]]
}}

'''George Washington''' (1732-1799) was the first [[President of the United States]] (1789-1797) and commander in chief of the [[Continental Army]]. He was the dominant military and political leader of the new [[United States of America]] from 1775-1797, leading the American victory over the [[Great Britain]] in the [[American Revolution]] and was the unanimous choice to serve as president. Along with [[Abraham Lincoln]], he has become the foremost icon of American nationalism and a model of ideal [[Republicanism|republican]] political and military leadership.

Washington endeared himself Americans by fighting to destroy monarchy, aristocracy and rule by military elites. He emulated the model of the citizen-soldier set by the Roman leader [[Cincinnatus]], a comparison drew worldwide attention and acclaim, even in Britain, the nation he defeated.<ref>For Lord Byron's poem on the subject, hailing Washington as "the first, the last, the best, the Cincinnatus of the West," see http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/2001/byron0101.html.</ref> The archetype of Washington as the citizen-soldier has become part of America's collective idealization of citizenship, and is immortalized in New York City's [[Washington Square Arch]], which depicts Washington the soldier on the left, and Washington the statesman on the right.<ref>For photographic images, see http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GV/GV046WashingtonSquareArch.htm</ref>

[[Image:Georgewashington.jpg|right|President George Washington]]
==Early Life==
Washington was born on Feb. 22, 1732, at Wakefield, [[Virginia]] to Augustine Washington, a wealthy planter, and his second wife, Mary Ball. He was home schooled by his father and older half-brother Lawrence, and in later life read widely. His interests were in land, in surveying, and in farming. His father died in 1743, and George lived with Lawrence. Lawrence died in 1752. Washington inherited the plantation and joined the local upper class.

===Military experience===
In 1748 he joined an expedition sent out by the sixth Lord Fairfax to survey his lands in the Shenandoah Valley. Washington was eager for a military career. The first step came in October 1753 when the lieutenant governor Robert Dinwiddie sent him to warn the French at Presque Isle (now Erie, PA.) and Fort Le Boeuf (now Waterford, PA) against making further encroachments on British-claimed territory in the Ohio Valley. The 11-week journey, some 500 miles (800 km) round-trip, was dangerous, as Washington evaded hostile [[Native American|Indians]] (allied to the French). He reported back that a frontier conflict was imminent with [[France]].

In April 1754 Washington returned to the Ohio country as lieutenant colonel in command of a volunteer force with the mission of checking the French and protecting an expedition sent out by the Ohio Company of Virginia to build a fort on the Ohio River, at what is now [[Pittsburgh]]. Washington discovered the French had reached the site first. They called it Fort Duquesne. In May he fired on a party of French soldiers, killing ten, including their leader, Jumonville. The French now could cite the attack on Jumonville as a cause of war. This was Washington's first battle and the first engagement of the [[French and Indian War]].

On July 3 at Fort Necessity he was attacked by superior French forces led by Jumonville's brother and was compelled to surrender. The terms offered were generous and Washington returned to Virginia. Washington was criticized for his imprudence, and relations cooled between him and Dinwiddie.

To meet the French threat the British sent Maj. Gen. Edward Braddock and two under-strength regiments of British regulars to Virginia. Washington served as aide-de-camp to Braddock on his expedition to capture Fort Duquesne. Braddock was ambushed and killed by the French and Indians in July; Washington displayed courage and initiative in halting the rout that followed.

In August 1755 he was promoted to colonel and made commander in chief of all Virginia forces, responsible for the defense of a 350-mile (560-km) frontier against French and Indian attack. It was a difficult challenge militarily, but Washington met it and learned the administrative needs of commanding a major force. He was on the defensive throughout 1756 and 1757, but in 1758 he accompanied Brig. Gen. John Forbes and a large force to attack Fort Duquesne. They discovered the French had left and there was no combat. Washington returned to Virginia and resigned his commission at the end of 1758. For him, as for Virginia, the French and Indian War was over. He had been bloodied in combat, was an acknowledged leader of Virginia soldiers, knew the frontier better than anyone, and had a sterling reputation. On the other hand he had demonstrated no remarkable strategic or tactical skills, and had displayed rashness in action against Jumonville. Washington, a very tall strong man, demonstrated great physical courage and endurance, qualities much admired in a military leader.

Ellis (2004) concludes Washington was influenced by the East, where he picked up the deferential world of British patronage and hierarchy and curried favor from the well-connected Fairfax family, but failed to get a permanent commission in the British army. From the West came experiences on the Ohio frontier, where Washington carried out surveying expeditions and military campaigns against the French and Indians. Going to war instead of to college, Ellis concludes, scarred and immunized Washington against idealism.

===Planter and family life===
On Jan. 6, 1759, Washington married Martha Dandridge Custis, a widow with two children. Washington had no children of his own, but he later adopted two of his wife's grandchildren: George Washington Parke Custis and Eleanor Custis, who married Washington's nephew Lawrence. The marriage was a comfortably happy one. It made him rich, for the Custis plantation covered some 17,000 acres and included 300 slaves and a town house in [[Williamburg, Virginia|Williamsburg]]. Washington proved himself an able and active manager, with a keen interest in scientific agriculture and land speculation. He bought up unoccupied western lands shrewdly, even in advance of permission from London. Unlike most planters, he foresaw the risks involved in a concentration on [[tobacco]] and diversified his crops. He grew wheat as well as tobacco on his Potomac farms, and by 1772 he was exporting both fish and flour to the West Indies. By 1774 he was one of the wealthiest of landowners at a time when ownership of land involved the administration of managers, overseers, tenants, and slaves; the keeping of accounts with the tobacco factors in Britain; and the ordering from England of most tools, furniture and clothing.

The local gentry controlled local government. Washington became a vestryman (in charge of the local [[Anglican]] church) and a justice of the peace. From 1758 to 1765 he was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses for Frederick County, and from 1765 for Fairfax, although he took little part in affairs in Williamsburg. He was not a debater, speaker or pamphleteer, but nevertheless struck a conspicuous figure as a man of sound military, political and economic judgment. He had shown particular concern over bounty land due to the veterans of the French and Indian War, and he knew the Virginia frontier at first hand. Washington was America's first great entrepreneur, who saw the future of a diversified economy even in the South and achieved it for himself at least; who saw the future of the West and invested in it; and who directed all his activities with a careful and rather cold efficiency.

==American Revolution==

Washington's path to revolution reflected the American ideology of [[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]]; indeed, it provides "an almost textbook example of the Radical Whig ideology that historians have made the central feature of scholarship on the American Revolution for the past forty years."<ref>Ellis (2004) p. 62</ref> Personal experiences on multiple levels convinced Washington there was indeed a a British conspiracy to enslave the colonies, as he saw imperial policies constantly limiting and restricting his prized autonomy. In his quests for a commission in the redcoat army, for western land, and for economic independence from British consignment merchants, Washington found himself losing out, becoming a helpless dependent.

Washington and the Continental Army triumphed by driving the 10,000 British out of [[Boston]] in March 1776. The tide turned; Washington barely survived humiliating defeats the defense of New York City that fall. He revived the nation's fortunes by crossing the Delaware River and defeating British forces in stunning victories at Trenton and Princeton over the winter of 1776-77.
[[Image:washington-deleware.jpg|400px|right|thumb|''Washington Crossing the Delaware'', by Emmanuel Leutze, 1850]]

As Ellis (2004) argues, the June 1775-March 1776 siege of Boston was the formative event in Washington's development as a military and political leader, for it was there that he first responded to the logistical problems inherent to the American cause in the Revolutionary War with his trademark determination, leadership ability, and sound decision making. He also, however, exhibited a stubborn, aloof, severe personality that "virtually precluded intimacy." Washington, dubbed "His Excellency" by the adoring American public, also became acquainted with many of his future staff members and lieutenants during this period. The British were forced out of Boston and every place in America, which declared its independence and became "the United States of America" on July 4, 1776.

[[King George III]] personally demanded the rebellion be suppressed. He sent two-thirds of his army, and half of the Royal Navy in "the largest projection of seaborne power ever attempted by a European power."<ref>Fischer (2004) p. 33</ref> The British sent 23,000 regular troops under experienced officers and sergeants, and another 10,000 trained Hessians (hired Germans) supported by 70 warships. The ocean off the entire [[Atlantic Ocean|Atlantic]] coast came under British control, shutting down the large American merchant marine. In the face of this, Washington's forces melted away. He had more than 28,000 men under his command at the end of August when the British landed. After losing badly in New York City, at the beginning of December he had a mere 6,800. But he used them in an audacious Christmas-day attack that destroyed the Hessian garrison at Trenton, New Jersey <ref>Hessians lost 896 captured, 22 killed and 83 seriously wounded. Washington lost two men killed in battle, two more frozen to death, and eight wounded. Fischer (2004) pp. 254-5. </ref> and defeated the British outpost at Princeton, New Jersey. Threatened by Washington and harassed by patriotic farmer-marksmen, the British withdrew from the state of [[New Jersey]].

[[Image:Am-Rev.jpg|thumb|560px|left|Advantages (top) and disadvantages (bottom) General Washington had to cope with during the Revolution]]

In 1777 he tricked the British into dividing their forces so that one British army under General Howe confronted (and defeated) Washington in unimportant battles near [[Philadelphia]], while the main British army under general Cornwallis was forced to surrender at Saratoga, in upstate New York. This great American victory at Saratoga enabling the French to enter the war officially and make it an even contest militarily.

When the British moved in fall 1777 to capture the national capital at Philadelphia, Washington moved south to stop them, but was defeated by Howe at Brandywine (Sept 11) and Germantown (Oct 4). The British wintered in comfort in the city while Washington's army, 11,000 strong at first, had stark quarters at Valley Forge nearby. "The whole of them," said Gen. John Sullivan, were "without watch coats, one half without blankets, and more than one third without shoes . . . many of them without jackets...and not a few without shirts." Rations were scarce, as the local farmers refused to accept Continental money. Exhausted and ill, hundreds deserted to go home to their farms. Washington warned Congress: "unless some great and capital change suddenly takes place... this army must inevitably...starve, dissolve or disperse." Many in Congress grumbled about Washington's leadership and there was talk of promoting his chief critic, General Thomas Conway. However Congress and the army realized Washington was indispensable, and he remained in charge. The bright note was that Washington brought in a highly skilled European officer, General [[Friedrich von Steuben]], who systematically trained the officers and sergeants in the latest drills and maneuvering techniques of the Prussian army.<ref> Quotes from Freeman 4:570, 568.</ref>
===Victory in the South 1780-81===
The British made one last major effort in 1780-81, invading South Carolina (and remote Georgia) in the hopes of rallying enough Loyalists to break off the southern states. Washington kept the main British army bottled up in New York City, as the southern campaigns turned into [[guerrilla warfare]] and assassination squads. The British realized they had failed and moved their army to Yorktown, Virginia, awaiting the Royal Navy to take it to New York. The British fleet did show up but was defeated by a stronger French fleet. Washington meanwhile moved his entire army and the French army to Yorktown, where they forced the British to surrender in October 1781. King George III wanted to fight on even after losing two of his three combat armies but he lost control of [[Parliament]] and the American war was over. When the peace treaty was finalized in 1783, Washington triumphantly marched into New York City. Then to the astonishment of the world, Washington--by now the most famous man in the world, disbanded his army and went home to his plantation, setting a standard of republican belief in the civilian supremacy.

==Constitution==
Long before most of his contemporaries, Washington realized that independence could not be guaranteed without a standing army and that a nation strong enough to defend itself and to control the West could not exist without a central taxing power and a competent executive authority. All of those things, he admitted. ran directly counter to anti-tax, anti-centralizing sentiments that animated the Revolution. But they were necessary nonetheless, Washington insisted throughout the 1780s. Ellis (2004) concludes that Washington, succeeded in reconciling those contradictions and playing the difficult role of a semi-monarchical republican leader because he understood so well the proper use of power and could project "onto the national screen ... the same kind of controlling authority he had orchestrated within his own personality."<ref> Ellis 2004 p. 274</ref>

==First President==
Washington entered the presidency with the enthusiastic support of every group in the nation, thus allowing him great freedom in setting up the customs, honors and daily functioning of the new government. Washington surrounded himself with a sophisticated and intelligent group of consultants and supporters and successfully delegated most of the responsibility for the conduct of their offices to those trusted colleagues. He practiced "leading by listening"<ref> Ellis (2004) p. 175</ref>.

One of Washington's greatest achievements was creating the form and style of the new government--a creation that has lasted to this day. The Constitution was vague about administrative details, and under the Confederation the national government was ineffective. Washington created a strong cabinet, with departments of State (foreign affairs), Treasury, War (military and naval affairs), along with an Attorney General. His style was formal but avoided the elaborate ceremonies and costumes of European courts. Washington consulted with his cabinet, but made the decisions himself. He served as his own chief of staff and kept a very small presidential staff in New York City (which was the national capital until it moved to Philadelphia in 1790). He ignored vice president [[John Adams]].

As president Washington employed careful restraint in exercising executive power (to prevent a backlash against centralization), and practiced calculated postponement of potentially lethal issues such as foreign war or ending slavery. His was restrained regarding such issues as the power of the Supreme Court and the abolition of slavery (he quietly favored gradual emancipation), and his absence from early pronouncements in favor of Hamilton's financial plans, allowed him to develop both a nation and an office that appeared above the day-to-day political battles. However, he played a leading role in the struggle to locate the permanent national capital in the District of Columbia and in making military and foreign policy. He believed America's future interests did not depend on Europe but on the people and lands to the nation's west. Washington's vision led to a restrained but effective use of the power of the executive office and the foundations for a strong national government.<ref> Ellis, "Inventing the Presidency." ''American Heritage'' 2004 </ref>
[[Image:Georgewashington.jpg|right|President George Washington]]

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

<blockquote>
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be--That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions--to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

</blockquote>

===Hamiltonian policies===
By far the most important innovations came from Treasury Secretary [[Alexander Hamilton]]. Washington gave strong support to Hamilton's successful programs, all approved by Congress, to take over the state debts, to fund the new national debt through a tariff on imports, and to crate a national bank, the first Bank of the United States. [[Thomas Jefferson]], the Secretary of State, opposed all these programs but was defeated. Hamilton set up a national network of supporters that became the [[Federalist Party]]. Washington never joined the party, but he supported most of its policies and became its iconic symbol. Jefferson and Madison set up the rival Republican party (called by historians the [[Democratic-Republican Party]]. and both parties set up newspapers that engaged in nasty invective. Washington became the target of intense attacks from the Jeffersonian Republicans.
====Whiskey Rebellion, 1794====
Washington decided on decisive action to suppress the [[Whiskey Rebellion]], in which angry farmers in western Pennsylvania were protesting the new federal tax on whiskey. he called on governors to supply militia units, which they did. Washington rode at the head of a strong army into Pennsylvania and the rebellion collapsed without a confrontation.
===French Revolution===
Washington had not traveled outside the U.S. (apart from a brief visit to Bermuda), and paid little attention to European affairs. When the French Revolution led to war in 1793 between Britain (America's leading trading partner), and France (the old ally, with a treaty still in effect), Washington and his cabinet decided on a policy of neutrality. Washington supported the [[Jay's Treaty]], designed by Hamilton to avoid war with Britain and encourage commerce. The Jeffersonians vehemently opposed the treaty, but Washington's support proved decisive, and the U.S. and Britain were on friendly terms for a decade.
===Farewell Address===
Washington reluctantly served a second term, beginning in 1793, but by 1796 he was exhausted and insisted on not running again. (He died two years into the term of his successor, John Adams.) His Farewell Address, partly drafted by Hamilton, remains a classic statement of republicanism, calling on Americans to practice civic virtue and avoid alliances with the warring parties in Europe.
===Retirement and death: 1797-99===
Washington returned to his beloved Mount Vernon, but his health continued to decline. In 1798 he accepted appointment as head of a new national army designed to fight the French in a threatened war. His role was nominal, as Hamilton was in effective command.

Washington died in 1799 from acute epiglottitis during an influenza epidemic. Attending physicians could not agree whether his condition was cynanche, an inflammation of the throat that was believed to require powerful remedies, or something that would require less radical therapeutic interventions than those his physicians had prescribed.<ref>Ben Cohen, Ben. "The Death of George Washington (1732-99) and the History of Cynanche." ''Journal of Medical Biography'' 2005 13(4): 225-231. Issn: 0967-7720 </ref>

==Family and personality==
[[Image:Washington Family 1796.jpg|thumb|The Washington Family, 1796 by [[Edward Savage]].]]

Although he had no children, Washington enjoyed a happy family life and especially enjoyed management of his tobacco plantation.

As Henriques (2006) stresses, Washington was driven by a lifelong quest for fame. He zealously guarded his reputation and took great care to ensure that he always acted properly and that he received due acknowledgment for his propriety. Washington prided himself on his honorable actions and was inordinately sensitive to criticism. Ellis (2004) stresses that Washington learned to discipline his emotions as an essential survival skill while facing dangers as a young officer in the Seven Year's War. That capacity for self-control, outwardly manifested in his famous aloofness, served Washington well again during the Revolution, not only by insulating him from criticism, but also by enabling him to curb his ambitions sufficiently to give up power at the end of the war. This earned him the universally honorable reputation that he so ardently desired.

===Slavery===
Critics argue that Washington's status as a slaveholder, his treatment of his slaves, and his condoning of the institution of slavery besmirch his reputation as the "father of our country." Washington's stay at the President's House in Philadelphia was similarly colored by slavery - nine slaves resided both in the house and in adjacent slave quarters. As a slaveholder, Washington personally struggled to balance the moral injustice of the institution with harsh realities, such as the fact that his own slaves were intermarried with those of his wife, whom he could not legally free. In his will, Washington emancipated his 123 slaves and provided financial support for the elderly and vocational training for the young. He acted in part to remove the only stain on his carefully cultivated reputation.

===Memory and memorials===
The nation is filled with memorials in the names of states, cities and institutions, all topped by the Washington Monument.

==Christianity==
Washington was a devout Christian, with his adopted daughter once stating that: <blockquote>"If you question Washington's faith, you may as well question whether or not he was a patriot."<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html</ref></blockquote>

[[Image:W-pray.jpg|right|250px|thumb|''"I was riding with Mr. Potts near to the Valley Forge where the army lay during the war of ye Revolution, when Mr. Potts said, 'Do you see that woods & that plain? There laid the army of Washington. It was a most distressing time of ye war, and all were for giving up the Ship but that great and good man. In that woods (pointing to a close in view) I heard a plaintive sound as of a man at prayer. I tied my horse to a sapling & went quietly into the woods. To my astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis & the cause of the country, of humanity & of the world. Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man. I left him alone praying. I went home & told my wife. We never thought a man could be a soldier & a Christian, but if there is one in the world, it is Washington. We thought it was the cause of God & America could prevail."'' From ''Diary and Remembrances,'' by Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden (1770-1851), who received it from an eyewitness to the scene, Valley Forge resident Isaac Potts.]]
Washington frequently invoked Christianity in his work and believed in the deep friendship between religion and government. As General, he commanded that chaplains be included in every regiment:

<blockquote>"The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-02-22&view=View</ref></blockquote>

Washington declared in his Inaugural Address:

<blockquote>"It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential agency."<ref>''Id.''</ref></blockquote> Comments such as this one have led some modern historians to conclude that Washington was a deist rather than a Christian.

Of course Washington has also been quoted as saying: <blockquote>"You do well to wish to learn our arts and way of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ... Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.<ref>Original Intent, David Barton, 2004, Pg. 168</ref></blockquote>

Washington declared in his Farewell Address: <blockquote>"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." <ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r106:4:./temp/~r1068i99iE:e2427: Reading of Washington's Farewell Address -- (Senate - February 22, 2000)]</ref></blockquote>

In 1799, George Washington created his own last will and testament. Washington begins with "In the name of God, Amen".

Washington cherished his [[Bible]] so much that he includes the following sentence in his will "To the Reverend, now Bryan, Lord Fairfax, I give a Bible in three large folio volumes, with notes, presented to me by the Right Reverend Thomas Wilson" <ref>[http://www.ashbrook.org/library/18/washington/will.html Last Will and Testament] Ashbrook Center</ref>

==Freemason==
On November 4, 1752, Washington was initiated into Freemasonry at Fredricksburg Lodge, Fredricksburg, Virginia. He was passed and raised at the same lodge, becoming a Master Mason on August 4, 1753. He later served as Worshipful Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in Alexandria, Virginia. Upon his death in 1799, he was given a Masonic funeral at his wife's request.<ref>http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/washington_g/washington_g.html</ref>

==Parson Weems And The Cherry Tree Story==
In 1809, Mason Locke Weems (1756-1825), usually referred to as "Parson Weems," published a book entitled ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' This book contained many fanciful stories and half-truths, intended to present Washington as a larger-than-life figure. Perhaps the most famous passage in it is Weems' recounting of a story which he attributed to an unnamed "aged lady, who was a distant relative [of Washington], and, when a girl, spent much of her time in the [Washington] family:"

:"When George," said she, "was about six years old, he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping everything that came in his way. One day, in the garden, where he often amused himself hacking his mother's pea-sticks, he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry-tree, which he barked so terribly, that I don't believe the tree ever got the better of it. The next morning the old gentleman, finding out what had befallen his tree, which, by the by, was a great favorite, came into the house; and with much warmth asked for the mischievous author, declaring at the same time, that he would not have taken five guineas for his tree. Nobody could tell him anything about it. Presently George and his hatchet made their appearance. "George," said his father," do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?" This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all-conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet."—"Run to my arms, you dearest boy," cried his father in transports, "run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold."<ref>British spellings are as they appear in the original text.</ref><ref>Weems, George Mason (1918), ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/chap2.html Chapter 2: Birth and Education], online at University of Virginia]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22316477&id=6tc56rgYE1YC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=mason+locke+weems&as_brr=1#PPP13,M1 The Life of George Washington] with Curious Anecdotes Equally Honorable to Himself, and Exemplary to his Young Countrymen. 1837, facsimile page images at Google Books</ref>

(Notice that Weems did not represent Washington as calling it "my ''little'' hatchet;" that appears to be a "familiar misquotation.")

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President Washington was grouped in the "Great" group, ranked 1st, with a mean score of 4.92 out of 5.00. <ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

==George Washington's expenses==
[[Image:Trumbull G. Washington.jpg|right|200px]]
Washington was magnanimous enough to lead the Revolutionary Forces against Great Britain for free, saying:

<blockquote>''Sir, I beg leave to assure the Congress that as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to have accepted this arduous employment, I do not wish to make any profit from it. I will keep an exact account of my expenses. Those I doubt not they will discharge, and that is all I desire.''</blockquote>

It should be noted that some people will try to create a controversy where none exists. For instance certain recent writers will note that Washington's expenses in his eight years of generalship came to nearly $500,000 – well over $4 million in today's money.<ref>http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/washington/</ref> while leaving out that the Continental dollar in use at that time was next to worthless, requiring large quantities to buy even basic supplies, and it got worse during the war. We only have accounts of Washington's expense statements because Washington himself was meticulous in creating and keeping his expenses and turning them over to Congress. It should also be noted that Congress paid them all, to the penny, and never showed any reservation.

Once he had been elected President, Washington once again offered to forgo a salary and only have his expenses paid. Congress felt the position required a salary, and instead gave Washington $25,000 a year for his services, a meaningful amount as the currency situation of the United States had stabilized.

==Speeches from George Washington==
*[[George Washington's First Inaugural Speech]]
*[[George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress]]
*[[George Washington's Second Inaugural Address]]
*[[George Washington's Farewell Address]]
==Quotes from George Washington==

*The freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. (To THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY, Head Quarters, Newburgh, March 15, 1783, from ''The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources, '' ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, (Washington: U.S. GPO, 1931-1944)26: 224

*Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ("FAREWELL ADDRESS" in ''Writings,'' 35:229.)

*There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily. (To THE SECRETARY OF STATE in ''Writings,''34:266.)

----
==Bibliography==
===Interpretations===
* Cunliffe, Marcus. ''Washington: Man and Monument'' (1958),
* Ellis, Joseph J. ''His Excellency: George Washington'' (2004), by Pulitzer prize winner
* Ellis, Joseph J. "Inventing the Presidency." ''American Heritage'' 2004 55(5): 42-48, 50, 52-53. Issn: 0002-8738 Fulltext: online at Ebsco.
* Henriques, Peter R. ''Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington.'' (2006).
* Higginbotham, Don. ''George Washington: Uniting a Nation'' (2002)
* Higginbotham, Don, ed. ''George Washington Reconsidered''. (2001). 336 pp.
* Wood, Gordon S. "The Greatness of George Washington." ''Virginia Quarterly Review'' 1992 68(2): 189-207. Issn: 0042-675x Fulltext: in Ebsco

===Biographies===
* Alden, John R. ''George Washington: A Biography'' (1984)
* Ferling, John E. ''The First of Men: A Life of George Washington'' (1988)
* Flexner, James Thomas. ''Washington: The Indispensable Man'' (1974). short version of Flexner, ''George Washington,'' 4 vols. (1965–1972). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98849444 vol 1 online, 1732-1775]
* Freeman, Douglas Southall, ''George Washington,'' 7 vols. (1948–1957); Pulitzer prize; a one-volume condensed version appeared in 1968 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=62946671 vol 1 online]
===Military===
* Alden, John Richard. ''A History of the American Revolution'' (1969).
* Bodle, Wayne. ''Valley Forge Winter: Civilians and Soldiers in War'' (2002)
* Buchanan, John. ''The Road to Valley Forge: How Washington Built the Army That Won the Revolution'' (2004) 368 pp.. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106756208 online edition]
* Fischer, David Hackett. ''Washington's Crossing'' (2004), Pulitzer prize winner; study of 1776-77 [http://blog.oup.com/2006/02/washingtons_cro online excerpt]
* Higginbotham, Don. ''George Washington and the American Military Tradition'' (1985);
* Higginbotham, Don. ''The War of American Independence: Military Attitudes, Policies, and Practice, 1763–1789'' (1971). an analytical history of the war
* Lengel, Edward G. ''General George Washington: A Military Life.'' (2005). 450 pp
* McCullough, David. ''1776.'' 386 pp.
* Reed, John F. ''Campaign to Valley Forge: July 1, 1777–December 19, 1777'' (1965)
* Royster, Charles. ''A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775–1783'' (1979)
* Taaffe, Stephen R. ''The Philadelphia Campaign, 1777–1778'' (2003).
* Ward, Christopher. ''The War of the Revolution,'' 2 vols., 1952, a good narrative of all the major battles.
* Wrong, George M. ''Washington and His Comrades in Arms: A Chronicle of the War of Independence'' (1921) by a Canadian scholar [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2704 online edition]
* ''West Point Atlas'' [http://www.military.com/Resources/HistorySubmittedFileView?file=history_americanrevolution_maps.htm online version]; the maps are public domain and not copyrighted

[[Image:Washington1.jpg|thumb|250px|print from 1790s]]

===Political===
* Bassett, John Spencer. ''The Federalist System, 1789–1801'' (1906), survey of politics [http://books.google.com/books/pdf/____The_Federalist_System__1789_1801.pdf?vid=OCLC64662233&id=tcQtUqwJCT8C&output=pdf&sig=JEsIhspA7Iw74WFJWe0zHeZU57k online version],
* Chernow, Ron. <cite>Alexander Hamilton</cite>. Penguin Books, (2004) (ISBN 1-59420-009-2). detailed biography
* Cronin, Thomas F., ed. ''Inventing the American Presidency.'' U. Press of Kansas, 1989. 404 pp.
* Deconde, Alexander. ''Entangling Alliance: Politics & Diplomacy under George Washington'' (1958) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14354962 online edition]
* Elkins, Stanley M. and Eric McKitrick. ''The Age of Federalism.'' (1994) the leading scholarly history of the 1790s. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-age-of-federalism-by-stanley-elkins-eric-mckitrick.jsp online edition]
* Fishman, Ethan M.; William D. Pederson, Mark J. Rozell, eds. ''George Washington'' (2001) essays by scholars
* Flaumenhaft; Harvey. ''The Effective Republic: Administration and Constitution in the Thought of Alexander Hamilton'' Duke University Press, 1992
* Grizzard, Frank E., Jr. ''George Washington: A Biographical Companion.'' ABC-CLIO, 2002. 436 pp. Comprehensive encyclopedia by leading scholar
* Gregg II, Gary L. and Matthew Spalding, eds. ''George Washington and the American Political Tradition.'' ISI (1999), essays by scholars
* Leibiger, Stuart. "Founding Friendship: George Washington, James Madison, and the Creation of the American Republic." U. Press of Virginia, 1999. 284 pp.
*McDonald, Forrest. ''The Presidency of George Washington''. 1988. Intellectual history showing Washington as exemplar of republicanism.
* Miller, John C. ''The Federalist Era, 1789-1801'' (1960), political survey of 1790s.
*Miller, John C. ''Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox'' (1959), full-length scholarly biography; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/alexander-hamilton-portrait-in-paradox-by-john-c-miller.jsp online edition]
* Morgan, Philip D. "'To Get Quit of Negroes': George Washington and Slavery.'' ''Journal of American Studies'' 2005 39(3): 403-429. Issn: 0021-8758
* Novak, Michael and Novak, Jana. ''Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country.'' 2006. 282 pp. Rejects idea that Washington was a deist; he kept his religion private amd was probably a Christian
* Nordham, George W. ''The Age of Washington: George Washington's Presidency, 1789-1797.'' (1989).
* Pogue, Dennis J. "George Washington: Slave Master." ''American History'' 2004 38(6): 52-61. Issn: 1076-8866 Fulltext: in Ebsco, popular history
* Rozell, Mark J., William D. Pederson, Frank J. Williams. ''George Washington and the Origins of the American Presidency'' 2000 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=26469391 online edition]
* Riccards, Michael P. ''A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundations of the American Presidency, 1700-1800.'' (1987)
* Sharp, James. ''American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis.'' (1995), survey of politics in 1790s
* Smith, Robert W. ''Keeping the Republic: Ideology and Early American Diplomacy.'' (2004)
* Spalding, Matthew. "George Washington's Farewell Address." ''The Wilson Quarterly'' v20#4 (Autumn 1996) pp: 65+.
* White, Leonard D. ''The Federalists: A Study in Administrative History'' (1956), thorough analysis of the mechanics of government in 1790s
* Henry Wiencek. ''An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America,'' 2003. 404 pp.

==Primary sources==
* George Washington. ''Writings'' (1997) (Library of America edition) 440 letters and key documents, 1184pp [http://loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=5&section=toc online table of contents]
===Large editions===
Four major editions of Washington's writings have appeared:<ref> See [http://loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=5&section=notes] for details</ref>
* ''The Writings of George Washington,'' edited by Jared Sparks (12 volumes, 1833-37)
* ''The Writings of George Washington,'' edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (14 volumes, 1889-93) [http://books.google.com/books?q=ford+%22Writings+of+George+Washington%2C%27%27&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=1 online volumes]
* ''The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799,'' edited by John C. Fitzpatrick (39 volumes, 1931-44). [http://www.questia.com online at [[Questia]]]
* ''The Papers of George Washington,'' edited by W. W. Abbot, Dorothy Twohig, and others, is ongoing; 48 volumes have been published since 1976, and when complete this edition will be the most comprehensive edition so far. See [http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/volumes/order.html] for details
** Washington, George. ''The Papers of George Washington Colonial Series'' Volumes 1-10 (complete)
** Washington, George. ''The Papers of George Washington Revolutionary War Series'' Volumes 1-16
** Washington, George. ''The Papers of George Washington Confederation Series'' Volumes 1-6 (complete)
** Washington, George. ''The Papers of George Washington: Presidential Series'' University Press of Virginia. Latest volume is Vol. 12: January-May 1793. ed by Philander D. Chase, 2005. 708 pp.
** Washington, George. ''The Papers of George Washington Retirement Series'' Volumes 1-4 (complete)
* ''Documents of the American Revolution, 1770-1783'' Ed. by K.G. Davies. 21 vols. (Irish Academic University Press, 1972), all the important British documents

====notes====
<references/>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html White House biography]
*[http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/index.html Papers of George Washington at the University of Virginia]
*[http://www.livingtrustnetwork.com/content/lwt/wills/washingtonwill.php Last will and testament]
*[http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/gwlife/ Text of the 1807 biography by David Ramsey]
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html White House biography]
*[http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/ PBS biography]
*[http://georgewashington.si.edu/ Smithsonian Institute biography]
*[http://www.mountvernon.org/ George Washington's Mount Vernon Estate]
*[http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/gwashington.html Internet Public Library, list of links]
*[http://gw.ffc.navy.mil/ USS ''George Washington'' CVN-73]

{{USPresidents}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Washington, George}}

[[Category: American Revolutionary War Commanders]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Founding Fathers]]
[[Category:George Washington]]

F/A-18 Hornet

2008-12-09T01:49:54Z

FernoKlump: sp

The '''F/A-18 Hornet''' is the US [[United States Navy|Navy]]'s most versatile [[aircraft carrier|carrier]]-based [[aircraft]]. The official designation (F/A-18 Hornet, although often shortened to just F-18 Hornet or Super Hornet), stands for fighter/attack. It is the nation's first all-weather strike-fighter. <ref>[http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1 Fact File] US Navy</ref> Other versions have been modified for air-to-air refueling, [[electronic countermeasures]], and anti-[[submarine]] warfare. It is now the Navy's primary fighter, after the retirement of the [[F-14 Tomcat]].

[[Image:Gw-vfa81-0429.jpg|thumb|right|300px|An F/A-18 prepares for launch onboard USS ''George Washington'' (CVN-73).]]

==Design==

In the 1970s, the Navy had an increasing need for a supersonic, lighter fighter that was more maneuverable than the [[F-14]] and the old [[F-4]]s. There was also a need for an attack aircraft which could replace the aging, slow [[A-7]]. Both of these replacements had to be cheap, with [[military]] funds fairly low. In 1973, the contract was announced. By 1975, the contract had been awarded to [[McDonnell Douglas]]. The first production aircraft was rolled out in 1980.

==Service==
[[Image:F-18_takeoff.jpg‎|thumb|200px|right|An F/A-18 launches in afterburner.]]
The first F/A-18 Hornet went into service with the [[Marine Corps]] in 1983 and with the Navy the same year. In 1986, the [[Blue Angels]] replaced the [[A-4 Skyhawk]] with the F-18. The Hornet saw its first combat on its first carrier deployment, in 1986. Hornets flying from the USS ''Coral Sea'' provided fighter cover for ships and planes off the coast of [[Libya]], and during Operation El Dorado Canyon, F/A-18s supported the US Navy strikes by attacking Libyan radars.<ref>[http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_358.shtml Libyan Wars, 1980-1989]</ref>

Hornets saw extensive use in the [[Gulf War]], being mostly used as ground attack aircraft. On one such mission, however, two Hornet pilots from the USS ''Saratoga'' shot down two [[MiG-21]]s, scoring the first (and so far, only) air-to-air victories for the jet. After downing the Migs, the two pilots completed their attack mission, dropping their bombs on an Iraqi airfield.<ref>[http://www.mdc.com/defense-space/military/fa18/fa18_milestones.htm F/A-18 Hornet Milestones]</ref>

On the early morning of January 17,1991, another Hornet from the ''Saratoga'' became the first Allied loss of the war when it was shot down while attacking an airfield. The pilot, Lt. Commander Michael Speicher, went down with his plane, the first fatality of the Gulf War.<ref>''Desert Storm: Air War'', by Robert F. Dorr, Motorbooks International, 1991</ref> The cause was initially thought to have been anti-aircraft fire, but more recent sources suggest that the plane was downed by an Iraqi [[MiG-25]], which would make this the only air-to-air victory of the Iraqi air force during the war and the first time since the [[Vietnam War]] that America had lost an airplane in aerial combat.<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E6DF1739F937A25751C1A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 A U.S. Team Seeks War Pilot’s Body]</ref><ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/01/14/gulf.war.pilot.01/ Missing U.S. Pilot Dead, Iraq Insists]</ref>

F/A-18s also saw service over the former republic of [[Yugoslavia]] in the 1990s and in Operation Desert Fox over Iraq in 1998.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_fox_orbat_981216.htm Operation Desert Fox Order of Battle]</ref> Early in [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], one Hornet was lost in a [[friendly fire]] incident involving a [[MIM-104 Patriot|Patriot missile]] battery.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030422/ai_n14548094 Friendly fire toll raises concerns about Patriot]</ref> Two others, both Super Hornets, were lost in a mid-air collision over the [[Persian Gulf]] in January 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/07/world/main3683082.shtml 2 Navy Fighter Jets Crash in Persian Gulf]</ref>

Currently, F/A-18 Hornets are operating in 37 tactical squadrons and from 10 aircraft carriers.

==Foreign Users==
Besides the US Navy and the USMC, the Hornet is in the service of a number of foreign air forces.<ref>''The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft'', ed. by Paul Eden, Aerospace Publishing, 2004</ref>

===Canada===
[[Image:Flag_of_Canada.svg|24px]]

[[Canada]] was the first export customer for the Hornet. Over 100 planes were ordered, and first delivery was in 1982. Canadian F-18s flew operational missions in the Gulf War and over [[Bosnia]] during Operation Deliberate Force.

===Australia===
[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.png|24px]]

[[Australia]] selected the Hornet to replace its Mirages in 1981, and first acquired the new plane in 1985. 75 were delivered in total, including 18 two-seat models.

===Spain===
[[Image:Flag_of_Spain.png|24px]]

[[Spain]] ordered 72 Hornets, and the first was delivered in 1986. Thirty more ex-Navy machines were acquired in 1996. Spanish Hornets saw action in operations over Bosnia and Kosovo.

===Kuwait===
[[Image:Flag_of_Kuwait.png|28px]]

[[Kuwait]] ordered Hornets before the Gulf War to replace its aging [[A-4 Skyhawk|Skyhawks]] and Mirages, but delivery was delayed due to the Iraqi occupation. The first ones arrived in early 1992, and Kuwait eventually bought 40 of them, which outfit one air defense and one attack squadron.

===Finland===
[[Image:Flag_of_Finland.png|28px]]

With its air force made up of older Swedish and Russian fighters, [[Finland]] sought a replacement. After an exhaustive evaluation, Finland settled on the Hornet, and first delivery was in 1995. Finland currently has over sixty Hornets, all serving in the air defense role.

===Switzerland===
[[Image:Flag_of_Switzerland.png|24px]]

Following a national referendum, [[Switzerland]] ordered the Hornet in mid-1993. Only 34 machines were ordered, but the procurement was drawn out, and final delivery wasn’t until 1999.

===Malaysia===
[[Image:Flag_of_Malaysia.png|24px]]

In the early 90s, the [[Malaysia]]n air force consisted mainly of outdated F-5s. Malaysia adopted an interesting two-tier approach, acquiring the Hornet for the attack role and its [[Cold War]] opposite, the [[MiG-29]], for air defense. Eight Hornets were delivered in total, in 1997. Further orders were planned, but the Asian economic crisis of 1997 intervened. Malaysia is considered a potential customer for the Super Hornet.

==Variants==
[[Image:f18_schem_01.JPG|Left]]
===F/A-18A/B===

The F/A-18A is the single seat version; the F/A-18B is the two seat version. The F/A-18B is primarily used as a training aircraft.

===F/A-18C/D===

The F/A-18C is single seat and the F/A-18D is double seat. Both versions have improved radar, avionics, and the capability to carry [[AGM-65 Maverick]] missiles and [[AGM-84 Harpoon]]s. These aircraft were upgraded in 1987. Some were upgraded to become night reconnaissance aircraft.

===F/A-18E/F Super Hornet===

The single seat F/A-18E and the two seat F/A-18F are very much redesigned aircraft, based on the original airframe. Both have more powerful engines and improved avionics, and will eventually equip 22 squadrons. The F/A-18F will be modified to make the [[EA-18 Growler]], which will eventually replace the [[EA-6 Prowler]].<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18g.htm EA-18G/F/A-18G "Growler"]</ref>

==Specifications==

{| class="wikitable"

|-
| '''Function'''
| Light fighter-bomber
|-
| '''Contractor'''
| McDonnell Douglas
|-
| '''Power plant'''
|Two [[General Electric]] F404-GE-402 turbofans with 11,000 pounds of thrust each
|-
| '''Length'''
|56 feet
|-
| '''Height'''
| 15 feet, 4 inches
|-
| '''Speed'''
| 1,190 miles per hour
|-
|-
| '''Wingspan'''
| 40 feet
|-
| '''Empty weight'''
| 24,700 pounds
|-
|'''Maximum Weight'''
|65,000 pounds
|-
| '''Crew'''
|(A, C, and E models):One. (B, D, and F models: Two.
|-
|'''Range'''
|Unrefueled 2,070 miles (with drop tanks)
|-
|'''Armament'''
|One Vulcan Gatling gun with 578 rounds; 13,790 pounds of assorted stores under the wings including [[AIM-7 Sparrow]], [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]], and [[AIM-120 AMRAAM]] air-to-air missiles, [[AGM-65 Maverick]], [[AGM-84 Harpoon]], and [[AGM-45 Shrike]] air-to-ground missiles.

|}

[[Image:Blue_Angels_F-18.jpg|thumb|450 px|The [[Blue Angels]] in F/A-18 Hornets.]]

==The F/A-18 in Popular Culture==
The Hornet is frequently seen in military-themed novels, including [[Tom Clancy]]'s ''Red Storm Rising''. The F-18 had a starring role in the blockbuster movie ''[[Independence Day (film)|Independence Day]]'', and appeared briefly in the [[anime]] [[Area 88]].

==References==
<references/>
[[category:aircraft]]
[[category: United States Navy]]

Fifth Column

2008-12-09T01:13:26Z

FernoKlump: /* See Also */

A '''fifth column''' is a group of people who rationally and clandestinely tries to undermine a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal. The expression dates from the [[Spanish Civil War]] in 1936 when the Francoist General Mola, whose forces were threatening Madrid, boasted that he had four columns approaching the city and a fifth column within it.

During the [[Second World War]], when British citizens were anxious about supposed fifth-columnists in the UK, the artist [[William Heath-Robinson]] produced a series of cartoons about the Sixth Column, patriotic men and women devoted to frustrating the actions of the Fifth Column<ref>http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walker/exhibitions/heathrobinson/Sixth_column.asp</ref>.

==See Also==
*[[Cabal]]

==References==

<references/>

[[category:politics]]

Fifth Column

2008-12-09T01:13:12Z

FernoKlump:

A '''fifth column''' is a group of people who rationally and clandestinely tries to undermine a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal. The expression dates from the [[Spanish Civil War]] in 1936 when the Francoist General Mola, whose forces were threatening Madrid, boasted that he had four columns approaching the city and a fifth column within it.

During the [[Second World War]], when British citizens were anxious about supposed fifth-columnists in the UK, the artist [[William Heath-Robinson]] produced a series of cartoons about the Sixth Column, patriotic men and women devoted to frustrating the actions of the Fifth Column<ref>http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walker/exhibitions/heathrobinson/Sixth_column.asp</ref>.

==See Also==
*[[cabal]]

==References==

<references/>

[[category:politics]]

Cabal

2008-12-09T01:12:55Z

FernoKlump:

A '''cabal''' is a "small group of [[secret]] plotters, as against a government or person in authority." <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cabal</ref> The formation of a cabal can be a rational response to repression.

The word originates from the Hebrew Kabala via the French cabale.

The term was also used on [[Usenet]] groups to satirise the paranoia that surrounded the early internet, and conspiracy theories in general. A mysterious 'cabal' of users who secretly ran the internet was referred to, but their existence was denied, usually with the phrase 'There Is No Cabal'.<ref>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/cabal-conspiracy-FAQ/</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Fifth Column]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Information technology]]
[[Category:Internet culture]]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2008-12-08T15:30:44Z

FernoKlump: sp

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is the largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], and the [[Horn of Africa]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "Coalition of the Willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

President [[George W. Bush]] and Senator [[John McCain]] are among the strongest proponents of Operation Iraq Freedom, and support continuing it until a sustained democracy is in place that can repel terrorism on its own.

==Background To Regime Change==

In the post-[[9/11]] analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[jihad]]ists, the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason.<ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Sanctions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Affairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirteen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', referring to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found the following:
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.<ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[weapons of mass destruction]] (WMD) programs which were credited with ensuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millennium changed, Saddam's top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Strategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>
[[Image:Dynamicduo.JPG|right|thumb|300px|Sen. Hillary Clinton was a leading spokesperson in the bipartisan decision to commit troops to Iraq.]]
Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]], addressing a gathering of the radical anti-war group [[Code Pink]] spoke from her own knowledge and experience,
{{Cquote|'''There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. …For now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children.''' <ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref> }}

Egyptian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and US President [[George W. Bush]] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. Spetember 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref> For 12 years, the international community gave Saddam chance after chance, Saddam defied it all including WMD declarations. Dozens of [[UN]] resolutions and mandated sanctions failed to persuade Saddam's grip on power. In 1998, the course for present day Iraq began in earnest. President Clinton signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. This act declares that it should be the policy of the [[United States]] to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

==Arguments For Regime Change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] said in a floor speech on October 10, 2002,

{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. <ref>[http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq], United States Senate, October 10, 2002. </ref>}}

==Liberation From Ba'athist Tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk [[helicopter]] for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Other comments from President Bush's May 1, 2003 speech <ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html </ref> show that the context of these victory comments include warnings to Americans of an ongoing struggle to establish Iraqi democracy and counter the threat of terrorism. Quotes, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/12386 </ref>

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> From 2004 to before the surge, the unceasing violence by the insurgents had caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref> [http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
Since the surge, this has ceased as 60-80% of the violence has been stopped. On Sat Feb 16, 2008 reuters reported, "Attacks by insurgents and rival sectarian militias have fallen up to 80 percent in Baghdad. The U.S. military says attacks have fallen across Iraq by 60 percent since June on the back of security clampdowns and the deployment of 30,000 extra American troops." <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/ts_nm/iraq_dc </ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|left|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]
2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 showed that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis preferred the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security situation and a lack of public services. It also revealed that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis did not believe they were embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still wanted to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis did not believe there was a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent did not believe they were in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

On January 21, 2008 there was a report about a cache of documents discovered in the fall of 2007 by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar. It gave the individual records of 606 foreign fighters who entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007 saying, "Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed. Although Saudi Arabia was by far the most common country of origin of foreign fighters, with about 40 percent of the total, a surprising share -- 19 percent -- came from Libya. Overall, about 40 percent were North African." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002609.html </ref> This certainly justifies these poll results where Iraqis stated that many of the attacks against the Iraqi populace are the work of foreign forces rather than out of the Iraqi population (civil war).

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, Iraq has seen the rise of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims. To many Sunnis, the US has been viewed suspiciously because it supports the democratically elected Shia majority rule. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so. There are also some intractable Sunni whose interpretation of Muslim law says that the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation.

The Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have had militant factions who have not only attacked Sunni Muslims but have also attacked American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the democratically elected Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule instead of seeking unity and a cohesive and representatively fair national political structure, which has hampered political progress and reconciliation efforts. <ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

However, as reported on May 31, 07, in the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]] as well as Sunni insurgents." <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

With 80% of the violence ended, the united government of Iraq will be much more able to fight the remaining intractable 20% of fighters left - including the foreign and imported terrorist entity Al-Qaeda with its recruits.

===Propaganda===

Since the invasion in 2003, both Shiite and Sunni clerics have been repeating over and over again that the Americans and their mostly "[[Christian]]" allies are in Iraq to destroy [[Islam]] in its cultural heartland as well as to steal the country’s oil. The clerics dismiss all talk of [[democracy]] and [[human rights]] by the invaders as mere hypocrisy--except for [[women’s rights]], which are promoted in earnest, the clerics say, to induce Iraqi daughters and wives to dishonor their families by aping the shameless disobedience of Western women.

At first, a majority of Iraqis believed these religious leaders. The alternative was difficult for them to believe--that foreigners have been unselfishly expending their own blood and treasure to help them. Some polls and incidents demonstrate to insurgents that Americans are out to rob Muslim Iraqis not only of their territory and oil, but also of their religion and even their family honor. The most visible effects of these sentiments were the deadly attacks, the aiding and abetting of such attacks, and celebration by impromptu crowds of spectators. When the victims are members of the Iraqi police or National Guard, bystanders, family members, and local clerics routinely accused the Americans of being the attackers--usually by missile strikes that cleverly simulate car-bombs. As to why the Americans would want to kill Iraqis they are themselves recruiting, training, and paying, no explanation was offered, because no obligation was felt to unravel each and every sub-plot of the dark "Christian conspiracy" against Iraq, the Arab world, and Islam. <ref>Luttwak Testimony, [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Committee on Foreign Relations,]U.S. Senate, pgs. 6-7.</ref>

One key to the success which has now spread all across Iraq and caused a drop in violence in Iraq by 60-80% <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/ts_nm/iraq_dc </ref> is the willingness of the Sunnis to take back their country from the insurgent violence. In an article February 10, 2008 called, "U.S. Military Says Seized Docs Show Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Weakened" it states, "A diary and another document seized during U.S. raids show some Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders fear the terror group is crumbling, with many fighters defecting to American-backed neighborhood groups."

The reason for this shift, "the author describes an Al Qaeda in crisis, with citizens growing weary of militants' presence and foreign fighters too eager to participate in suicide missions rather than continuing to fight, "We lost cities and afterward, villages... We find ourselves in a wasteland desert," Smith quoted the document as saying. The memo — believed to have been written in summer 2007 — cites militants' increasing difficulty in moving around and transporting weapons and suicide belts because of better equipped Iraqi police and more watchful citizens, Smith said."

The populace of Iraq has rejected the extremist viewpoint and are now willing to stand up and do what it takes to get peace in the country for themselves and their future. The article further states, "The diary, seized by U.S. troops south of Balad, was written in autumn 2007 by Abu Tariq, who refers to himself as sector leader for al-Qaida in Iraq, Smith said. Tariq wrote that he was once in charge of 600 fighters, but only 20 were left "after the tribes changed course" — a reference to how many Sunni tribesmen have switched sides to fight alongside the Americans, Smith said. The new organizations, called awakening councils or neighborhood watch groups, were key to helping push Al Qaeda in Iraq out of Anbar province, once one of the country's most violent. The terror network's top leaders are now based somewhere in northern Iraq, Smith said, having moved out of Anbar and into Diyala province last year.<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330235,00.html </ref>

The indomitable spirit of the Iraqis has been put to the test and is prevailing against their enemies as they stand up for their country and reject the extremist view and their brutal ways (including torture) which are documented in the next section.

Most U.S. media companies have a significant stake in shaping the view of this conflict with the American public. Propaganda by U.S. media companies reported a common theme; advocating American failure and defeat in Iraq. As the conflict raged, the American public was given large doses of negative reporting for four years. During 2007, General Petraeus got approval and implemented the 'Surge' strategy for securing Bagdad. Result, deaths and bombings by militias, rogue bandits and terror cells have significantly decreased. Success was rarely reported including the 'Surge' progress. No longer the chance of a failed state along with an extraordinary decrease in violence, U.S. media reportings on Iraq are now virtually non-existent.

===Al-Qaeda's Use Of Torture===

Key to any insurgency is its ability to have the support of the people, or at least their assent. If the people turn against the insurgency as they now have in Iraq, the insurgents have no basis of operations to hide in and the insurgency crumbles. This is why the insurgents have fled to northern Iraq, as stated above. However, working toward forcing cooperation by the populace, the terrorists in Iraq have used incredible amounts of intimidation - kidnap, torture, threats and murder - to prevent the local Iraqi populace from cooperating with those who will bring them a free and democratic Iraq (the US/Coalition forces and the Democratically aligned Iraqi government forces). From the ordinary Iraqi's point of view, cooperating with those who will bring them freedom can have a high cost. If found out, the media will splash their name all over the papers, making it easy for the terrorists to target them for reprisals. Family members can go missing or they can. They could be tortured or killed.

The great tragedy in the Mainstream Media ([[MSM]]) covering up the inhumane torture methods of the terrorists while trumpeting outrage at the far milder US intimidation techniques (Abu Gharib, etc), is that it hides from public view what risks the Iraqi population must take to cooperate with those who would bring them their freedom. In the article, "Media Totally Ignore Al Qaeda Torture Manual" it says, "Glenn Reynolds this morning pointed out that “Silence is complicity,” while leading the reader to Don Surber’s piece on the subject which went much further in condemning the media boycott (emphasis added): And yet such false stories as the “flushed Koran” got widespread play in the newspapers and on television. We are hearing those awful “Sounds of Silence” that Simon and Garfunkel warned us about. Whether intentional or not, the message is clear: The United States must be above even false reports of torture, while the enemy is allowed to promote eye removal, blowtorching skin and horrors I won’t go into. The handbook shows that the enemy really is perverted; they are sickos who like to torture people. As much as I admire and respect John McCain’s war service, he is wrong when he says our interrogation methods encourage the enemy to torture our people. The enemy was torturing and beheading people well before 9/11."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/13002</ref>

Apart from brief mentions on Fox News and CNN, reports on this issue in the days prior or subsequent have been few. As a result, the populace of the US sees daily news coverage of just how ruthless the insurgents are in their attacks upon the populace in the way of guns and bombs, but are not given substantive evidence of the intimidation (torture) which the Iraqi people face. And it is this torture and intimidation which was the direct cause of slowing US progress, hampering the swift end of the insurgency in Iraq. Thinking that the people of Iraq support the insurgency and are not merely being intimidated by them, the US populace has been impatient for instant progress and their support for the Iraqi people obtaining their freedom from such a ruthless enemy waned. As a result - before the success of the surge, the drop in violence and the standing up of the Iraqis against this intimidation - US support for the war dropped significantly and many discouraged American people turned to supporting the anti-American sentiments of the far left saying America should pull the troops from Iraq.

CNN Headline News anchor Glenn Beck stated "[If the United States were to withdraw, it] would be America’s most shameful act of immorality since slavery". He added that Democrat Congressional war opponents are "just plain stupid" and "can't see the future." Beck stated that if U.S. forces pull out, a "genocide" will take place that will make Darfur "look like a picnic." For support he turned to Van Hipp, Chairman and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army who said, "Unfortunately, Glenn, I believe you`re right. And I tell you, if we surrender now, I believe you will see a humanitarian catastrophe much like or even worse than the situation in Darfur right now, the death count -- and the estimate right now beginning in a few months, they could be looking at 100,000 deaths a month." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/24/gb.01.html </ref>

John McCain, on Feb 15, 2008 delineated his position for the continuance of the war effort stated in this article, "Republican frontrunner John McCain drew sharp distinctions with his Democratic White House rivals over Iraq, saying an untimely US withdrawal would bring about "genocide." "Both Senator Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal. That means chaos. That means genocide," the Arizona senator told CNN's Larry King late Thursday. "That means undoing all the success we've achieved, and Al-Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America. I won't let that happen, as president of the United States."<ref> http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/McCain:_Early_Pullout_Fro/2008/02/15/72973.html
</ref>

==The Surge And Progress In Iraq==



Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamic radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

The increasing pressure from US forces with this Surge strategy has caused Sadr and his commanders flee to Iran as The Guardian reported Feb 15, 07, "Senior commanders of the Mehdi army, the militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have been spirited away to Iran to avoid being targeted in the new security push in Baghdad, a high-level Iraqi official told the Guardian. "Over the last three weeks, they [Iran] have taken away from Baghdad the first and second-tier military leaders of the Mehdi army," he said. The aim of the Iranians was to "prevent the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Shia militias" in the Iraqi capital -- one of the chief aims of the United States-backed security drive. The chief US military spokesperson in Baghdad said the anti-Western cleric had fled to Iran. US forces were tracking him "very closely", he said.
<ref> http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=299085 </ref>

The Surge is showing signs as a solid strategy which is being used to good effect as Al Jazeera reports that the Baathist terrorists have begun to criticize Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in their article Sunni group condemns Iraq al-Qaeda <ref> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6EC4EAB-854C-4D2F-A922-754648CDED8D.htm </ref> where it states: "An influential Iraqi Sunni armed group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to “review” its behaviour in the country. The Islamic Army in Iraq, believed to be the largest group of former Baathists and army officers fighting Iraqi and US forces, called on Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, to take more responsibility for al-Qaeda in Iraq. “Killing Sunnis has become a legitimate target for them, especially rich ones. Either they pay them what they want or they kill them,” a statement from the group said. “They would kill any critic or whoever tries to show them their mistakes.” Sunni Arab officials have also urged what they call “the real resistance” to disown al-Qaeda and engage in talks with the government to end violence which has driven the country closer to an all-out civil war."

Now, the increasing pressure appears to have caused an actual break in relations between terrorist groups as this April 12, 07 article states, quote, "One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. ".. after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members. They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid." The Islamic Army in Iraq is one of several nationalist groups which opposes hitting Iraqi civilians, but it has carried out high-profile attacks against multinational forces. Al-Shammari said they would be willing to deal with the Americans if certain conditions are met. Al-Shammari said that his group didn't consider US forces to be the main danger in Iraq. "There are two occupations: Iranian and American, and the Iranian one is more dangerous than American because Iran considers Iraq as a part of their country." The Islamic Army in Iraq's statement comes after Iraq's president said the presidential office was in contact with five insurgent groups. Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the contacts mark an attempt to bring the groups into the mainstream political process. <ref> http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16414 </ref>

Additional progress was detailed in "Corps Commander Highlights Progress in Iraq", Apr 13, 2007, where Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq said there has been progress in the security situation in Baghdad. Three of the five promised U.S. brigades are in place in the city, an additional three Iraqi brigade headquarters and 11 additional battalions have moved into Baghdad in support of the operation. Twenty-six joint security stations in Baghdad are manned by Iraqi army, Iraqi police and coalition forces, as are more than 21 combat outposts. "This continuous presence is making the Iraqi people feel safer and has greatly increased the amount of information provided to the Iraqi army, police and coalition forces by the public," Odierno said. Sectarian murders have dropped in Baghdad, and some displaced families are returning to the city. In addition, coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of arms caches found since the beginning of the operation two months ago. Security forces allow citizens to return to a more normal existence. "Across Baghdad, markets are being hardened with checkpoints and barriers, and merchants have returned to sell their produce," he said. "And Iraqis are busy shopping in the markets of Rusafa and Dura, and there are more projects such as these ... that will occur in the near future."

Positive changes are not limited to Baghdad, he said, they are also happening in Anbar province, where coalition and Iraqi security forces are working with local tribal leaders. "The people of al Anbar are fighting back and winning," Odierno said. "They've effectively turned back the tide of al Qaeda, but there will be counterattacks by al Qaeda." The general said there were nine attacks last week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. "During the same week a year ago, there were over 84 attacks," he said. Odierno said he also sees promise in the northern part of Iraq. Coalition forces there have set up 33 U.S. police transition teams to build law enforcement capability in that region. Oil is flowing out of the Bayji refinery thanks to Iraqi security force efforts to protect distribution tankers. Progress continues in the country's south, as well. "In the south, Operation Black Eagle in Diwaniyah, conducted by joint Iraqi and coalition forces, uncovered a headquarters of a rogue element of Jaysh al-Mahdi, with a major weapons cache including materials for IED-making," he said. Even the demonstrations called by radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr on April 9 to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq are a good sign, Odierno said. "This demonstration took place without incident," he said. "It is worth mentioning three points related to this demonstration. First, the government of Iraq allowed the demonstration to take place, unthinkable under the former regime. Second, the demonstrators waved Iraqi flags rather than black flags or pictures of ayatollahs. And third, the demonstrators numbered no more than 15,000, rather than the one million its organizers called for." <ref> http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Corps_Commander_Highlights_Progress_in_Iraq5809.shtml </ref>

That being said, anti-democratic and sectarian violence in the war, as expected and predicted by the Bush Administration, is continuing: a recent Al-Qaida attack at the Parliamentary cafeteria killed one, and on April 18 2007, a series of car bombs killed 131 Baghdad residents. <ref>US CENTCOM Press Release, [http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Current%20Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=4767 131 Dead, More Than 160 Wounded by Multiple Car Bomb Attacks in Baghdad Multi-National Division], Release Number: 07-01-03P, 4/18/2007. </ref>

In the ABC article, "Al-Qaida claims Iraq parliament attack", the U.S. military revised the death toll sharply downward to one dead in the the parliament suicide bombing. Iraqi officials said the bomber was believed to have been a bodyguard for a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. Parliament officials said the victim was Mohammed Awad, a moderate Sunni lawmaker. Iraqi lawmakers gathered Friday in a rare - and defiant - session of parliament on the Muslim day of prayer. A red and white bouquet sat in Awad's place in the parliament chamber. Lawmakers took the podium one after another to denounce the bombing. One MP had his arm in sling and a woman lawmaker wore a neck brace. "The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger our unity becomes." Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said Friday's session was "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." <ref> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=5205895 </ref>

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (reported Fri Apr 20, 2007), Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi said the Iraqis are making progress in countering the insurgency. "Our need for support is getting less and less each day," al-Obaidi said. Gates said the U.S. troop buildup will continue at least until late summer. "We need some time for things to work," he said. Three of the five extra brigades Bush ordered into Iraq to stem violence have arrived. Officials want the rest in place by June, for a total of 160,000. Soon after that, they will assess how much longer the higher troop level — about 30,000 more than before the buildup — will be needed. Since the troop buildup or "Surge" has not even been completed, it is not surprising that the premature and rash comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and the troop buildup was not stemming violence in Iraq were rejected by Gates. "I respectfully disagree," Gates said when asked by a reporter about Reid's Thursday remarks. He assured al-Maliki that the U.S. continues to be committed to the Iraqi government and the Baghdad security plan, Gates said.<ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq </ref>

April 20, 2007 - Iraqi President Nouri al Malaki affirmed the indigenous Iraqi Assyrian Christians' right to have a Province of their own, which could be provided for under the Iraqi Constitution. Malaki was addressing questions concerning the minorities, many of whom are in neighboring countries, including an estimated nearly 500,000 Assyrian Christians. Additionally, Malaki said, "I think it is important to let the world know that things in our country are improving dramatically. Our unemployment rate has gone from nearly 70 percent to now under 30 percent. Our most recent growth rate was 3 percent and we have seen, in particular as a result of the recent Baghdad program, a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence. What is particularly encouraging to me is the changes we have seen in our security forces and the trust from our people once again. We are finally seeing individual citizens provide information to our forces, which has changed the situation dramatically in rooting out those who are determined to ruin our country."

Malaki stressed three key goals. National Reconciliation, Economic Development and Expanded Security as the way forward. "In spite of much information to the contrary, we are seeing a return to the Iraq we all once knew when we considered ourselves all Iraqis and not belonging to a particular sect or group," he said. "Recently we have brought back large numbers of former members of the Ba'ath Party who were not involved in any problems in the past and this has significantly helped to bring our people together. Economic development is taking place at a good rate. Part of the reason we are here is to encourage even more investment into our country. The monthly income of our people has gone from about $20 a month to now over $200. The dramatic rise in electrical use is one good sign that the economy is taking off. The stores are full." Describing the current military situation as "moving from sectarian to outside interference," Malaki stressed that the so called Baghdad Plan was working. "We are seeing a dramatic drop in the sectarian conflicts and see our major challenge as that from the outside including Al Quaida and remainders of the Ba'athist groups," he said. "In the end we will be able to take care of ourselves. Meanwhile, we need the help of our friends to stand against those who want to harm us."
<ref> http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040107.htm </ref>

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a recent interview, that the increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country had achieved "modest progress" but had also had setbacks such as a rise in suicide bombings and other problems. Petraeus also stated that he was uncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy would be ultimately succeed, but he stated "We have certainly pulled [Baghdad] neighborhoods back from the brink." Assessing the first two months of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to pacify the capital, senior American commanders -- including Petraeus; Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East; Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of military operations in Iraq; and top regional commanders -- see mixed results. Critical now, they said in interviews last week, is for Iraqi leaders to forge the political compromises needed for long-term stability. The deployment of additional troops in Baghdad is only 60 percent complete, and a major concern shared by U.S. military leaders is whether al-Maliki's government is capable of solidifying gains in security as well as making the crucial political compromises needed to achieve peace.
<ref> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70422011</ref>

In an interview of Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak Al-Rubaie aired May 10, 2007, Mr. Rubaie stated, "This is an ideological war. This is a -- a long-term war. This is a war on a global scale. This is a war, if it gets out of control, it will spill over to Europe and America in no time. And it will disturb the oil flow in the Gulf. What happened in Iraq is not something minor and simple, like a coup d'etat or a revolution. What happened is a hurricane. What happened is a huge, major shift, from the old order of 1,000 years of persecution, of dictatorship, of religious supremacy, of prosecuting minorities, to a completely new order, which is called democracy, human rights, accountability, and transparency, and all this. This paradigm shift needs some time. You cannot -- it needs strategic patience. And it needs time. You cannot fit this major shift and the strategic objectives in the election cycle of Washington. You cannot do that."

He went on to note progress and plead for patience, "I think we made a remarkable progress over the last three years. In June 2004, we had only one battalion in the Iraqi army. Now we have 11 divisions. And, in June 2004, we did not have policemen. We did not have national police, local police, an intelligence service. We didn't have anything. Now we have Iraqi security forces, several hundreds of thousands of them. And what we need, we need some refinements, some tuning. We need some training. And we need some equipment and logistical support. We need to build the system within the Iraqi security forces. In a very short period of time, we're going to be self-reliant."

"Take, for example, in Baghdad. Last year, Baghdad was under the command of an American general called General Thurman. And now Baghdad is under the command-and- control of general -- an Iraqi general called General Abboud. And he is commanding and leading and controlling 2.5 Iraqi army division and 11 or 13 Iraqi police, national police, brigades. -- we needed the upsurge, and we need the upsurge to clear some areas of these neighborhoods and to hold them and to build them. When we have this upsurge, let's the best use of it. And let's clear these areas and hold it and build it." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/10/acd.01.html </ref>

May 12, 2007, "Iraq's top Shi'ite party changes platform" gave the stunning news that "Iraq's biggest Shi'ite party, The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), pledged its allegiance to the country's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in a move that would distance it from Shi'ite Iran where it was formed. They said the party had been close to Sistani for some time, but a two-day conference formalised relations with the influential cleric. Officials said the party, which was formed in Iran in the 1980s to oppose Saddam, had previously taken its guidance from the religious establishment of Welayat al Faqih, led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran. The party then pledged to follow the guidance of the Shi'ite establishment and also said it had introduced significant policy changes and changed its name to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) -- dropping the word "Revolution". <ref> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/tm_headline=iraq-s-top-shi-ite-party-changes-platform&method=full&objectid=19092898&siteid=89520-name_page.html </ref>

This was hailed in the Middle East as a very significant development, stating "The real change of direction and leadership of Iraqi Shiites to Sistani is the greatest victory of the new era of constitutionalism and civility in Iraq. The shifting of Shiite Islam to Najaf, instead of Qum, is a huge change and a direct result of Iraq's freedom that has changed the balance of power in Iraq and Iran. The New York Times-owned Boston Globe reports from Tehran that the influence of Iraqi Shiites is growing even there: "Some Iranians are intrigued by the more freewheeling experiment in Shi'ite empowerment taking place across the border in Iraq, where--Iraq's myriad problems aside--imams can say whatever they want in political Friday sermons, newspapers and satellite channels regularly slam the government, and religious observance is respected and encouraged but not required." <ref> http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2815&cid=2&sid=38 </ref>

CBS Evening News May 29, 2007 presented, "an exclusive interview, Iraq's Prime Minister tells CBS News the security crackdown is working." The network relayed how, “in his first American television interview since the U.S. troop surge began in February, Iraq's Prime Minister told CBS News today the additional forces here have prevented an even greater catastrophe.” Maliki also disclosed that there have been many victories in breaking up al Qaeda and other militant cells. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13073 </ref>

Then on May 31, 07, the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" added, quote: U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease-fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said. He thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Sunni insurgents." He said the increased effort by commanders to reach out to militants goes hand in hand with reconciliation efforts by the Iraqi government. Odierno noted that efforts to engage tribal leaders in Anbar province — who have been turning against al-Qaida there — has helped draw people to serve in the Iraqi security forces in record numbers and has helped reduce attacks there. For example, the attacks in Anbar in May 2006 totaled 811, while this May they were just barely over 400. Since the beginning of 2007, over 12,000 Iraqi citizens have volunteered for Iraqi security forces in Anbar. In all of 2006, only 1,000 had volunteered. <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

Even Newsweek's June 4 edition on page 33, has a story by Melinda Liu on actual progress in Iraq, headlined: "Gathering the Tribes: U.S. field commanders are finally beginning to tap the traditional networks that helped Saddam stay in power." Liu reported from Ramadi that "Marines and Iraqi tribesmen and police are sitting together, swapping jokes and stories. Some of these Iraqis were probably shooting at Americans less than a year ago. Now they and the Marines are fighting side by side against Al Qaeda." The story also carried a large, bolded quote: 'Last year the Americans were our biggest enemies,' says one cop. 'Now they're how we get what we need.' The captions on the pictures read: PEACE SIGNS: Tribal recruits man a check-point in Ramadi (above); children and others now freely interact with Americans (right). <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13080 </ref>

And on May 31 a report "Sunnis Revolt Against al-Qaida in Iraq" confirmed the trend stating, "U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday after Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors. Backed by helicopter gunships, U.S. troops joined the two-day battle in the Amariyah district, according to residents of the Sunni district. Lt. Col. Dale C. Kuehl, commander of 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, who is responsible for the Amariyah area of the capital, confirmed the U.S. military's role in the fighting in the Sunni district. "The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They're tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said. Casualty figures were not immediately available. But the district councilman said Haji Hameed, the al-Qaida leader in Amariyah, was killed and 45 other fighters were detained. <ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/international/i154309D51.DTL </ref>

Meanwhile, U.S. forces handed over responsibility for security in Iraq's three northern provinces to the Kurdish regional government. Seven Iraqi provinces, including Najaf, Muthanna, Dhi Qar and Maysan, now have responsibility for their own security – a third of the total. The United States hopes to add more as Iraqi forces grow in capability. <ref> http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=74626 </ref>

March 2008 - 62% of Iraqis now say they want the US troops to stay in their country.. and a full 55% say their lives are going well. 

Marking the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, ABC's anchor Charles Gibson on World News Monday March 18, 2008 explained “we have polled inside Iraq and there is some good news.” Specifically, “today, 55 percent of Iraqi say their lives are going well. Last summer that number was 39 percent.” From Iraq, Terry McCarthy reported, "As our poll takers spread across the country they found that for the first time in three years, people were more worried about economic and social problems than violence. And almost half think their country will be better off in a year -- double the number six months ago. In Dora, in southern Baghdad, we found these kids playing on the street. A year ago, they would haven't dared to come outside.... McCarthy also noted in a telling reality check, only 38 percent want U.S. troops to leave now, afraid that the gains in security might be reversed.” This obviously means that 62 percent of the Iraqis polled want US troops to stay in their country until they are certain the gains in security and stability will not be reversed. “Even Fallujah has turned around,” McCarthy learned, “as the local population has largely abandoned the insurgency and now they're focusing on rebuilding the city from the ruins of war,” though tough tasks remain with most complaining about electrical shortages and poor health care services. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/18/abc-finds-optimistic-iraqis-kids-playing-safely-street </ref>

==Results of the Surge on casualties and terrorist attacks==

The surge has resulted in a 60% reduction in terrorist attacks and causalities since June of 2007 to the present.<ref>http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48515</ref>

==Iraq Strategy in Relation to the Global War on Terrorism==

As reported in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism <ref>http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/</ref> released April 30, 2007, there are steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. Though terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq, aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents. In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working. According to the State report, terrorism in South Asia is down by 10 percent from a year ago. In Europe, it's down 18 percent. In Central and South America, terrorism-related deaths are down 54 percent. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/12431 </ref>

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war. But recently in July 2008, <ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609 The USA Military found 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium in Iraq]</ref> The USA Military found 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium and parts to make nuclear weapons in Tuwaitha 12 miles south of Baghdad, as proof that George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the CIA were right about Saddam owning yellow cake uranium.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the coordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> However, there is no way to obtain hard physical evidence to back up their assertions due to the fact that Syria will not allow such intrusive inspection and searching in their country. Intelligence sources do, however, say that General Al-Tikriti is a credible witness as is the pilot who also testified that he flew such missions.

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

The UK government Feb 18, 2008 released an early draft of its controversial dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, after losing a bid to keep it secret. The government has always maintained Williams' paper was not relevant as the final dossier was the work of its intelligence agencies. The dossier, quote: "concentrates on allegations that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's regime had acquired uranium, retained the ability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons and was developing long-range missiles." Even the UK's opposition Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Edward Davey conceded that, "The core analysis of the threat allegedly posed by Iraq is the same in both documents." <ref> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080218/world/britain_iraq_war_dossier_politics_intelligence_1 </ref>

These allegations are not in dispute, as the quoted detractors in the article make clear when it says of them, "Campaigners have been pushing for it to be made public, claiming it could show that the final dossier -- in which it was claimed Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes -- was the work of government "spin doctors"."

Apart from whether Iraq could have launched WMD in that time frame, the core analysis shows ample reason and justification for beginning Operation Iraqi Freedom - including weapons grade uranium, the ability to launch long-range missiles at Western allies and the ability to manufacture at will chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was a WMD threat with malicious intent and although how close to launching such attacks he was remains in question, the fact he was one year from aquiring the bomb and was calling for attacks and agents to be in place (in the West) while developing missiles to deliver these weapons against allied Western targets, figured strongly in the case for war.

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-millimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

In the article The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself.<ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref>

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref>

SEE: The Saddam Connection To Osama by ABC News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg

Foxnews reported March 23, 2008 that "Saddam Hussein’s Son Plotted London Assassination Attack", stating that "Saddam Hussein's son Uday planned to carry out an attack in London, England to assassinate the leader of an Iraqi opposition group in April 2000." Based on seized documents, Uday Hussein's elite paramilitary group — the Fedayeen — were given orders "to carry out assassinations and bombings in London, the Times reported."

Further, "While the study showed no link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda, it does detail the former Iraq dictator's support for Middle Eastern terror groups, including those linked to Al Qaeda. Also in the report are memos showing Uday ordered officials to “start planning special operations in the centres of the traitors’ symbols in the fields of London / Iran / self-ruled areas [Kurdish northern Iraq]”, it was reported." <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340745,00.html </ref>
The Ba'athist party was a terror organization. Seeking additional support for terror in the region, Saddam was paying Palestine families $25,000 in U.S. dollars, if their sons blew themselves up in Israel<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html , Sydney Morning Herald Saddam stokes war with suicide bomber cash, March 26,2002</ref>

===Summary update on WMD and Iraq/terrorist/Al Qaeda connections NOT being falsified===

The Los Angeles Times article, "Bush never lied to us about Iraq - The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception." By James Kirchick, June 16, 2008, a great deal of summary about these two previous sections on WMD and links to the Al Qaeda are given. The article states that, "Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of the charge.. that the Bush administration deceived the American people. Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods." <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story </ref>

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." 

Even concerning the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, 2008, quote, "what did this report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program."

The article contends that if Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA. It then asserts, "This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers." <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story </ref>

Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt also brought out what Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee found in their June 5, 2008 report, saying, quote:
<ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html </ref>

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into [Sen. Jay] Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." 

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." 

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

Hiatt then noted what the Republican part of the report said, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence." 

<ref> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/06/09/bush-lied-argument-doesnt-match-facts-democrats-say </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime Intent===

The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded chemical weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref> A 2008 study estimated that the Iraq War cost the United States $12 billion a month.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_costs;_ylt=ApGg20eC4zcjyEaIxwc8CC6s0NUE Studies: Iraq costs US $12 billion per month]</ref> This makes the Iraq war the most expensive endeavor in U.S. history.

==Casualties==
[[Image:Iraq War Memorial Lafayette CA.JPEG|thumb|Iraq War Memorial Lafayette CA.]]
Former U.S. Attorney General in the [[Johnson Administration]], [[Ramsey Clark]], wrote the UN Security Council on 29 July 29 2002 claiming UN sanctions , "are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people" <ref>[http://www.radioislam.org/bush/act.htm Letter from Ramsey Clark to the U.N. Security Council members], 29 July 29 2002.</ref> A 1999 [[UNICEF]] Report stated that there were, at that time, 500,000 deaths of children under the age of five probably attributable to the U.N. sanctions. <ref>[http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm Iraq Surveys Show Humanitarian Emergency], (August 12, 1999).</ref>

===Coalition Troops===

According to the US Department of Defense, over 4,100 U.S. and 300 troops from coalition countries have died in the war. Over 30,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref> Despite a dramatic decrease in violence in the latter half of the year, 2007 was the worst year in Iraq in terms of U.S. casualties. Over 900 American troops died or went [[missing in action]] during the year.<ref>[www.icasualties.org Iraq War casualties]</ref>

===Enemy Casualties===

in March, 2007, Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

===Civilian Casualties===

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.
On November 11, 2006, Iraqi Health Minister Ali al-Shamari estimated that between 100,000 and 150,000 civilians had been killed during the war.<ref>[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/11/2003335773 Iraq death toll may go as high as 150,000]</ref> A 2008 estimate by the [[World Health Organization]] placed the civilian death toll at 151,000.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080110/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_survey_dc 151,000 Iraqis killed since U.S.-led invasion: WHO]</ref>

==Summary of Justifications for the Iraq War Taken From This Entry==

If President Bush had not removed Saddam Hussein we now know that, QUOTE: The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref> (end quote)

And we know that Saddam was discussing using WMD on Washington, DC (remember/keep-in-mind his soon nuclear capability from the last paragraph), QUOTE: In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref> (end quote)

President Bush's decision to depose Saddam Hussein meant that this plan Saddam was discussing in these tapes here - or with the atomic nuclear capacity he was to possess within a year - never came into execution. It is credible that literally MILLIONS of Americans are alive today because Saddam was stopped before he had the ability to put his plans into action. We know he had ties to terrorists, including, QUOTE:

In the article "The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden" dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself. <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq?" The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr Bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref> (end quote)

To say that the US should never have deposed Saddam when he posed such a threat is irresponsible. The detractors from the Iraq War today would presently be decrying the dead and dying in America and saying President Bush should have gone to war to prevent such devastating losses, had he refrained from engaging in the Iraq War. We know that since then Bin Laden has worked toward attacking the US on his own, without the assistance of Saddam. QUOTE:

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref> (end quote)

The act of war on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein was justified to protect the Homeland of America from Saddam's planned and certain future catastrophic attack. The red herring <ref> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html </ref> of not finding the WMD in Saddam's backyard does not diminish the threat to the Homeland of America because Saddam had proven his willingness to use such WMD on the Kurdish people in Iraq <ref> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article351987.ece
</ref> and he would have had the atom bomb within a year by expert opinion. To expect that he would not have put into execution his stated aims against America is to act like an ostrich and put one's head in the sand.

If the atomic threat is not sufficient, under "regime intent", above, the Iraqi Survey Group's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. The section on The Duelfer Report points out that there were reference strains of biological agents which were found and evidence of the ability to quickly start chemical and biological warfare production, QUOTE: Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents (end quote)

Saddam's son in law tells Saddam, quote: In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref> (end quote)
Also, there is credible testimony that Saddam had the weapons and moved them, quote: Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> (end quote)

There are those who think that attacks upon America must actually happen in order to prove that these things exist or pose an imminent threat. The Iraq War was a preventative war and as such its merit relies on the mental ability of the public to perceive future threats and act in keeping with that threat and not ignore it - just as a person must swerve their car in the face of oncoming traffic in order to avoid an accident. As with this example, it does little good to discuss the merits of whether there would have been a crash or not after the fact since the evidence of past destruction which was avoided will never be obtainable.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category: United States of America]]

Alkyne

2008-12-08T05:04:39Z

FernoKlump: wikilinks

An '''alkyne''' is a [[hydrocarbon]] group that contains at least one triple [[bond]] between [[carbon]] [[atom]]s. A common alkyne is ''acetylene'' (C2H2). The alkyne group is often referred to as the ''acetylene group''.
{{stub}}
[[Category:Organic Chemistry]]

Sarah Palin

2008-12-07T19:33:24Z

FernoKlump: parody- youtube link

[[Image:Sarah Palin.jpg|right|thumb|Governor Sarah Palin]] '''Sarah Louise Heath Palin''' (pronounced pay'-lynn) (born February 11, 1964) is the [[conservative]] first-term [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]]. She is the youngest person to hold this office as well as the first woman to do so in the state's history. Palin was Senator [[John McCain]]'s Vice Presidential running mate in the [[2008 Presidential Election]].<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html Acceptance Speech by Palin]</ref>

She brought a [[populism|populist]] image and a record of cutting wasteful spending and reforming government to McCain's ticket. In the summer of 2007, she was the most popular governor in America, after cutting 13% of [[Alaska]]'s budget.<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp</ref> She is strongly [[pro-life]]. She favors more competition in health care, and pushed for abolishing the [[certificate of need]] regulations that interfere with opening new medical clinics.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403253.html?referrer=emailarticle</ref>

Married for 20 years, Sarah Palin's husband is a member of the United Steelworkers Union and her eldest son (of five children) is in the [[United States Army]], scheduled to go to Iraq. In an appearance on August 30, 2008 in Washington, Pennsylvania, she was greeted by a surprisingly large crowd as she promoted the new McCain-Palin ticket.

She earned her Journalism degree from the University of [[Idaho]]<ref>http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html</ref> and worked in the media and the utility industry before beginning her public service 14 years ago.

==Personal Background==
[[Image:Sarah Palin Todd Trig.jpg|thumb|right|In this April 23, 2008 file photo, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, left, and her husband, Todd Palin, hold their baby boy Trig in Anchorage, Alaska. 
''Photo courtesy of Newsmax.com'']]
Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. Palin attended Wasilla High School where her extracurricular activities included captaining the basketball team which went on to win the state championship <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> after graduating in 1982. She went on to college, after attending several institutions she received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987. Over the course of her 44 years in Alaska she has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. To earn money for college, Palin entered beauty pageants.

She is married to [[Todd Palin]], part Yupik [[Eskimo]], who is a lifelong Alaskan, works at a non-management union job in the oil industry, and also as a commercial salmon fisherman. He is a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmobile race.

Sarah Palin is a [[Labor union | union]] member, a [[moose]] hunter and holds a membership in the [[NRA]].<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/ McCain Names Alaska Gov. Palin as Running Mate] Fox News, August 29, 2008</ref> Todd and Sarah have five children together: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig.

Palin has been widely praised among conservatives for acting on her [[pro-life]] beliefs in the case of her youngest son, Trig, who was diagnosed with [[Down syndrome]] in the fourth month of her pregnancy. After researching the condition, she and her husband agreed to continue to pregnancy:
: "[My husband Todd said,] we shouldn't be asking 'Why us?' We should be saying 'Well, why not us?' We've both been very vocal about being pro life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential. I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?" <ref>http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008/05/gov-sarah-palin.html</ref> <ref>[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29242 Canadian Doctors 'Fear' Sarah Palin's Choice May Start a Trend] Catholic Online, Septmeber 11, 2008</ref>

Trig was born on April 18, 2008, four months before his mother was announced as the vice-presidential candidate. Palin wrote:
:"This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together, and get everyone focused on what really matters ... Those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells [us] is 'normal' or 'perfect.'"<ref name="people">[[People magazine]]</ref>

:"It's a sign of the times to be able to do this," she said. "I can think of so many male candidates who watched a families grow while they were in office. There is no reason to believe a woman can't do it with a growing family. My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected."<ref>Alaska governor balances newborn's needs, official duties [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-10-4082128881_x.htm]</ref>

Palin's older son, Track, serves in the U.S. Army, and was deployed to [[Iraq War|Iraq]] in September 2008. Palin says, "I'm proud of him but I worry."<ref name="people">[[People magazine]]</ref>

In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After having been given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant]</ref>.

[[Image:Palin Family..jpg|thumb|left|Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.]]

==Political Career==
Palin was elected to two terms on the Wasilla City Council, and then two terms as the Mayor / Manager of Alaska's fastest growing community (Population: 5400 in 2000)<ref>[http://wasilla.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm Wasilla Population and Demographics]</ref>. During her time as mayor, Palin hired a Washington lobbying firm to help secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, otherwise known as earmarks.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006]</ref> Ms. Palin's leadership qualities were recognized when she was elected as President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. In 2002, she ran for Lieutenant Governor, but came in second in a four-way race. Later that year, when [[Frank Murkowski]] resigned his [[Senate]] seat to become [[governor]], she interviewed for the opening. Instead, Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat. From there, she went on to run for governor and won, becoming the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest.

In 2003, then-Governor Mukowski appointed Palin to serve as Panel Ethics Commissioner of Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's [[non-renewable energy|non-renewable]] resources: [[oil]] and [[gasoline|gas]]. She resigned in 2004 as a protest over the "lack of ethics" of fellow panelists who had ignored her complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest.

To help cultivate influence and political clout in the state, Palin served from 2003 - June, 2005 as one of three directors of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.", a 527 group that raised funds from corporate donors.<ref>[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html#more Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Ted Stevens's 527 Group]</ref> The stated purpose of the group is, "To increase the number of Republican women in elected offices and in appointed governmental and political positions, including advisory and regulatory commissions through training and education."<ref>[http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/ted_stevens_excellence_in_public_service_inc.asp Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.]</ref>

She ran for Governor in 2006 on a clean government platform, and accomplished a political rarity in defeating the incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in his own Republican primary. Palin went on to defeat former Governor [[Tony Knowles]] in the general election.

She has also served on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She was named one of Alaska's "Top 40 Under 40", Alaska's Public Works "Person of the Year", and was recently inducted into the Sigma Beta Delta Honor Society at Alaska Pacific University.

Palin has served on numerous boards and commissions throughout the State, and stays active as a marathon runner, sports team mom, hockey manager and school volunteer. A lifetime member of the [[NRA]], she enjoys hunting, fishing, and Alaska history. <ref>http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.php Alaska Governor Sarah Palin</ref>

In 2007, Palin's 18-year old son, Track, enlisted in the [[Army]]. <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6920410,00.html</ref>

<blockquote>
''I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between and man and a woman. I am opposed to any expansion of gambling in Alaska.'' <ref> Source: Campaign website, www.palinforgovernor.com, "Issues" Nov 7, 2006 </ref>
</blockquote>

==Record as Governor==
===Energy and Oil===

A strong supporter of harnessing [[oil]] and natural [[gas]] resources, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) in March 2007, which would be the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.<ref>http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-alaska-gasline-inducement-act-nears-completi/</ref> It received bipartisan support and was signed into law by Governor Palin in June. In August of 2008 she signed legislation giving state authority to award TransCanada Corp a license to build and operate a multibillion-dollar pipeline to ship natural gas from the North Slope.<ref>http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2e84b1e8-9a4a-4558-ad05-21b517c50fae</ref> As Governor, Palin created a new subcabinet that will develop policies to reduce greenhouse gases and help the state adapt to [[climate change]]. She supports oil production in ANWR, connecting it with national security.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GE11URmmnc</ref>

In 2007, over the objections of oil companies, Palin worked with the Alaska state legislature to approve a major increase in taxes on the oil industry. <ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil]</ref> The state then gave Alaskans a $1200 check to pay for increased gas prices, using the increased revenues from the tax.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/ Palin backed Alaskan windfalls-profit tax]</ref>

Palin also announced on May 21, 2008 that the state would challenge a recent listing of [[polar bears]] as a threatened species as she and other Alaska elected officials feared such a listing would cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts. Palin's belief is that there is not enough evidence to support a listing, asserting that polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation.

===State Economy===
[[Image:Govp_2008stos_large.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Gov. Sarah Palin delivering her 2008 State of the State address]] At first, Palin supported the Gravina Island Bridge Project, otherwise known as the "Bridge to Nowhere". In September 2006, during a stop in Ketchikan as part of her gubernatorial campaign, Palin stated, "OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."<ref>[http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere']</ref> The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on one island in southeastern Alaska, to its airport on another nearby island. The Anchorage Daily News also quoted her in an October, 2006 article as saying yes, she would continue state funding for the bridge because she wanted swift action on infrastructure projects. "The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist," she said.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bridge_to_nowhere;_ylt=Am.NkRx1mLWk9A34FLhn8IADW7oF Critics: Palin used 'Bridge to Nowhere' for gain]</ref> Palin announced her opposition to the project in a 2007 press release.

She has stated her opposition arose because of the excessive amount of pork-barrel spending in the project, and that she would not fund the $329 million that was short for the budget.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/</ref> This reversal cost her the support of prominent Alaskan Republicans like Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, who said, "You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it". Palin instead said that the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system. However, the money that was retained from the earmark was not used for the ferry system, but was spent building a road on Gravina Island that links to the site of the canceled bridge.<ref name="bridge">http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3125537020080901 Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans</ref>

Prominent Alaskan politicians criticized Palin for not "giving back" money earmarked for the project. These critics included her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".<ref name="bridge" /> However, state governments do not "give back" money in the manner proposed.

Three times during Palin's time as mayor, earmark funding for projects in Wasilla were noted in [[John McCain]]'s list of "objectionable" spending in 2001 and 2002. McCain's list of spending approved without normal budget scrutiny identified a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in the city and a $1 million earmark for an emergency communications center while $450,000 was set aside for an agricultural processing facility.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin]</ref> Palin, of course, as mayor of a small town had no ability to put these items in a Congressional bill, but her town did benefit from earmarked spending given to Alaska.

While Palin was true to her word and slashed the amount of earmarked money that Alaska requested from the federal government cutting the number of projects from 54 to 31, in 2008 Alaska still requested more earmarks per capita than any other state at $500 per citizen. <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/palin.earmarks/index.html McCain criticized Wasilla earmarks in 2001]</ref>

=== Foreign Policy ===
[[Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Governor Sarah Palin visits Strykers at Fort Wainwright, where she is briefed on how the troops are trained and what the training grounds provide.]]
Palin is Commander in Chief of the Alaska Army [[National Guard]]. In 2007 she visited troops in [[Germany]] and [[Kuwait]]. According to Major General Craig E. Campbell, the adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard who commands the roughly 3,800 state militia members, the Alaskan governor is not in the site's chain of command and has no authority over its operations. He told the Associated Press on August 31st that he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. He went on to state that the entire operation is under federal control.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/31/ap/politics/main4401854.shtml GOP Cites Palin's Skill, But How Relevant Is It?]</ref>

During her first major interview, with ABC's [[Charlie Gibson]], Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the "[[Bush Doctrine]]". Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson followed, "What do you interpret it to be?" Palin answered with another question, "His world view?" Gibson still refused to answer directly but instead stated it was the doctrine Bush had proposed in September of 2002, before the Iraq war. Palin gave a response concerning Bush's attempt to eradicate Islamic extremism. Gibson then explained that the Bush doctrine refers to the right of anticipatory defense, a right to a preemptive strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpJsQch9uZo Asked about the Bush Doctrine...Palin is Clueless]</ref> What Gibson did not point out is that he himself once gave a definition of the "Bush doctrine" (a concept made up by the press that has no clear definition) that was similar to Palin's answer. Indeed it has been pointed out since that there are actually four different versions of what the Bush doctrine is and the term and meaning changes over time and place.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/</ref>

===Legislature Investigation===
In August of 2008, the [[Alaska]] state legislature began an investigation of Palin and her staff for potential abuse of power in regards to a firing of Commissioner of Public Safety Walter Monegan. Legally, Palin could dismiss Monegan at any time as he serves at the pleasure of the governor. Monegan was dismissed from his position in July of 2008, which Palin's political opponents claim was due to Monegan's refusal to fire trooper Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law who had a history of complaints including tasering his 10 year old stepson.<ref name="pc">http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212168861.shtml</ref> Palin says she released Monegan due to differences on budgeting. In an interview Monegan said that he was never told specifically by Sarah Palin to fire the state trooper Mike Wooten. <ref name="pc" />

Palin has denied the charges and, as is customary, the State of Alaska has hired a lawyer to represent her office in the investigation. August 25th, the Legislative Council voted 12-0 to hire Hollis French as the investigator. <ref>[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59d_1220063478 Investigation into Governor Sarah Palin's abuse of powers] CBS 11, August 30, 2008</ref> The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0. The State's attorney released this statement:<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cvn_palin_troopergate Palin hires attorney for Troopergate investigation]</ref>

:The governor of every state gets legal counsel and this attorney is part of a weeks-old effort to provide this governor defense in a series of outlandish politically motivated charges. This legal defense is neither new nor uncommon nor at all political. It is a matter of her job and is not recent and it is not related to her selection on the McCain-Palin ticket.

The McCain campaign came out with a picture that includes three lead state Democratic legislators investigating the Branchflower probe, known as ‘Troopergate'. The photo shows the three of them at [[Obama]] headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska in July. The McCain campaign said the whole investigation is politically tainted and compromised. Republican Rep. John Coghill of North Pole called on managing investigator, legislator French to step down from the probe, saying he no longer had confidence in his objectivity. "These statements cause me to think that the report is already written even though the investigation is only just begun and the most important witnesses have not even been interviewed,” Coghill wrote in a letter calling for French’s replacement. “The investigation appears to be lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process.” <ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2078644/posts McCain Camp has pictures of "troopergate" investigators at Obama Headquarters] FreeRepublic.com, September 9, 2008</ref> Democratic State Senator Kim Elton, head of the legislative council overseeing the investigation, said the decisions made by Sen. Hollis French "have been appropriate, bipartisan ... and unchallenged" and that French has called the comments he made last week "regrettable".<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.investigation/ Head of Palin trooper probe will stay, lawmaker says]</ref> Lawyer Thomas Van Flein called the investigation "unlawful and unconstitutional" and said the man hired to run it, former prosecutor Stephen Branchflower, has a conflict of interest because he is a friend of the fired commissioner. <ref>[http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/522488.html Palin's attorney calls investigator biased] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref> 

The investigation issued its report for the Alaska State Legislative Council on October 10, 2008, concluding that Monegan's refusal to fire the trooper was not the sole reason he was dismissed, but was likely a contributing factor. The author of the report, Stephen Branchflower, focused on two questions of the inquiry: did Palin fire Walt Monegan improperly, and was the firing solely because of his refusal to fire her ex brother-in-law. "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," Branchflower wrote.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref> Based on this, Branchflower claims that "I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf Page 8</ref>

In accordance with the second question the report focused on, Branchflower wrote, "I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety," Branchflower wrote. The second finding of the report reads: "In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads." Branchflower also dismissed the Palins' assertions that they were afraid of Wooten because of threats they said he made. "Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons," he wrote. <ref>http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10692757?source=most_viewed</ref> A preemptive response to this report was issued by the McCain/Palin campaign on October 9th, in which the campaign's own investigation concluded that Palin "acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan".<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref>

In the end the "October Surprise" predicted by the head of the commission came to pass. Although the commission was asked not to release its findings until after the election to avoid political posturing, they refused to do so. Apart from tarring and feathering Palin, the report made no recommendations for any further inquiries or punishment, as it was understood that there was no case to do so. No direct reports of Sarah Palin abusing her power were ever produced or asking for the official to be fired were ever produced, but that didn't stop the report from drawing its conclusions based upon conjecture without evidence. Indeed, after the hoopla over the report subsided, the state personnel board released its finding that exonnerated her of any wrongdoing.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate</ref>

==Vice Presidential Candidate==

On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced to be the Vice Presidential nominee for Republican Senator John McCain <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126138.html</ref>. The selection was a surprise, as those in the media were expecting [[Minnesota]] Governor [[Tim Pawlenty]] or former [[Massachusetts]]'s Governor [[Mitt Romney]]. Palin adds youth and executive experience to the ticket. She is the second female Vice Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history and the first one on a Republican ticket. The first was [[Geraldine Ferraro]], who the Democratic Party put on the ticket under [[Walter Mondale]] in 1984.

Palin's speech before the Republican convention on Wednesday, September 3rd was watched by over 40 million people. She had as many people turn in to see her as watched Obama's acceptance speech on the final day of the Democratic convention. Palin has also been attacked by the press on a level not seen since [[Dan Quayle]], although she ultimately handled it much better.
===Democratic responses===
In a possible problem for the Democratic ticket, a majority of the people believed that the press is trying to hurt Palin<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story/rasmussen/20080904/pl_rasmussen/palinmedia20080904;_ylt=AqErk__wZIKdoVvqUXdr44Nh24cA</ref> and that type of unwarranted attack could have backfired into more support for the McCain/Palin ticket especially with unaffiliated voters believing the press is purposely attacking Palin by a 49% to 32% margin.

Many Democrats had advised the Obama campaign to ignore Palin, fearing that emphasis on her inexperience will backfire against Obama himself.<ref>[http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2008/09/05/tips-for-obama-ignore-palin-dis-mccain Matt Coopoer, "Tips for Obama: Ignore Palin, Dis McCain," Sept. 5, 2008, ''Conde-Nast Portfoloio.com'']</ref> She participated in a debate with the Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008, ending up being declared the winner by most credible news sources that are not influenced by liberal bias.<ref>[http://www.mydesert.com/article/20081004/OPINION02/810040311/1139/news01]</ref><ref>[http://m.nypost.com/ms/p/nyp/nyp/view.m?id=127899&storyid=131936]</ref>

During a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Barack Obama said of the McCain/Palin ticket's similar policies, "...You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_lipstick_mccain/2008/09/09/129274.html</ref> Given the fact that she's stated "The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull (is) lipstick" and the fact that only a female candidate would wear lipstick, the McCain camp released a web ad implying that the comment was targeting Governor Palin. The ad featured video clips of Gov. Palin convention speech, Obama's remarks at the campaign event, and a clip of Katie Couric commenting on pervasive sexism in the campaign. After extensive discussion in the news media, the ad was removed from McCain's website and other video sites following a copyright claim by CBS news. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/CBS_takes_down_McCain_webad_suggests_its_misleading.html?showall]</ref>

===Impact on Ticket===

In the run-up to the Vice-Presidential debate on October 2, 2008, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center attempted to measure the degree to which Palin impacted the GOP ticket positively or negatively in September.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead</ref> The survey compared the answers to two identical questions about her qualifications and overall favorable/unfavorable rating between polls taken in early and late September. The results show that public opinion of Palin has fallen significantly since the Republican convention, particularly in the public's opinion of her qualification to be Vice President. Faced with a barrage of negative press attacks after her nomination, some prominent Republicans like [[Mitt Romney]] believe that the isolation of Palin from the media in September was a mistake, and are calling for an increase in unscripted encounters with the press and public to counter that perception. According to Romney, "Holding Sarah Palin to just three interviews and microscopically focusing on each interview I think has been a mistake. I think they’d be a lot wiser to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Let her talk to the media, let her talk to people." <ref>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/30/doubts-about-palin-grow-even-among-conservatives/</ref> Exit polling from the election itself had the final say on the matter of her impact on the ticket. For those who considered her nomination on the ticket to be unimportant, 57% voted for Obama. For those who considered her nomination to be important, 53% voted for Obama, thereby showing a positive overall impact on the ticket. Considering that exit polling tilts Democratic, the actual impact may have been greater.

==Beliefs==
Palin filled out a policy questionnaire for the Eagle Forum Alaska during her 2006 gubernatorial race. One question asked, "Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?" Palin responded, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." Yet [[public schools]] still resist teaching abstinence and instead promote sexual behavior by teenagers.

Another question asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?" Palin replied, "Not on your life. '''If it was good enough for the founding fathers''', it's good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

Many liberals ignorant of the history of "under God" have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an "idiot" for it.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/sep/01/week</ref><ref>The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and George Washington's phrase "under God" was added to it in June 1954.</ref> In fact, the origin of the phrase "under God" is the General Orders of [[George Washington]] on July 2 and 9, 1776: "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army" (July 2); "the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms" (July 9).<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/264xqezm.asp?pg=2</ref> George Washington was indeed a [[Founding Father]], and the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the [[Declaration of Independence]] and later writings.

Palin also believes that students need to learn of the controversy surrounding the [[Theory of evolution|'Theory' of evolution]], and that discussing Creationism should not be banned from schools. During the 2006 campaign for the Alaskan Governorship, Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."<ref>http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html</ref> She later clarified her position by stating "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. As of September 2008 she has kept that pledge.

In a typical example of liberal mockery, the [[Huffington Post]] attempted to make light of Sarah Palin's creationist beliefs, highlighting the creationary belief that [[dinosaur|dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html</ref> SNL likewise did a skit in which they had her refer to the Museum of Natural History as "that evolution museum".

==Church Life==
Sarah Palin was baptized as a Roman Catholic and, at age 12, she was rebaptized in the Wasilla Assembly of God church. <ref>{{cite web
|accessdate=2008-08-30
|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainveepbio30-2008aug30,0,2159346.story
|title=Palin has risen quickly from PTA to VP pick
|author=Decker, Cathleen and Michael Finnegan,
|work=Los Angeles Times
|date=August 30, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| last = Gorsk| first = Eric
| url = http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4-w_DCWffagBaQb8Il9a0R2hkPAD92SL7E00
| title = Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket
| publisher =Associated Press
| date = 2008-08-30
| accessdate = 2008-08-30}}</ref>

Palin attends the Wasilla Bible Church<ref>{{cite web |first=David |last=Pepper |title=Regarding Governor Palin: A Letter from Pastor David Pepper |url=http://churchontherockak.org/Regarding-Sarah-Palin.html |publisher=Church on the Rock |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>, an independent congregation,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wasillabible.org/faq.htm |title=Wasilla Bible Church FAQ |accessdate=2008-09-05 |work= |publisher= |date= }}</ref><ref name="miller">Lisa Miller and Amanda Coyne. "[http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679 A Visit to Palin's Church: Scripture and discretion on the program in Wasilla]." ''Newsweek''. Sept. 2, 2008.</ref> when at home and the Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau as governor.<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement Concerning Sarah Palin |url=http://www.jccalaska.com/images/10000/3000/582JU/user/palin.htm |publisher=Juneau Christian Center |date=2008-09-03 |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>

==Popularity==

Whether or not people say that they like Sarah Palin, they gravitate to see her. She earned the highest TV ratings at the Republican convention when she spoke, even surpassing McCain's acceptance speech, and matched Obama's acceptance speech when he was in front of a Greek temple with a stadium of people. As a Vice Presidential candidate, that was unprecedented. Likewise her Vice Presidential debate with Joe Biden had more viewers than any of the three debates between McCain and Obama. Finally, her briefly appearing on Saturday Night Live gave the show its highest ratings in 14 years, and was actually the third highest ranked show for the week based on the number of people who tuned in originally to watch her, 17 million, even though it ran at midnight.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/20/ustelevision-tvratings</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
[[Image:Palin.JPG|thumb]]
*[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ State of Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin Official Website]
*[http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=864bb9006da3f010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD National Governor's Association - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin]
*[http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27200 Project Vote Smart - Governor Sarah H. Palin]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm Sarah Palin On the issues]
*[http://parentingfreedom.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-mother-and-first-female-vice-president-pictures-children-parenting/ Sarah Palin: Mother and First Female Vice President], ''Parenting Freedom'', September 03, 2008

{{DEFAULTSORT:Palin, Sarah}}

[[Category:Alaska Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:United States Mayors]]
[[Category:Women]]

Attack on Pearl Harbor

2008-12-07T18:35:53Z

FernoKlump: sp

[[Image:H50930.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Photograph taken from a Japanese plane during the torpedo attack on ships moored on both sides of Ford Island. The geyser of water in the center marks a torpedo hit on USS ''West Virginia'']]
'''The Attack on Pearl Harbor''' was a military air strike by the [[Imperial Japanese Navy]] on the morning of December 7, 1941, that was designed to cripple the U.S. Fleet, enabling Japan to have free and unfettered access to much of the western [[Pacific Ocean]] and Southeast [[Asia]]. The attack resulted in the United States declaring war against Japan the next day.

==Prelude==
The road to war between Japan and the United States began in the 1930s when differences over [[China]] drove the two nations apart. In 1931 Japan conquered [[Manchuria]], which until then had been part of China. In 1937 Japan began a long and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to conquer the rest of China. In 1940, the Japanese government allied their country with [[Nazi Germany]] in the [[Axis]] Alliance, and, in the following year, occupied all of Indochina.

The U.S. increased military and financial aid to China, and embarked on a program of strengthening its military power in the Pacific. Secretary of State [[Cordell Hull]] sought to make America's economic policy ambiguous so that Japan might be deterred by fear of sanctions not yet imposed and won by hopes of concessions not yet granted. Such a policy obtained Roosevelt's explicit approval while at the same time it more aggressive elements in Japan to take control.

Roosevelt accepted a plan for economic sanctions presented by Treasury Assistant [[Harry Dexter White]]. On July 26, 1941, a full scale economic blockade was implemented, all Japanese financial assets in the U.S. were frozen and trade virtually ended between the two countries. Japan found itself in a position where its oil reserves would be exhausted in two years, its aluminum reserves in seven months. The chief of the Navy told the emperor that if Japan resorted to war, it would be very doubtful that it could win. The Japanese Cabinet sought desperately to reach an agreement in Washington. <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200101/ai_n8935656 Soviet penetration of the U.S. gets fresh look], Allan H Ryskind, ''Human Events'', Jan 29, 2001. Review of Romerstein and Breindel, ''The Venona Secrets''.</ref>

Because Japan was poor in natural resources, its government viewed these steps, especially the embargo on oil, as a threat to the nation's survival. Japan's leaders responded by resolving to seize the resource-rich territories of Southeast Asia, even though that move would certainly result in war with the United States. A proposal by Japanese Premier [[Fumimaro Konoe]] for a personal meeting with Roosevelt was rejected. Hull abandoned all thought of a truce with Japan and put in final shape an ultimatum. Hull's use of harsh, demanding language only strengthened the position of the war party in Tokyo. Ambassador Nomura found it impossible to reach an agreement because the demands were extreme. <ref>''Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time'', Carroll Quigley, Collier-Macmillan, 1966, pgs. 735 - 741. ISBN 0-945001-10-X</ref>

On the 25th of November, U.S. Secretary of War [[Henry Stimson]] had stated the problem as one of "how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot." <ref>As Stimson explained: "In spite of the risk involved... in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors." Stimson's Testimony quoted in Basil Rauch, Roosevelt from Munich to Pearl Harbor (New York: Creative Age, 1950), p. 473.</ref> Secretary Hull solved the problem the next day. This was the conclusion of the Army Pearl Harbor Board when it reported that the Hull note "touched the button that started the war." <ref>Pearl Harbor Attack. Part 39, p. 137. [http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/army/chap_3c.html]</ref>

It is significant that in the ten-point ultimatum sent to Japan on November 26, 1941, eight of the drastic demands were written by [[Harry Dexter White]]. In other words, Harry Dexter White, an agent of the Soviet Union, helped in a decisive way to draft the ultimatum that provoked war between Japan and the United States. This was the primary aim of Soviet [[foreign policy]] to advance the interests of the [[Comintern]] and the Soviet Union in the Far East <ref>Communism at Pearl Harbor, How the Communists Helped to Bring on Pearl Harbor and Open up Asia to Communinization, Dr. Anthony Kubek, Dallas Texas, Teaching Publishing Company, 1959, pg. 19. Dr. Anthony Kubek was the Editor of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, [[Senate Internal Security Subcommittee]], Report on the ''Morgenthau Diaries''. The records of the Morgenthau Diary Study, 1953-65 consist largely of copies of portions of memorandums, correspondence, transcripts of meetings, and other records preserved by Secretary Morgenthau in order to document his tenure. The original records are in the custody of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, NY. In 1965, the SISS issued a two volume committee print entitled Morgenthau Diary (China), Edited by Dr. Anthony Kubek, containing entries from the records at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library selected to illustrate the implementation of Roosevelt administration policy in China. According to Dr. Kubek, the subcommittee wanted to produce a documentary history on the subject and "also indicate the serious problem of unauthorized, uncontrolled and often dangerous power exercised by non-elected officials," specifically Harry Dexter White. White was a major figure in Senator William Jenner's investigation of interlocking subversion in Government departments in 1953. The bipartisan investigation lasted for twelve years, and the Subcommittee's Report took another two years to write. [http://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/senate/chapter-13-judiciary-1947-1968.html#103] Dr. Kubek also is a recognized expert on the subject of U.S. Naval Intelligence's Operation Magic, the effort to crack Japanese diplomatic ciphers. [http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/2ch2_bibl.pdf] 

Kubek writing in 1959 during the interwar period between the [[Korean War]] and the [[Vietnam War]], two "hot wars" in the "cold war," concluded: "The United States destroyed the one power that was able to check the flow of that Red tide in the Far East. ...The present Soviet military might, which threatens our national security, is the direct product of billions of [[lend-lease]] aid, coddling of Communists in high places in the American Government and failure to understand the basic drives of world [[Communism]]. ...Never before in our history was Presidential leadership so devoid of vision and never before had the mistakes of our Chief Executive been so fraught with peril to our nation."</ref>

==Japanese plan==
The problem with the plan was the danger posed by the U.S. Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor. Admiral [[Isoroku Yamamoto]], commander of the Japanese fleet, devised a plan to immobilize the U.S. fleet at the outset of the war with a surprise attack.

The key elements in Yamamoto's plans were meticulous preparation, the achievement of surprise, and the use of aircraft carriers and naval aviation on an unprecedented scale. In the spring of 1941, Japanese carrier pilots began training in the special tactics called for by the Pearl Harbor attack plan.

In October 1941 the naval general staff gave final approval to Yamamoto's plan, which called for the formation of an attack force commanded by Vice Admiral [[Chuichi Nagumo]]. It centered around six heavy aircraft carriers accompanied by 24 supporting vessels. A separate group of submarines was to sink any American warships which escaped the Japanese carrier force.

Nagumo's fleet assembled in the remote anchorage of Tankan Bay in the [[Kurile Islands]] and departed in strictest secrecy for Hawaii on November 26, 1941. The ships' route crossed the North Pacific and avoided normal shipping lanes. At dawn on December 7, 1941, the Japanese task force had approached undetected to a point slightly more than 200 miles north of Oahu. At this time the U.S. carriers were not at Pearl Harbor; on November 28, Admiral Kimmel sent USS ''Enterprise'' under Rear Admiral William Halsey to deliver Marine Corps fighter planes to [[Wake Island]]. On December 4 ''Enterprise'' delivered the aircraft and on December 7 the task force was on its way back to Pearl Harbor. On December 5, Admiral Kimmel sent the USS ''Lexington'' with a task force under Rear Admiral Newton to deliver 25 scout bombers to [[Midway Island]]. The last Pacific carrier, USS ''Saratoga'', had left Pearl Harbor for upkeep and repairs on the West Coast.
==The attack==
At 6:00 a.m. on December 7, the six Japanese carriers launched a first wave of 181 planes composed of [[Nakajima B5N|torpedo bombers]], [[Aichi D3A|dive bombers]], horizontal bombers and [[Mitsubishi Zero|fighters]]. Even as they winged south, some elements of U.S. forces on Oahu realized there was something different about this Sunday morning.

In the hours before dawn, U.S. Navy vessels spotted an unidentified submarine periscope near the entrance to Pearl Harbor. It was attacked and reported sunk by the destroyer USS ''Ward'' (DD-139) and a patrol plane. At 0700, an alert operator of an Army radar station at Opana spotted the approaching first wave of the attack force. The officers to whom those reports were relayed did not consider them significant enough to take action. The report of the submarine sinking was handled routinely, and the radar sighting was passed off as an approaching group of American planes due to arrive that morning.

The Japanese aircrews achieved complete surprise when they hit American ships and military installations on Oahu shortly before 0800. They attacked military airfields at the same time they hit the fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor. The Navy air bases at Ford Island and Kaneohe Bay, the Marine airfield at Ewa and the Army Air Corps fields at Bellows, Wheeler and Hickam were all bombed and strafed as other elements of the attacking force began their assaults on the ships moored in Pearl Harbor. The purpose of the simultaneous attacks was to destroy the American planes before they could rise to intercept the Japanese.

====Battleship Row====
[[Image:pearlharborattack.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Battleship ''[[USS Arizona]]'' burns after her magazine was hit by a Japanese bomb.]]
Before dawn on 7 December 1941, the American strategic center of gravity in the Pacific reposed in the seven battleships then moored along "Battleship Row", the six pairs of interrupted quays located along Ford Island's eastern side. Quay F-2, the southernmost, which usually hosted an aircraft carrier, was empty. Northeastward, Battle Force flagship ''California'' was next, moored at F-3. Then came two pairs, moored side by side: ''Maryland'' with ''Oklahoma'' outboard, and ''Tennessee'' with ''West Virginia'' outboard. Astern of ''Tennessee'' lay ''Arizona'', which had the repair ship ''Vestal'' alongside. Last in line was ''Nevada'', by herself at quay F-8. These seven battleships, ranging in age from eighteen to twenty-five years, represented all but two of those available to the Pacific Fleet. The Fleet flagship, ''Pennsylvania'', was also in Pearl Harbor, drydocked at the nearby Navy Yard. The ninth, ''Colorado'', was undergoing overhaul on the west coast.

Together, these ships were one short of equaling Japan's active battlefleet. Clearly a worrisome threat to Japanese plans for Pacific Ocean dominance, they were the Japanese raiders' priority target. Twenty-four of the forty Japanese torpedo planes were assigned to attack "Battleship Row", and five more diverted to that side of Ford Island when they found no battleships in their intended target areas. Of these planes' twenty-nine Type 91 aerial torpedoes (each with a warhead of some 450 pounds of high explosive), up to twenty-one found their targets: two hit ''California'', one exploded against ''Nevada'' and as many as nine each struck ''Oklahoma'' and ''West Virginia''. The latter two ships sank within minutes of receiving this torpedo damage.

Horizontal bombers, armed with heavy armor-piercing bombs, arrived just as the last torpedo planes finished their attacks, and other horizontal and dive bombers came in later. Together, these planes scored many hits or damaging near-misses on the "Battleship Row" ships: two on ''California'', ''Maryland'' and ''Tennessee''; a few on ''West Virginia''. Most spectacular of the bombers' victims was ''Arizona'', which was struck many times. One bomb penetrated to the vicinity of her forward magazines, which detonated with a massive blast, immediately sinking the ship.

There was a short lull in the fury of the attack at about 0830. At that time ''Nevada'', despite her wounds, managed to get underway and move down the channel toward the open sea. Before she could clear the harbor, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, launched 30 minutes after the first, appeared over the harbor. They concentrated their attacks on the moving battleship, hoping to sink her in the channel and block the narrow entrance to Pearl Harbor. On orders from the harbor control tower, ''Nevada'' beached herself at Hospital Point and the channel remained clear.

====West side of Ford Island====
[[Image:pearlharbor.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Destroyer USS ''Shaw'' explodes during the second wave.]]
In addition to strategically vital "Battleship Row", the Japanese thought two other areas were important enough to warrant attention from the initial Pearl Harbor attack wave's torpedo planes. These were the long 1010 Dock at the Navy Yard, and the fixed moorings on the western side of Ford Island, both of which might hold battleships or aircraft carriers. On the morning of the attack the latter location was occupied by the seaplane tender ''Tangier'', the old target and training ship ''Utah'' and the light cruisers ''Raleigh'' and ''Detroit''. Six aerial torpedoes were launched against these ships, of which three hit, sinking one vessel and nearly sinking another.

The thirty-year-old ''Utah'', which had been converted from an obsolete battleship ten years earlier, received two torpedoes, completely overwhelming her very limited ability to absorb underwater damage. She capsized to port in about ten minutes, coming to rest with her bottom in the air. As ''Utah's'' crew were abandoning ship and swimming through the oily water to Ford Island, they were the target of machine-gun attacks by Japanese planes. Although ten trapped Sailors were later cut free from her upturned hull, about sixty were lost with their ship. ''Utah'' was partially turned upright in 1943-44 but was not further salvaged.

USS ''Raleigh'' was hit by one torpedo and a bomb. Of an old and not very sturdy design, she barely avoided capsizing, but her crew, assisted by a salvage barge and a tug, kept her upright and afloat. Major repairs returned ''Raleigh'' to the active fleet in a a little over a half-year.

Also damaged west of Ford Island was the seaplane tender ''Curtiss'', hit by a crashing enemy dive bomber, plus one bomb and fragments of another during the second wave attack. ''Curtiss'' was also unsuccessfully attacked by a Japanese midget submarine, which fired a torpedo at the seaplane tender and was then promptly sunk by the destroyer ''Monaghan''.

====Navy Yard area====
[[Image:G19943.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Destroyers ''Downes'' and ''Cassin'' lie wrecked in front of the lightly-damaged battleship ''Pennsylvania'' at Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.]]
The initial Japanese attack wave hit the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard area relatively lightly, with a few torpedoes launched at ships along 1010 Dock and some dive bombers targeting that vicinity and the drydock area immediately to the southward. The torpedo planes made one hit, on the light cruiser ''Helena'', opening two of her engineering spaces to the sea. The minelayer ''Oglala'', tied up alongside ''Helena'', fared much worse. This old converted passenger ship had her port side opened up by the blast of the torpedo that hit the cruiser, and the resulting inrush of water could not be controlled. About two hours later, ''Oglala'' rolled over to port and sank alongside 1010 Dock.

The second Japanese attack wave's horizontal and dive bombers gave the Navy Yard's drydock area considerable attention. Though their efforts were somewhat mitigated by the diversion of some planes against USS ''Nevada'' as she passed nearby, these bombers made several hits, wrecking three destroyers and damaging the battleship ''Pennsylvania''. The latter, Flagship of the Pacific Fleet and one of the raiders' priority targets, was "high and dry" in Drydock #1 with destroyers ''Cassin'' and ''Downes''. One bomb hit ''Pennsylvania'' amidships, killing eighteen crewmembers and producing modest damage to the battleship. Other bombs, hitting on and near the two destroyers, opened their fuel tanks and set intense fires. Ammunition explosions, including the detonation of a torpedo on ''Downes'', added to the destruction, which was compounded when the drydock was partially flooded. ''Cassin'' then lifted off her blocks and rolled over against ''Downes''.

Dive bombers from the second wave also struck the destroyer ''Shaw'', which was in the floating drydock YFD-2. The resulting fires spread to ''Shaw's'' forward magazines, which blew up spectacularly, severing her bow. However, the rest of the ship remained afloat as the drydock sank beneath her. The little tug ''Sotoyomo'', also in YFD-2, was badly burned by ''Shaw's'' fires and went down as well.

Japanese bombs near-missed some of the ships at the piers in the northeastern part of the Navy Yard, producing notable damage to the hull of light cruiser ''Honolulu''. However, the attackers' concentration on battleship targets left the Yard's vital industrial facilities essentially untouched. These were soon hard at work on rescue, repair and salvage jobs, of which there were many immediately at hand.

====The airfields and aerial combat====
Military and Naval aircraft at Oahu's airfields were second only to battleships among the Japanese target priorities, though the reason was different. While Pearl Harbor's battleships represented American strategic "reach", and had to be eliminated to safeguard Japan's offensive into Southeast Asia and the East Indies, Oahu's aircraft had to be taken out for a more immediate reason: to protect the Pearl Harbor attack force. U.S. fighter planes, if they could get into the air in any numbers, would be a serious threat to Japanese bombers. U.S. Army bombers and Navy patrol planes potentially imperiled the Striking Force's invaluable aircraft carriers.

The Japanese first attack wave therefore assigned many fighters and bombers to airbase suppression, the fighters to set planes afire with machine gun and cannon fire and the bombers to wreck them with high explosives. The second attack wave also had airfield strikes among its tasks. Wheeler Army Airfield, in central Oahu, was Hawaii's main fighter base. It was heavily attacked. Of some 140 planes on the ground there, mainly P-40 and P-36 pursuits, nearly two-thirds were destroyed or put out of action. A similar proportion of the B-17, B-18 and A-20 bombers at Hickam Army Airfield, adjacent to the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard, was also wrecked or damaged enough to keep them grounded. Many men were killed at Hickam when the Japanese bombed their barracks. Smaller Bellows Field in eastern Oahu was also hit, destroying several P-40s, including two whose pilots courageously attempted to take off in the teeth of the enemy onslaught.

U.S. Navy and Marine Corps air stations on Pearl Harbor's Ford Island, at Ewa to the west of Pearl and at Kanoehe Bay near Bellows Field, also received concentrated attention from the raiders. Ewa's aircraft complement, mainly carrier-type bombers and fighters, was reduced from nearly fifty operational planes to less than twenty. Ford Island and Kanoehe, home to several squadrons of long-range PBY patrol seaplanes, were massively attacked, with Ford Island losing about half its planes and Kaneohe all but a few.

These very successful Japanese strikes thus prevented any significant aerial opposition, though the few Army fighters that got airborne gave a good account of themselves. Later on December Seventh, surviving bombers and patrol planes were sent out to search for the Japanese carriers. They found nothing and confronted considerable "friendly" anti-aircraft gunfire when they returned to their bases.

==Aftermath==
[[Image:U036055.jpg|right|200px|thumb|USS ''Bennington'' (CVA-20) passes the wreck of USS ''Arizona'' (BB-39) on Memorial Day, 31 May 1958. By the mid-1950's platforms were constructed over the sunken battleship for services to the more than 1,100 sailors and Marines entombed onboard; a white marble memorial structure would span the wreck in 1962, inscribed with their names.]]
When the attack ended shortly before 10:00 a.m., less than two hours after it began, the American forces have paid a fearful price. Twenty-one ships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were sunk or damaged: the battleships ''Arizona'', ''California'', ''Maryland'', ''Nevada'', ''Oklahoma'', ''Pennsylvania'', ''Tennessee'', and ''West Virginia''; cruisers ''Helena'' (CL-50), ''Honolulu'' (CL-48), and ''Raleigh'' (CL-7); the destroyers ''Cassin'' (DD-372), ''Downes'' (DD-375), ''Helm'' (DD-388), and ''Shaw'' (DD-373); seaplane tender ''Curtiss'' (AV-4); target ship (ex-battleship) ''Utah'' (AG-16); repair ship ''Vestal'' (AR-4); minelayer ''Oglala'' (CM-4); tug ''Sotoyomo'' (YT-9); and Floating Drydock Number 2. Aircraft losses were 188 destroyed and 159 damaged, the majority hit before they had a chance to take off. American dead numbered 2,403. That figure included 68 civilians, most of them killed by improperly fused anti-aircraft shells landing in Honolulu. There were 1,178 military and civilian wounded.

Japanese losses were comparatively light. Twenty-nine planes, less than 10 percent of the attacking force, failed to return to their carriers.

The Japanese success was overwhelming, but it was not a strategic victory. They failed to damage any American aircraft carriers, which by a stroke of luck, had been absent from the harbor. They neglected to damage the shoreside facilities at the Pearl Harbor Naval Base, which played an important role in the Allied victory in [[World War II]]. American technological skill raised and repaired all but three of the ships sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor (''Arizona'', ''Oklahoma'' and ''Utah''). Most importantly, the shock and anger caused by the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor united a divided nation and was translated into a wholehearted commitment to victory in World War II.

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-4.htm Battle reports from the individual commands on December 7, 1941]
*[http://www.archive.org/details/PreludeToWar Frank Capra's "Prelude to War", from the ''Why We Fight'' series of films made during World War II]
*[http://www.ww2pacific.com/aaf41.html Aircraft at Pearl Harbor]

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm]}}

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:World War II]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Pearl Harbor}}

User talk:AndrewWentworth

2008-12-07T00:16:23Z

FernoKlump:

Thank you for your contributions on Chinese language and history. Please be sure to supplies sources. If you need help, ask for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:13, 6 December 2008 (EST)

:Please don't remove information from the [[Cantonese]] article. Thank you, '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 19:16, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Cantonese

2008-12-07T00:15:09Z

FernoKlump: revert removal of factual information

'''Cantonese''' is the de facto [[official language]] of [[Hong Kong]] and [[Macau]] and is also the lingua franca of Guangdong Province. It is a separate Chinese language from [[Mandarin]], the official language of [[China]], differing not only [[phonology|phonologically]], but also [[grammar|grammatically]] and in [[vocabulary]].

Cantonese preserved many features found in Ancient Chinese that are lost in [[Mandarin]]. It kept many of Ancient Chinese's final [[consonant|consonants]] (i.e. "m", "n", "ng", "p", "t", and "k") and has at least six tones, compared to Mandarin's two final consonants (i.e. "n" and "ng") and Mandarin's four tones. Cantonese also has fewer initial consonants but it also has about twice as many distinctively different syllables compared to Mandarin. Therefore, colloquial Cantonese words tend to be more monosyllabic compared to Mandarin, whose words tend to be more polysyllabic, because Cantonese does not differentiate as many homonyms.

[[Category:Sino-Tibetan languages]]
[[Category:China]]

Nancy Pelosi

2008-12-06T23:31:14Z

FernoKlump: sp

[[Image:Ytr7576.jpg|thumb|right|Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi]]
'''Nancy Pelosi''', M.C. is the Representative for the 8th [[Congressional District]] of [[San Francisco]], [[California]] and is the current [[Speaker of the House]] (2007 -), succeeding [[J. Dennis Hastert]]. She is the first woman to become House Speaker. Pelosi, a [[Democrat]], is among the top ten richest members of the House.<ref>[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.asp?CID=N00007360&year=2005 opensecrets.org]</ref>

Pelosi prides herself in "being called a liberal" and does not consider herself a "moderate". <ref>Michael Crowley, "Follow the Leader," New Republic, November 25, 2002.</ref> Before becoming Speaker of the House, she was the Congressional Representative for the district containing [[San Francisco]] and has generally been criticized for imposing [[San Francisco values]] on mainstream America. Senator McCain has called her "one of the great American success stories" and "an inspiration."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/29/MN0I121CI9.DTL&type=politics McCain extends olive branch to Pelosi, Gore]</ref>

==Politics==

===Ethics===

Concerns over ethics in Congress played a big part in the Democratic recapture of the House of Representatives and Pelosi's ascension to the Speaker-ship after several members of Congress were investigated, indicted or convicted for legal wrongdoing in 2006. In early 2007, Speaker Pelosi established a Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement to explore the problem. Twenty freshmen House Democrats have asked for legislation to establish an independent ethics commission within the legislative branch to investigate future ethical lapses by fellow members.<ref>Alexander Bolton, [http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-press-pelosi-for-ethics-panel-2007-04-18.html''Dems press Pelosi for ethics panel''], The Hill, April 19, 2007. </ref> Speaker Pelosi and others in the majority have resisted such a reform. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7hE4HX-Cwo&NR=1 The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same], ''ABC News'', April 25 2007. </ref>

Pelosi, capitalizing on the public’s distaste for the [[earmark]]ing process, pledged reform during the elections last fall. Members of Congress regularly abuse the appropriations process by earmarking public monies to fund pet projects of special interests and donors often in their own congressional districts or states. Earmarks are an area of the legislative process particularly susceptible to corruption. In May 2007 Pelosi inserted a $25 million earmark into the Water Resources Development Act for a project that involves renovating ports near four separate commercial real estate properties near property owned by her husband, Paul Pelosi, and is likely to significantly boost the value of the property he owns. <ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGIwYzc2MTQ4YTBlMTg3YjJmZGVhODc4NmJhYjg4YjY Pelosi’s Waterworks], Stephen Spruiell, ''National Review Online'', May 9, 2007.</ref> The properties earn combined rental income of more than $3 million. <ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/05082007/news/nationalnews/her_an_fran_treat_nationalnews_geoff_earle.htm Her $an Fransisco Treat: Pelosi Water-Bill Bid Drawing Fire], Geoff Earle, ''New York Post'', May 8, 2007. </ref> .

Members of Pelosi's own Congressional Democratic Caucus have warned failure to deliver on their campaign promises to clean up Congress would be damaging in the 2008 election. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4014.html Democrats divided on lobbying reform], Josephine Hearn and Jeff Patch, May 15, 2007. Retrieved from politico.com 06/01/07.</ref>

Pelosi's now famous comment- the 'culture of corruption' is only meant to be used against Republicans. In another example of her hypocrisy, Democrat [[Charles Rangel]] is under investigation for ethics violations. Nancy says "she has no intention of forcing Rangel out." <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/charles_rangel_ethics/2008/09/10/129539.htmlPelosi, Republicans in Rangel Tug of War] Newsmax.com, September 10, 2008</ref> So, her other famous comment "drain the swamp of corruption" is just as meaningless.

===Iraq war failure===
Another major setback for Pelosi in her early months as Speaker was the rejection by her own caucus, and the Congress as a whole, for her plan to end the [[War in Iraq]] and bring the troops home. Pelosi had promised during the run up to the midterm elections to stop funding for the war and force the President to withdraw troops fighting abroad in the [[War on terror]]. In a stunning rebuke to her leadership, and the anti-war movement, the House voted overwhelmingly 280-142 to continue building Iraqi democracy and counter the threat posed by [[Islamic]] extremists outside of U.S. territory rather than the cut and run strategy proposed by liberal anti-war activists. Only the radical fringe voted against funding the troops. <ref>[http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070525-122215-4854r.htm Congress OKs war bill sans timeline,] By S.A. Miller, ''The Washington Times'', May 25, 2007. </ref> In exchange Pelosi won a raise in the [[minimum wage]], a controversial maneuver that increases the incentive for young people to drop out of school, with devastating effects upon the most vulnerable in our society, minorities in particular -- African-Americans and Hispanics. <ref>[http://www.optimalsolutionsgroup.com/pubs/Duncan-Turner-Pape.pdf Minimum wages and school enrollment of teenagers: a look at the 1990’s.] Duncan D. Chaplin, Mark D. Turner, Andreas D. Pape. ''Economics of Education Review''. 22 (2003) 11–21. </ref>

One review stated,
{{Cquote|Hamilton and Madison knew what they were doing when they gave the bulk of the war powers to the President, and it's hard to imagine a more telling vindication of their wisdom...Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] claim to oppose the war and want it to end, yet they refused to use their power of the purse to end it. Instead, they tried every legislative gimmick imaginable to hamstring President Bush's war strategy without actually having to take responsibility for cutting off funds. <ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010126 Congress and Iraq], ''OpinionJournal'', May 26, 2007.</ref>}}

===Boy Scouts===
Nancy Pelosi tried to pass legislation making it illegal for [[Boy Scouts]] to use public facilities like schools. This move was brought on by her disapproval of the Boy Scouts not allowing homosexuals to lead the children.{{fact|date=January 2008}}

==Criticism==

===Trip to Syria===

[[Image:Pelosisyria.jpg‎|thumb|left|Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi dressed for a visit to a Mosque in Syria.]]
Despite strong reservations of others about interfering in sensitive international diplomatic negotiations, a federal law known as the [[Logan Act]] prohibiting private citizens from conducting foreign policy, and Bush Administration requests not to do so, Pelosi traveled to Damascus, Syria in April 2007 to meet with Syrian [[Ba'athist]] leader [[Bashar Assad]]. Pelosi indicated at a press conference that she had carried a message from the government of Israel. "Our message was President Bush’s message," Pelosi told The Associated Press in Portugal . <ref>[http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=111801 Pelosi: I Carried Bush's Message To Syria] Apr 7 2007. </ref> Pelosi told reporters the meeting "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert". {{fact}}

The Israeli Prime Minister's office stated Olmert told Pelosi that Israel continued to regard Syria as "part of the axis of evil and a party encouraging terrorism in the entire Middle East." The ''Jerusalem Post'' reported sources at the Prime Minister's Office said, "Pelosi took part of the things that were said in the meeting, and used what suited her." <ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=845618&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0 PMO: Pelosi did not carry any message from Israel to Assad], Yoav Stern and Amiram Barkat, Haaretz Correspondents and AP, 5 April 2007.</ref>

The trip was praised by terrorists as "brave". Members of the Islamic Jihad have said Pelosi aligns to their views about terror much better than Bush and Dr. Condoleezza Rice. <ref>[http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3385140,00.html Terrorists endorse Pelosi's 'good policy of dialogue'], Aaron Klein, Israel News, 04.05.07. "Palestinian terror group members call US House speaker's visit to Damascus 'brave' and hope for talks with Iran; ‘I think the Democratic Party can do things the best,’ Islamic Jihad member says"</ref> Khaled Al-Batch, spokesman for [[Islamic Jihad]], which along with [[Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades]] has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel for the past two years, expressed hope Pelosi and the Democratic Party will pressure Bush to create dialogue with Syria and Middle East "resistance movements" and prompt an American withdrawal from Iraq.

In the lead editorial of Thursday, April 5th, The ''[[Washington Post]]'' commented on '''"The Pratfall in Damascus":'''<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html</ref>

<blockquote>
HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda. ...</blockquote>

<blockquote>Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish. </blockquote>

Pelosi was roundly criticized from all quarters for making the trip. The ''New York Post'' said, "the sad reality is that Pelosi is sending Assad the same message she and her Democratic colleagues in Congress have sent the terrorist insurgency in Iraq: Just wait until President Bush leaves office and a Democratic administration will hand you what you want on a platter <ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/04032007/postopinion/editorials/nancys_nonsense_editorials_.htm Nancy's Nonsense], New York Post, 3 April 2007.</ref> the ''Philadelphia Enquirer'' ran an editorial declaring Pelosi "was nuts" to visit Assad. <ref>Claudia Rosett, [http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070405_Pelosi_was_nuts_to_visit_with_Assad.html Pelosi was nuts to visit with Assad], ''Philadelphia Enquirer'', Thu, Apr. 05, 2007.</ref>
c

===Gay rights and abortion===

Commenting on her erroneous understanding of the [[Catholic Church]] beliefs regarding conception, Nancy quips “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And [[St. Augustine]] said at three months. We don’t know.” <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/archbishop-of-washington-chides-pelosi-denver-archbishop-warns-biden-to-skip-communion/ Archbishop of Washington Chides Pelosi] Fox News, August 26, 2008</ref> [[Archbishop]] Donald Wuerl rebuked her saying "From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of [[conception]] to natural death"

In the 2001 San Francisco [[Lesbian]], Gay, [[Bisexual]], Transgender Pride Parade Pelosi marched along with long time [[CPUSA]] <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> member and [[gay rights]] pioneer [[Harry Hay]]. <ref>The American Spectator Special Report, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10450 When Nancy Met Harry], Jeffrey Lord, 10/5/2006.</ref><ref>The San Francisco Chronicle, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/06/22/DD115758.DTL Official Guide & Program] Parade Lineup, page SP - 14, June 22, 2001. </ref> A gay activist group calling itself the [[Human Rights Campaign]] (HRC), eulogized Hay as "the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism".<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> An outspoken advocate of the North American Man-Boy Love Association [[NAMBLA]], Hay regularly addressed NAMBLA conferences. NAMBLA carries published material by Hay on its website dating back to 1984. The [[ACLU]] defended NAMBLA against a $200 million lawsuit by parents of a 10 year old murder victim who claimed their sons’ killer was motivated by published material on NAMBLA’s website. <ref>Deroy Murdock, [http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp No Boy Scouts: The ACLU defends NAMBLA], National Review Online, February 27, 2004. </ref><ref>[http://www.thecpac.com/Curleys-v-NAMBLA.html Curley Vs. NAMBLA]</ref> Pelosi has taken $10,000 in campaign contributions from the Human Rights Campaign. <ref>[http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00007360&cycle=2006 Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Top Contributors]</ref>

Pelosi has made special rights for homosexuals a priority in the 109th Congress. <ref>Concerned Women for America, [http://www.cwfa.org/articles/12147/CWA/family/index.htm Homosexual Bills Top House Speaker Pelosi’s List], January 10, 2007.</ref> Several so-called [[Hate Crimes bill]]s, or gay rights advocacy measures, have been introduced into the House which, according to Michael Marcavage of Repent America, could allow a homosexual to "claim emotional damage from hearing Scripture that describes his lifestyle as an abomination. [The homosexual] can press charges against the pastor or broadcaster who merely reads the Bible in public. The 'hater' can be fined thousands of dollars and even imprisoned". <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535 Christian belief a 'hate crime' under plan], WorldNetDaily, March 3, 2007. </ref> On National Prayer Day 2007 Pelosi scheduled a vote on an alleged "Hate Crimes Bill".

Every year, the Folsom Street Fair takes place in her [[San Francisco]] district. The participants are from the gay and lesbian community. They are barely dressed and publicly expose themselves in depraved sex acts. In 2007, the Fair mocked the 'Last Supper' image of Christians, with homosexuals in leather posing as [[Christ]] and the Apostles. Not a word of condemnation from Pelosi on the sacrilegious display.

Marc Sheppard of American Thinker has asked how can,
:"one of the most outspoken advocates for unrestricted abortion in Congress -- with a perfect 100% rating from the radical [[pro-abortion]] group [[NARAL]], -- maintain a straight face when declaring a concern for children? How can you vote NO to making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime (Lacy and Conner’s Law - H.R.1997) and pretend to care about infants? How does anyone who voted against restricting interstate transport of minors for the purpose of [[abortion]] (H.R 748) or outlawing the barbaric [[infanticide]] which is [[partial birth abortion]] (H.R 3660) seriously proclaim that anything she does is “about children”. <ref>Marc Sheppard, [http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/pelosi_god_bless_the_child_tha.html Pelosi: God Bless the Child that’s not at Home], January 14, 2007.</ref>

In defense of children in the mother's womb and the sanctity of Jesus in the host, a priest at the Saint's Peter and Paul Church in Nancy Pelosi's home district, Fr. John Malloy wrote a letter regarding her abortion stance and church services. The letter makes mention of her 100% rating with [[NARAL]] and her support for partial birth abortion. The last line says "...Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass." <ref>http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=695280f1-c90e-44d8-a866-d8e28f5ef457 , California Catholic Daily A priest writes to Nancy Pelosi, February 1, 2007</ref>

===Military===
In 2006, it was the Democratic National Committee that featured the Canadian military, now it's Nancy Pelosi using the Canadians to support Veterans funding. <ref>[[Michelle Malkin]], [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/22/nancy-pelosi-supports-the-troops-the-canadian-troops-that-is/ Nancy Pelosi supports the troops–the Canadian troops, that is], June 22, 2007.</ref>

===Treatment of non-union workers===
According to opensecrets.org, nearly half of Pelosi's assets are tied up in a Napa County, California vineyard called Zinfandel Lane. Capitolnews.com has reported Pelosi only employs non-union laborers and does not provide health coverage for her workers. In addition, it is believed illegal aliens have been exploited by Pelosi on the work farm, as well as a general question surrounding paying a basic livable wage for many of societies most vulnerable.<ref>[http://www.capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article13 Does Pelosi’s Non-Union Vineyard Use Illegal Aliens?]Monday 30 October 2006.</ref>

===CordeValle Golf Club and Resort===
Nancy Pelosi has one of her largest investments in a private golf development partnership called Lions Gate Limited. The Santa Clara County Planning Committee approved a plan for them to build a 275-acre golf course 30 minutes south of San Jose, but only under strict conditions. They agreed to allow 60% public usage of the course and to abide by strict environmental rules, since a number of endangered species were present in the area. The club opened in 2000 and did very well, making $250,000 for each member and $400,000 for corporations.<ref>Barry Witt, "Cordevalle club not living up to 60 percent language," San Jose Mercury News Jan. 10, 2002.</ref>

But then the Planning Commission took at look to see if the guidelines had been followed. First of all, only about a dozen non-members had been actually able to play on the course, a far cry from 60%. CordeValle had also set up obvious anti-public rules, such as requiring people to call seventy-two hours in advance and pay close to $300 for 18 holes. Upon investigation, the Commission learned that nonmembers would be told that the club was "full" and turned away even when the club was relatively empty. There were a series of public hearings on the matter and it was concluded that Lion's Gate was in clear violation of the agreement they had made<ref>Barry Witt, "CordeValle Update," San Jose Mercury News, May 8, 2003.</ref>.

During the hearings, it was learned that Lion's Gate had also ignored many of the environmental regulations they were responsible for. The ponds that they needed to make in order to preserve two species of lizard and turtle were not built. And only one mandatory annual environmental report had been submitted in seven years<ref>Barry Witt, "What to do on CordeValle; open it up to the public, or open up it's wallet", San Jose Mercury News, August 7, 2003</ref>. In 2004, a county report complained that improperly abandoned wells and urban pollutants from the resort were causing water quality degradation in the area. <ref>File 5950-68-28-94P, Lions Gate Limited Partnership Staff Report, San Jose Planning Commission, August 5, 2004, and November 4, 2004 (same file name)</ref>

In 2003, the Pelosis and the development partnership finally hired some lobbyists and put a few government employees on the pay role. This caused the commission to cave and give up their fraud investigation as long as the course agreed to host a charity golf tournament for children.<ref>Barry Witt, "Help for CordeValle," San Jose Mercury News, June 13, 2003.</ref>

== Bible Quoting ==

[[NBC]] correspondent Tom Brokaw, asked Pelosi when life begins. She replies "As an ardent, practicing [[Catholic]], this is an issue that I have studied for a long time and what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know.”<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/archbishop-of-washington-chides-pelosi-denver-archbishop-warns-biden-to-skip-communion/ Archbishop of Washington Chides Pelosi] Fox News, August 26, 2008</ref>

On [[Earth Day]] in 2008, Pelosi stated the following: "The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.'" Pelosi has used the quote many times, often attributing it to Isaiah. The verse is non-existent.<ref>Christianity Today, June 2080, Pg. 15</ref>

Not necessarily a quote from the Bible however, she claims to know were good things come from. Barack Obama is "a leader God has blessed us with at this time."
<ref>[http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/430377.aspx Pelosi Suggests Obama is a Gift from God] Ap, August 19, 2008</ref>

== Iraq Statements ==

December 16, 1998, Pelosi's public comment "[[Saddam Hussein]] has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Pelosi voted for [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq.

By June 2005, Minority leader Pelosi had long since changed her position on [[Iraq]] and opposed the war along with fellow Democrats. She remarked of the liberation of 25 million Iraqis as a "grotesque mistake".

== 2008 Election Comments ==

On October 28, Nancy says "Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, the Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan." Commenting on Pelosi Republican Mike Pence said, “As it’s been said before, I have an open mind but not an empty mind.” <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39385 More ‘Bipartisan’ Congress Not Likely, Pence Says] CNSNews, November 17, 2008</ref>

== Energy Independence==

Pelosi is opposed to expanding domestic drilling, though a recent Fox News poll showed more than 75% of Americans support drilling. This includes 85% of Republicans, 71% of Democrats and 68% of Independents favor drilling. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/062108_energy_release_web.pdf Fox News Polling Opinion Dynamics] Fox News, June 21, 2008</ref> The poll additionally found the American public split on whether the domestic drilling would have any effect on gas prices. By contrast, a CNN poll released July 31st found "just over half say that the Bush administration and the war in Iraq are major causes of high fuel prices."<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/31/congress.session/index.html GOP lawmakers want special session on energy crisis]</ref> Pelosi wants oil companies to drill on the lands already leased and is refusing to allow a vote on additional domestic drilling. She did take a vote to close the [[House of Representatives]] early for a five-week recess without addressing energy issues. <ref>[http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/77da4653-28ce-4c3e-a8a9-37ae52671b15 A Month Off for Bad Behavior] Townhall.com, July 30, 2008</ref> Pelosi wants to tap into the Strategic Oil Reserves. "America's greatest strategic reserves lie beneath taxpayer-owned lands - including ANWR's northern coastal plain and the outer continental shelf - that are currently off limits to energy production,” said Daniel Kish, senior vice president of the Institute for Energy Research, an oil industry-supported think tank. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/11/us-oil-reserves-sought-for-relief/ U.S. oil reserves sought for relief] Washington Times, July 11, 2008</ref> Nancy Pelosi often blames oil companies and capitalist speculators for the oil price increases. Her call for renewable energy and new technologies hasn't had an impact on lowering [[oil]] prices. "A New Direction", the Democrats' Six for '06 campaign promises includes energy independence. She has completely failed to produce anything that would contribute to energy independence. "For 25 years, Democrats have blocked more American-made oil and gas. That's why we're in the predicament we're in, voters want Congress "to vote on more American made oil and gas. We want to do that. She, [[Harry Reid]], [[Barack Obama]] are standing in the way." "She's got time to go out and promote her new book tour and her new book, but she doesn't have time to schedule a vote on the floor of the House and let the American people have their will expressed?" said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH.

== Memoir ==

Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters. She writes "If [[women]] can learn from me, it will make the honor of being [[Speaker of the House]] even greater." Currently, the majority rating is one star on Amazon.com and is doing poorly in sales, ranked at 1620 for a non-fiction memoir. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71104 Corsi's Obama title soars to No. 1, Pelosi's tanks] Worldnetdaily.com, July 31, 2008</ref>

== Trivia ==

[[Michelle Malkin]] has performed an estimated [[carbon footprint]] calculation for Pelosi based on her expected book tour. August 4th, she traveled to Boston. Ma. August 5th, she traveled to Philadelphia. On August 6th, she arrived in Miami and the next day she was in Michigan. Pelosi stands way above the average [[American]] at 105 metric tons of CO2. Pelosi's book will likely result in a 10 percent increase this month over the course of the tour. <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/04/calculate-nancy-pelosis-carbon-footprint/ C Calculate Nancy Pelosi’s carbon footprint] MichelleMalkin.com, August 4, 2008</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Ségolène Royal]]
*[[Hillary Clinton]]
*[[New_Democrat]]
*[[Liberal]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Nancy Pelosi|Articles about '''Nancy Pelosi''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==External links==
*[http://www.house.gov/pelosi/ Nancy Pelosi's Congressional Page]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00007360&cycle=2006 Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Top Contributors]
*[http://www.themilitant.com/1995/5944/5944_5.html Ed Shaw: 50 Years In Fight For Socialism], ''The Militant'', Vol.59/No.44, November 27, 1995. [http://www.opensecrets.org/1996os/contrib/H8CA05035.htm]

{{liberalism}}

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Pelosi, Nancy}}

[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category:Speakers of the House(US)]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]